raising turn with AQ, sets, and JTs. seems good lol. then our call range on the river is just Qx and well how do we call down a shove with Qx?

Actually we have plenty of Ax to call river with + some sets and AQ

You're the only one advocating a shove OTT with AQ yet none of your reasons are anywhere near compelling.

And now you just said we have some AQ to call a river shove with. Really not making any sense. You dont randomly start mixing up plays with 10% call 90% jam unless you are trying to get into someone's head. And if you're raising top two here, I don't get why you aren't shoving sets OTT (you shouldnt be anyway).
You either shove all your sets here or you dont. When you say "some" sets, it just seems like you randomize your plays

Don't tell me what I do or don't do! You're the one not making sense : where have I said we should shove all AQ combos? I do play mixted strategies with lots of hands, like idk.. any good player nowadays?

When I meant "you," I meant a good player in general. English doesn't seem to be your first language; I didn't mean "you" literally.

We don't randomize our plays with our hand combinations. Yeah, you could but it's not the most profitable strategy. One action with a hand is always more +EV than another. Hence why we dont arbitrarily mix up our plays with a hand, something a very good player should understand. Right now you're just sounding like a child lmfao.

Been reading some of your posts and it doesnt seem like your fundamentals are solid with 6-max or are a huge winning player at small-stakes online. So maybe instead of critisizing me and self-proclaiming to be a good player, you should learn some modesty

^lol
it's funny some players these days like to say "i would raise sometimes call sometimes" to sound smart while they cannot really explain why and how(frequency).

Ok don't tell us what to do then!!

Please read some poker theory and be ashamed. Optimal strategies are all about mixed strategies.

I'm a child who's not so good at poker? Is this supposed to make me feel bad or something?
What's the point of saying that? Please tell me.

Jesus ****ing christ lmfao. I didnt tell you to do anything. You have a control complexity or something?

I was trying to be nice, but you're not as good at poker as you think you are. A lot of poker strategy is outdated, and beating the games with a good winrate and at a high level isn't as easy as just reading some strategy articles anymore. It's 2017, games are getting harder, and it's not pre Black Friday anymore if you havent noticed.

There is no way you're anywhere near as good of a player you claim to be if you claim that the best strategy is a mixed strategy. That itself is very flawed. Like I said, one move is always more +EV than the other and therefore you should never mix a play. Let's say raising earns us +5bb EV and calling earns us +3.95bb. Why in the **** would we mix up our play when we can just choose different hands to call down with? If you cant even understand that, then I have nothing to say.

Furthermore, you provide no compelling reasons why we should be mixing up plays other than "oh my solver says so" or "because i say it's the best strategy." You're implying I'm bad at poker? I've beaten 5NL-200NL regular cash tables and Zoom poker, moving up in less than a year and a half over a large sample size. What have you done? Beaten 25NL?

A lot of posters disagree with your posts because they're just flat out wrong. It's not just this thread but in other threads you've posted in as well

Yep pretty much. I think that there are situations where mixing is viable, but in the vast majority of cases, it's pretty dumb. Yeah, it's pretty funny how people say it to try to act all smart and yet cant explain why lol.

You've got a strange way of being nice. Alright then, what do you mean by :

"We don't randomize our plays with our hand combinations" and "You either shove all your sets here or you dont" ?

As for mixed strategies being superior, it's actually easy to demonstrate. It's most obvious when the ranges are very tight.

Let's say you 4bet from the Mp against Btn. Mp's range is something like AK,QQ+ and bluffs (give or take). Flop is 222, mp cbets 33% and btn call, turn is an A.

At this point, according to your logic, we should either bet all AK combos or check them all because one move is always more +EV than the other.

Bet them all and it leaves your checking range full of 2nd pairs and garbage Ax. This allows villain to bet turn with a much wider range and therefore put your bluffcatchers in a bluffcatching situation much more often.

Check them all and your strong hands will be losing value because villain has no incentive to bet the turn ever.

The most +EV strategy here is to mix your actions with AK.

It's a very simple example indeed but the logic is the same in more complex situations. It's most obvious when the hand combos are a big part of your range.

A slightly more complex example : preflop is whatever, ranges are whatever, flop is 2 tones.
Say you have only AQs and AJs as flush draws. Do you think the only reason why we bet some flush draws and check some others is solely because betting say AQs is higher ev than betting AJs?

You wouldn't be wrong but the main reason we mix our plays with the flush draws is because we need them in both our checking range and betting range. If we decide to bet them all or check them all, our EV drops. For example it is so much better to bet AJs and check AQs than to bet them all or check them all.

The optimal strategy with flush draws here (assuming AQs wants to bet more than AJs) would be something like bet 4/5 of AQs 1/5 of AJs because of board coverage and **** I don't fully understand. In practice of course you can just bet all AQs, check all AJs and your strategy would be solid enough to beat the games forever.

The important thing is that you're mixing your play with flush draws. The important thing in OP's hand is that we need to mix our play with strong hands on the turn. Failing to do so will lower our EV.

It's strange how you understand why shoving all strong hands is not good but don't understand why calling all of them is not good either. Having too strong of a range is as bad as having too weak of a range. Just because we're at a range disadvantage on the turn (actually very minor once flop goes bet/call) doesn't mean we should have no raising range. ****, poker would be so easy if that was the case.

I must say it is very interesting how different people act with me when I show up with a different nickname.

Another example of mixed strategy :

Ok bad example : after checking with pio, I should call with all Ax it seems.. counter intuitive. Quite a big mistake actually, learning something every day. One could say we're all forever learning.

Even if it were optimal to play a hand different actions say 80/20, there's no way you can generate that in real-time. Like are you going to have some random number generator that will flip it for you? We don't have solver or some RNG generator when we're making a decision for our stacks at the table.

Even in your first example, it's optimal to mix but I agree that only a machine can do that. A human would just control his frequencies using blockers and that's good enough.

Now regarding my 222 flop example, obv I messed up and the flop should be 223 or whatever. You don't need to be a machine here to mix your play with AK.

Also, if you didn't know, many top players are using rng at the tables.

From what I can tell, solver isn't that good. How does solver know that an avg reg here is x/jamming worse than an A at a non-zero % frequency? We should be playing exploitative and exploiting players, not trying to play optimally or some botched version of GTO.

Yeah sure you almost never have a 3 here and you never play 44 like this, but calling here is just massively -EV.

Against the 50NL pool, this is always a fold. They are literally never ever bluffing here, and it's just really likely they have AA or quads. Maybe if they're bad enough they'll jam Ax, but they're not bluffing.

I'm not on my main computer but as I remember villain strategy is to shove a lot of Ax forcing hero to call with every Ax. I don't think villain ever jams worse than Ax, you could say that his bluffs are Ax.

Yeah sure we should play exploitatively when we know what to exploit! And what is exploitation but a deviation from GTO? How do you deviate from something you don't know about?

Piosolver actually gives you a gto solution within the arbitrary variables you give it (bet sizes, ranges,..) It really isn't "botched".

give me some popcorn