Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustavo179
The problem was when I started testing on the solvers, I saw that they were also considering the opponent's cards.
So I thought, why the hell even solvers are using opponent ranges? Should not they work with random ranges of opponent?
Just think it through on a basic level. If someone open jams 50bb but only ever has AA, your best strategy is pretty obvious (you fold everything except the other combo of aces). If that same villain shoves 50bb with an exploitable range of 6 combos of AA and 12 combos of 72o (so he's unbalanced in favour of air), you have >50% equity with almost 45% of hands. (Interestingly, 92s and K7o are calls because they dominate 72, but KQo is a fold. 95s is also a call vs such a weird opponent. Go figure).
Presumably, the best way for villain to balance his AA jams would be with Ax combos. e.g. Villain could jam 6x AA, 4x AKs, 4x AQs, and you can still only call with AA. If he adds AJs to his jamming range, then you can add AKs (but not KK) to your calling range.
By a process of trial and error, you can find the optimal "defence" against a
known shoving range. If you make the mistake of presuming villain has range X, when he actually has range Y, you can lose quite badly, and losing isn't optimal. So playing a strat vs "all possible strategies" is not guaranteed to beat each of those strategies. There's a specific strat for each opponent.
What we call the Nash Equilibrium arises when both players are maximizing their own EV. If one of them has a sub-optimal strat (or range), then it can be exploited, and you should therefore alter your own range/strat in order to do so. Solvers are just looking for the best strat given the assumption that villain is also playing his best strategy. If his range is terrible, you can maximize EV by exploiting it. Solvers are basically looking for those exploits. You have to give them the range of the opponent, or they have no data to work with.
Last edited by ArtyMcFly; 03-25-2019 at 04:07 PM.