3betting polar OOP at 100bb is bad.

It probably worked in 2013 cause everyone was bad and didn't defend against 3bets properly. Now we have solvers and bots and they all point towards linear 3betting that emphasizes connected and suited hands.

they release a video a few months ago talking about mtts, you find on youtube

ss play sometimes is weird as usually increase open size when short and also doesnt shove in spots like real game but i think some post flop spots are interesting to see snowie w 30bbs

yeah i understand now, a main reason why i used to 3bet polarised was because i thought i'd be put in a lot of tough spots facing a 4bet with a hand thats in between bluff and value, but some of those hands are actually good 5bet bluff shoves 100bb deep like A5s, and small pairs
Still confused by some of snowies decisions pre, HU 200 deep it advised me to 4bet QJs 96% of the time? seems like a perfect hand to call a 3bet with IP?

I think it's somewhat useful for minraised pots at 30bb deep, but sub-20bb it's not very good. Since it's restricted to using fixed bet-sizes like 1/4 pot, pot and 2x pot, it's incapable of open-jamming (or 3-bet jamming) with stacks of 10-25bb or thereabouts. That is to say, it can't play a "resteal stack" in the same way a human can. It therefore does weird stuff like 3-betting pot or 2x pot (but not all in) with hands that are more profitable as shoves than as 3b/folds or 3b/calls in real life, and this leads to weird post-flop ranges. (It will flat a 3-bet for half its stack, creating an SPR of 1:3). In effect, it's learned to play a toy game that doesn't allow open-jamming, so it's not much like real life.

thats interesting what about 3betting IP ?

That's at minimum a 4 player game so it's not something we have strong answers to yet. In theory it would be more polarized for sure. Although as the IP player you not only have to worry about the raiser but also the blinds squeezing behind, which leads me to believe the solution would be heavily mixed with all sorts of hands going in both calling and raising ranges.

I'd say Snowie's IP 3bet ranges are about as good as you'll get at the moment and I know that there's quite a few higher stakes guys that follow them. In the end it's a lot of guess work and if you ask "Should I 3bet or call JTs IP?" the answer is it's probably a mixed strat and you should do whatever you think best exploits the field you are playing against.

Hey guys, sorry if this has been answered before but I'm confused about something.

I'm messing around in the Challenge looking at the real time evaluations and I've noticed that sometimes Snowie will say a certain bet size is optimal, while at the same time the EV of that bet size is lower than the EV of different bet sizes.

For example- button opens, I 3bet 44 in SB, BB coldcalls, button folds. Snowie says check. I bet half pot anyway because I'm stubborn. Snowie tells me that full pot is the optimal bet size, despite the fact that the 1/2 pot bet has an EV of 0.85, while the pot size bet is -0.04. What gives?

This is due to the slightly odd and confusing way the artificial neural net works, and how the "bot" was programmed to choose just one ('best overall on average') bet-size for its entire range in a particular spot, rather than "range-splitting" and balancing multiple ranges and sizes at once.
That is to say, the network might have learned that hand XX makes 0.85bb when it bets half pot with that exact combo, but it thinks it maximizes the EV of its entire range/strategy by betting pot with its range, and since that specific combo will lose money by betting pot, it checks with it instead.
As a quick example, it might be the case that betting 2x pot would make the most money with the nuts, but the range as a whole does better by betting 1/4 pot, because there are lots of hands that don't make money as overbets, but can make money by betting small. In order to be able to profitably bet lots of hands for 1/4 pot, Snowie also has to choose the small sizing with the nuts, or otherwise it would be too exploitable/face up. In the example you found, it probably decided that its range wanted to bet big (pot) because it could polarize more often, and utilize additional fold equity with its bluffs, but the combo in question didn't belong in that polarized range, because it was neither a fat value bet, or an obvious bluff. You'd like to bet smallish with that hand, but the best strategy for the range as a whole is to bet big.
With other solver software it can be found that an even higher overall EV can be gained by betting small with some parts of a range, and large with other parts (with some combos using both sizes), but Snowie was programmed to only use one size at a given time.

That makes sense, thanks for the response.

How close are the lines from Snowie and PioSolver when they look at the same situation?

How can i see what rake is being used on each stake?

This is a good question?

I think the developers based the sims on the rake structure of Pokerstars.com, but don't quote me on that. i.e. High rake percentages up to 100NL, very low rake at 500NL+. That's basically why it recommends very tight play in the micros.

I really like the new update ,now i can seat at the same seat as on the poker sites ,learning a lot frome the programma. Great Job.

Is it me or did they remove the option to show Snowie's hand in challenges in the latest update? Why would they do that??

It's been like that for a while. I much preferred when villain's hand was shown in the post-game analysis, like it used to. It would be even better, imo, if all hands were face up (but dimmed if folded). I hate having to do all that clicking to see what the ranges look like to work out the frequencies etc.

Yes but afaik until recently you could set it so Snowie's hand is shown immediately when a hand doesn't go to showdown (both if Snowie folds or you fold). Could definitely do this for HU and I suppose ring as well.
I would get excited if I fold and immediately see Snowie just owned me with a bluff so I could investigate. Can't do this anymore as far as I can tell.

But I agree it would be a massive improvement what you're suggesting and also if there was an option to show ranges in a matrix displaying percentages in colour like in pio.
If Snowie reps are reading this pls one time.

EDIT: Snowie wouldn't even need colour coding like pio because it uses only one betsize. They could just extend the preflop advice matrix format to postflop. Surely this is even relatively easy to implement?

This is frightening, really trying to figure out what I'm missing here.

Hero raises to 3bb with 44 in the CO, villain calls in the sb.

Flop 245

Villain leads $1.25 into $1.75, hero raises to $3.33, villain calls.

Turn 7

Villain checks, hero bets $4, villain calls.

River 3

Villain checks. Seems like the most standard check back ever with the Ax and 6x both getting there, but snowie says it's a 6.45bb blunder compared to halfpot. What am I missing.

After the flop raise and turn bet, how mmany naked Ax and 6x do you expect people to have, especially calling out of the SB?

Snowie villain maybe doesn't have any (but probably a few) but real villains could definitely have a bunch of Ax.
The river bet could be in line with Snowie's "gto" but it could also be an error on Snowie's part. Its river strat is known to be really bad in a lot of spots.

Yes I should have prefaced my comment with the fact that the river solutions are known to be a bit bizzaire.

I agree against fishy low stakes players you will see people flat the SB and make it to this river with more straights, but against them I would assume you could still comfortably bet fold here. I just think more often than not given the exact positions and action up to the river the board looks scary but it's hard for people to have a straight here.

what axs lead flop call f raise and turn bet?

Any diamonds, A2, A4 in hearts, Ax heart overcards not at all inconceivable, A6, A3.

snowie def dont have any of these hands in his calling range pre, so in that case river was not bad imo

also i think some of this combos would lead river, making even less straights in check range

You r right.Before we question any Snowie moves probably we should check ranges that got in that spot but that goes with pro sub so...

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk