Quote:
Sorry for the lack of clarity. What I actually meant is if a single bet size is used 50% of the time on one flop and only 1% on another flop.
This is already taken into account because everything is weighted by matchups (probability of things happening).
Quote:
When I tried browsing a tree from flop to river and checked frequency of reaching the river node (at the top right of Pio) and compared it with the number in the aggregation report they were different. Why is that?
The "frequency across runouts" thing in the top right corner is a weighted average across all runouts (so all turns/rivers). Are you looking at the same thing in the report? (it's likely you're looking at specific river).
If that still doesn't explain it please contact us (support@piosolver.com) and preferably send a tree config of that tree so we can run it locally and verify if everything works as expected.
Question from an email:
Our user sends the following config simple turn config:
https://pastebin.com/wpYnw1rt (to use it copy the text and go to Tools->paste treebuilding configuration) and asks why Pio is folding a lot in check-check, bet river line. Here:
https://gyazo.com/81b5117e89d128244839b16bd5414283
And asks:
Quote:
Why is piosolver suggesting a mathematically exploitable fold of 52.86%
in a check,check, 5h, bet 604 scenario.
6.04 in to 9.29 requires 39% folds too make it exploitable to cbet 100%
of the range.
As the solver is folding 52.85% of the range to a bet of 604 into the pot of 929 it seems like this is must be exploitable. This is something which is often surprising when one starts working with optimal solutions. A few points:
1)It's not true that one has to defend according to pot odds, 1-alpha or w/e other formula. Those often works in simple toy games but they are rarely useful for complicated multi-street games with draws, card removal and various possible ranges like Holdem
2)The proper way to think about equilibrium (GTO strategy) is that neither player can improve by altering their strategy, they are already both exploiting each other to the max and they also defend against possible exploit as much as possible.
3)To prove that a given strategy is exploitable you need to find a hand which can do better than it already does in a solution so the proper answer to: "folding 52% to a small'ish bet must be exploitable" is "show me actual hand which can exploit it!"
4)Let's look at the decision just before the fold, OOP is to play on the river, like here:
https://gyazo.com/e485f11a1f6757a56a007ddd6077e9f9
and specifically at the checking range:
https://gyazo.com/ce6231fe072c82a9e35187ee954acde6 (you can see it by clicking big green rectangle on the right with a "CHECK" on it)
The way to exploit "over-folding" would be to bet some of those hands but we can see that the range consists of:
-medium made hands like JJ-88
-decent hands like overpair/two pair
-AJ/JT/T9 suited but those are only club combos (because only club combos are in initial range
This means that the range is so strong that there isn't enough bluffs to exploit a 52% fold on the river. This is a common situation when one starts solving from the flop as well: on some runouts (for example if a draw fills) one of the players often have much stronger range and not enough bluff in there so the other player responds by folding a lot.