Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
but I think it is very often used poorly. One way it is misused is by feeding it bad inputs;
I think the big key to avoiding the above pitfall is too always keep this important tidbit in mind:
Conservative inputs are better than realistic inputs.
By conservative inputs I simply mean inputs that are biased
against--often unrealistically--what you're trying to demonstrate. If you're trying to prove that calling is right in a certain spot, showing that calling is profitable vs an unrealisticly tight range goes a long way. If you're trying to demonstrate that bluffing is right in a certain spot, showing that a bluff is still profitable vs a looser calling range than you really think goes a long way, etc. The key thing to remember is that the point of stoving is NOT to capture reality, it is to try to demonstrate that a certain line is correct/defensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
another way is relying on preflop equity against assumed ranges to represent the entire picture. I have pointed out both of these types of mistakes many times, and my criticisms typical receive a hand wave.
This will always be a problem that I don't think we can ever eliminate. Preflop equity arguments are always going to be incomplete. E.G. should we raise a hand like ATo after several limpers? We have a slight equity edge after all! But we have a RIO postflop hand that will certainly cut into that illusory preflop edge! But I can play like God postflop to minimize that problem! And on and on. The major key here I think is to just be aware of the limitations stove calcs have in any preflop argument where we're not going all in. But preflop equity calcs are still worth noting because they are still a form of evidence, just not the greatest evidence ever obv.
