Hello all,

I'm playing around a bit with a solver. New to this whole thing as I was out from poker for a good 2.5 years.

I was analyzing some hands and noticed that if I change villain's range my calling range ott changes significantly. I assumed it wouldn't change as we get to the turn with the same range, facing the same betsize etc, so to be unexploitable, we'd need the same amount of calls raises and folds, right? What am I missing here?

I believe solvers compute the most profitable strategy given the ranges you enter. If you alter a villain's range, he will have either a range advantage or disadvantage that affects the way you should react to his bets.

To take an extreme example, if you were in a 10bb push-fold spot in the BB, and villain shoved the "Nash equilibrium range", there is a precise and computable calling range for you. If villain deviated from Nash and you specified his shoving range was AA only, your optimal calling range would tighten up significantly (you can only call with the other AA combo). The beauty of solvers is that they can compute a near-optimal strategy for your range, given the best strategy of villain's range. If his range is altered, that will necessarily alter your counter-strategy. If villain's range is much more nutted than yours, then you should fold more often, because he obviously has fewer bluffs in his range. If you put lots of air into villain's range, then you shouldn't fold so often, because more of your hands will be profitable against a weak range.

An "unexploitable" range would be one that at least breaks even against all possible strategies, but with the solver you're specifying only one strategy for a particular villain's range. If you alter his strat (making him tighter or looser), then yours needs to change too.

Thanks a lot Arty,

I just tried a situation where we're drawing dead ott (one holding vs one holding) and the drawing dead combo needs to fold 100%.

Can I conclude from that that we're actually extracting an optimal exploitative strategy with a solver?

It's something akin to that, but I'm not entirely sure on the correct terminology.
I think the solvers are just finding the strats with the highest EV given what the ranges look like and with the implicit assumption that both players 'know' what the ranges look like. i.e. If you know your opponent mostly has you crushed when he bets the turn, you shouldn't call with hands that lose money against his 'optimal' betting range.
This is partly why the MDF (minimum defense frequency) stuff doesn't always work out very well. If villain's range is "better" than yours, he wins the pot more often and there's not a lot you can do about it. Indeed, it's foolish to call with a 'bluffcatcher' if villain doesn't have enough bluffs in his range for your call to break even.

Alright,

Thanks Arty, that makes sense.