Don’t blame the engineers for these tools. A GTO solver demands so much resources, the algorithm used in these software have to have a lot of shortcuts to make the tools “working” possible.
Actually every solver author out there defines quite well what kind of "shortcuts" are taken. In HU solvers it's usually just betting abstraction (not every bet size is included in the model). For multiway ones you still need to take heavier shortcuts.
The thing is we can often prove that solutions available today are quite close to the ultimate solution. For some more complicated cases we have tools to give us a lot of confidence those are very close to solutions without abstractions even if we don't have a formal proof yet. It was never the case with Deep Blue, Stockfish or Alpha Zero in chess and no one claims those play to ultimately correct chess. That's the big difference which you again didn't grasp.
I come here to discuss poker issue. that guy was obviously trying to use my thread promoting his lousy software by insulting me with absolutely no intention for any discussion.
Unlike you I actually feel the consequences of misunderstandings and false information about poker math concepts. I answer tens of emails a day, many including questions/accusations/doubts which result from how "GTO" was described and misunderstood by authors in the past. It's something that directly influences me on day to day basis. One thing I can do to mitigate the situation is to set the record straight when someone makes a thread on the most popular 2p2 subforum claiming nonsense like "we don't really know what GTO is" or "everybody has their own definition" or what not.
I don't read through a post like this and immediately want to point out what I agree or disagree with like many others seem to like to do and then start putting together the reasons why I find such glaring issues in a post.
Also, his post could be ignorant and clueless but that doesn't mean there aren't ideas to takeaway to some degree.
