BB vs BTN SRP...

Why is the solver choosing to check raise something like 22-44 instead of something like 97dd?

Considering BB is bet/folding hands like Q2s, K3s etc. almost pure, wouldn't we want to unblock that range? Seems like 22-44 blocks BB's folding range, and doesn't block any value (Tx?).

TL;DR: Why does solver choose those hands to X/R?

These small pairs benefit from equity denial the most and they come with 2 outs to a nutted hand as well.


And 97s blocks way more bet/folds from the button than 22-44 do. 22-44 blocks K2-K4s, Q3-Q4s, and 54s. While 97s blocks 87s-K7s, 76s, J9-K9. (those offsuit hands are a lot of combos). Assuming the btn flop strat is a small bet with most of its range.

the first problem with your question is that you're implying the solver chooses one combo "instead of" another.
The solver is comparing multiple lines with the same combo and finding that raising performs equal or better than the other lines.

97s is just whack

Not sure I see the difference (practically speaking). So rephrased, why does raising 22 perform better than other lines?

Also, why is 97s whack?

How good is denying equity here when we are OOP with 2 more streets to come? I guess the idea is that if they float then turn and river goes x/x x/x we can win against like K high and ****?

I don't think 22 ever wins at showdown unimproved in GTO in this flop x/r line. It's value is in turning/rivering boats, and blocking little of the folding range.

Part of the reason 97 isn't great is that some of the cards it improves on interacts with villain's range, giving him boats. It can also lose to better straights/flushes in BU's range on some runouts. On a J, 8 runout you lose to KQ, T8, JT, JJ, AT, AA, TT, on dd runouts you lose to broadway and A-high flushes in addition to boats. Meanwhile turning a 2x doesn't improve villain's range to nut hands at all. 22 still only loses to AA, TT, AT.

Practically speaking you're not bluffing with one hand because it's a better bluff than another hand, you are doing it because bluffing is better than not bluffing (in this case it's equal)

97s is 9 high with very little and low quality outs

Vast majority of the time having any equity when bluffing is preferred over having blockers.

Increase folding frequency due to blocker effects while also having 0% equity might give you an extra 2-3% more folds or something in some marginal sized pot, but take the same scenario and say you have 2-3% more equity when called.* This obviously is preferred when you think about it in that context because the pot is quite a bit bigger and just having some increased folding frequency and taking down the pot "p" and gaining 2-3% more of "p" is a bit less than when their folding frequency doesn't change much, but you get some equity when your bet is called and now you take some % of the new pot where its p + bet + bet. This value/ev difference is just more than you gain from the small increase in folding frequency. Obviously the most preferred is some combination of the two--blockers and equity.

*this type of logic is only applicable to flop/turn, when you're on river there is no more cards to come out so blocker effects are more important there. Ranges on river are also smaller so blocker effects are more apparent as well.

Just run like any flop and look at flop/turn bluffing combos and you'll see this being readily apparent.

Ok that makes a lot of sense. While our flush outs are still somewhat relevant, our straight outs are tainted (with 97s). I guess even our flush outs can net villain some boats. So our hand has high reverse implied odds if you will.

I think what confuses me the most about bluffing the low pocket pairs is that we only improve on 2 cards, and we're not even guaranteed a river. Bluffing these backdoor combo draws feels more natural cause you can turn OESDs, GSs, and SDs.

So is it fair to say the solver is favoring quality over quantity in terms of outs here? Is that a generally applicable rule? I guess we want to turn the nuts, and not a straight that gets us stacked vs better straights?

Thanks, thats very insightful. To summarize just to make sure I understand correctly: it's better to win 3% of a bigger pot than a smaller one. Seems obvious haha.

More or less

I'm not sure I would consider runner runner outs to be higher in quantity than 2 direct outs. Let's say we turn a draw 25% of the time, and these draws have 25% equity when we do (being generous). That's only a 6% chance to hit something by the river, compared to 8% for a pocket pair. And that's not even considering how nutted the outs are.

Great responses so far! I especially like Browni's point about the cleanliness of your outs, and Keuwai's point about 2 direct outs vs backdoor outs.

Something else to consider is that the GTO solution often just uses hands near the bottom of its continuation range as bluff-raises. For example, it wouldn't make sense to 3bet 72o from BB facing a BTN open, as this hand is too far into the folding range. Instead you'd choose bluffs near the bottom of what you continue with.

In this example, low pocket pairs block fewer folds in the opponent's range, so you expect to get the bluff through more often. Moreover, these low pocket pairs have poor EV through a call. When there's less incentive to continue through a call, then a raise can be more playable. These are also made hands which makes it more difficult for villain to continue with unmade overcards.

Here's BTN's response to the raise:

is it because these hands don't block any of villains range that will bet fold and that they have little value as a showdown hand iin this specific situation on a ATT board seeing that they could be counterfeited as well as outdrawn. makes sense to move them to the bluffs, spiking a set on the later streets is likely to pay big when called

Can we flat from the BB with 22-44 and play pure fit-or-fold, no set/no bet etc. and still be profitable? If so, I guess we can get away with never using them as bluffs as we can profit enough when we make 222, 333 or 444.

If we can't make enough EV back with just our sets, this implies we don't get paid off enough, meaning that we need to bluff like crazy with them instead as we will win lots of small pots? Just check/raise any flop containing a 2, 3 or 4, even when you don't have a set, then bet turn and shove river and then get your EV with these three particular hands that way?

It's a nerd.

NVM quitted wrong thread

NVM