Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoffcompletely
Consider what I suggested a few posts up. Finishing up trees with only 1 sizing will give very inaccurate results because the biggest ev gain of having multiple bet sizes is precisely on the river.
Can you perhaps show me an example of where this is true?
I have tried for myself, but have not succeeded so far.
For example, let's use the CREV file /equilibrium_sample_files/flop/flop_3bet.stx.
Open it and solve to 0.25%.
This will set up ranges for the river.
Now, I'll use a turn that is 4d and a river that is 3h.
We'll use the flop:check-check and turn:check-check lines to get to the river.
Set a checkpoint at the entry decision
* and run the solver. The EV will be 13.23.
Now I will add two more bets for SB to consider, namely a probe bet of 10 and an overbet of 50
**.
After that, we let the wizard create play for BB in his newly created decision. For this, right-click the decision node and, in the wizard, select the option that will place BB's bet closest to 60% of the pot. In the Bet 50 line this will be two bets of 0.37 times the pot and in the Bet 10 line this will be three bets of 0.5 times the pot.
If we now re-run the solver, we will see that SB's EV has increased from 13.23 to 13.28, which comes down to an increase of 0.4% in EV.
Now, I'm sure that we can agree that this is not a significant enough increase to justify the added complexity in the tree, as well as, should this be a flop tree, the additional requirements in resources.
So, can you or anyone else perhaps show me a spot where using multiple bet sizes makes a significant difference?
One important rule: In this "game" you can do whatever you like for hero, however for villain you can only use the wizard with the bet size closest to 0.6xpot.
*=To set a checkpoint, press F10 and click on the entry decision.
**=To put, for example, the "Bet 50" on top after having added it, left-click it and then left-click on the "Bet 20" action to insert it there; the order of actions is not relevant here though, so you can also just leave them in any order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoffcompletely
Since river spots are so fast to solve it's a must that they have multiple bet sizes.
If you're looking at a river spot in a hand that starts at the river, then speed is indeed not an issue. However, for hands that start on the flop, pretty much 99% of the calculation time is spent on the river. So, this statement is not correct for flop hands.
However, even if it's a river hand, then a reservation that I have here is that the human brain (at least mine) is not capable of understanding such enormously complex situations. There's very little point in performing analysis on a tree that has a hundred decision nodes, all of which interact with each other. Simplification is needed (at least for me). I'd rather understand a simple situation as opposed to having a complex solution that I don't understand nearly as well.