4 ms·
It's basically been true along every step of the the poker bot evolution (HU limit, HU NL, and 6-max NL) that the bots donk a lot more than the humans. 10 year
by splonk 7y ago
It's basically been true along every step of the the poker bot evolution (HU limit, HU NL, and 6-max NL) that the bots donk a lot more than the humans. 10 years ago you could find pros arguing that donking in any situation is always wrong. That's been shifting for years, but still not to the level that the bots do it.
My personal belief is that the "no-donk" strategy is an adaptation by fallible human minds to reduce the branching on the decision tree to something tractable.
- patrickfreed 7y agoYour personal belief is likely correct. Balancing a donking range is incredibly difficult for humans and doing so perfectly likely yields only a very small EV bonus over just always checking. For humans it makes a whole lot of sense to reduce the branching in a case like that whereas for computers it doesn't really matter. Another good example is varying continuation betting sizes. A true GTO strategy would mix in a number of different sizings (and I'm sure the bots adapted to do this), but you only sacrifice a very tiny amount of EV by basically betting the same size every time. Doing the latter limits humans risk for making errors which is far more valuable than squeezing out .05bb/100 more by varying the sizes.
- icelancer 7y agoIf true in cash games, it is funny since it is a not uncommon strategy in high-level tournament play to control pot size.