It's easier to understand if you look at the logic of the entire range rather than analyzing hands in a vacuum. The truth is that many different strategies are playable, so long as your entire strategy is constructed correctly around that line.
Let's imagine you're shoving the river with either the nuts or air. I have a bluff-catcher. I need to call that bluff-catcher a certain % of the time to keep your bluffs indifferent.
If I ALWAYS call, you could value own me and stop bluffing. If I NEVER call, you could run me over with bluffs. So a mixed strategy becomes optimal. I need to *
sometimes* call.
Notice how the hand itself isn't important. Calling/folding are the same EV. What actually matters is the overall range construction.
---
A more common example is trapping. The solver will often recommend trapping with nutted hands at some frequency. Villain's playing a balanced strategy such that the EV of trapping = the EV of betting. If I were to simply NEVER trap, that leaves my checking range exposed which is exploitable. If I were to ALWAYS trap, that leaves my betting range too weak which is exploitable.
Either action is okay in a vacuum, both actions have the same EV, but the overall strategy needs to be constructed correctly to avoid becoming exploitable. That's why it mixes.
Quote:
I feel like I'm trolling asking this question, but these GTO probabilities eventually have to collapse in to an actual decision, because you can't partially fold a hand or be in a quantum mechanics superposition of having raised both half-pot and full-pot. So I know it sounds stupid but how can all these different options be "correct?"
This is not the same thing as a superposition (which would mean you could raise, fold, do neither, or both at the same time). It's simply a mixed strategy.
Quote:
So being a little more realistic, does this mean that if the solver recommends something that you should play the highest % option always as the first one against an unknown opponent?
Doing this (or even picking the least used frequency) would be fine against a GTO player that won't change their strategy. But it will lose badly against a player that adjusts to exploit your mistakes.
Quote:
Perhaps part of the issue is that a specific hand can't have an optimal game theory; only as the number of trials approaches infinity can there be an optimal theory. But does this mean that the best possible play for one hand is completely different than GTO? I dunno.
Here's how you wrap your head around it. Poker is not played hand-vs-hand. Realistically and strategically, it's played range-vs-range. A hand in a vacuum is completely meaningless without the context of the ranges and game state.