Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadoula8
I don't consider these factors in this way anymore... I simply consider what my perceived range will be when I make the raise, and then how he will react with the different hands in his range, and, how much money I expect to make from that reaction in the end.
I don't understand all the terms you used just then, but from what I can tell you didn't consider your perceived range in any way, which is a massively important factor.
To me, the only reason I would raise is if I make more money that way. I might do it to represent a strong hand to force folds from his range. Or I might do it to build the size of the pot against hands that are weaker than mine which I think will continue. Or a lot of the time, I do it for both those reasons. I don't think Poker needs to be any more complicated than that. Everything is covered.
I think that reviewing equilibrium strategies helps us discover when raising helps us 'make more money'. I agree that perceived range and judging how our opponent plays against us dominates the EV difference in real play. But these issues are subjective and are not relevant in studying the equilibrium. I'm trying to learn more about objective and theoretical play, so I have a better default strategy to then employ more exploitative play and whatnot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightFlooosh
I don't understand this either, but I think it be fun to discuss (Please feel free to point out errors in my understanding and let me know why I'm a dumb dumb). I don't have any answers, but am seeking clarification too.
Why does equilibrium check/raise often on boards like 883s as BBvsBU?
If two opponents are playing at equilibrium, then neither opponent is able to unilaterally increase their EV. This is accomplished by playing your all your various postflop ranges in a way that is maximally +EV against a equillibrium strat, and minimally exploitative against any opponent who deviates from a equilibrium strat (right?).
So it must be that on the board listed, it is maximally +EV to x/r at a high frequency. So then we have to figure out what is driving the EV behind that aggressive x/r strat as opposed to a strategy that emphasizes more check-calling. Is there a way to quantify this or explore this?
If you're interested in working with and understanding equilibrium play, owning Piosolver is a must.
I never got too deep into the game theoretical properties of GTO play partially because I don't think there's much incentive to do so. But I simply think of GTO / equilibrium as a strategy where its nemesis is not +EV.
So you can at best be 0EV against equilibrium strat in a symmetric game, and there's no requirement for it to play 'minimally exploitative' against deviations. The only requirement is that its strategies against sub-optimal opponents don't make larger mistakes than the sub-optimal opponent. But whatever.
I do think there's value in exploring why equilibrium strategies have certain properties. It's a tricky thing to do though, since there's not necessarily a relationship between things that stand out in frequency, and things that stand out in importance (or EV difference).