im guessing it would work like "CAP" tables so you would be allowed to raise the 600bb to 1000bb

thats ok then.

maybe im off on this one, but:

please tell me, in OPs answer, how can P2/{every pocket pair} range win against P1{AA} postflop?

(i think) the most favorable flop for P2 is 678m monotone with P1 not holding the As, and even on that flop AAoff has 57.35% equity. (propokertools.com exhausting simulation.) (but he has the As combos too, so his range’s real equity is more. =68%)

both players playing a prefect strategy P1 realizes all his equity. there’s not even 1 flop P2 has winning strategy on with given ranges?

@Grothendieck: your model is leaking somewhere i think, please explain why P1 has losing calls postflop if P2 overbluffs (bet range) every street? the most pot odds P1 can face is close to 50% (vs infinite betsize) and he has way more equity on every street.

the only board i can think P1 range (=AA) doesnt have more than 50% equity is straight on the board, not K or A-high. (eg. TJ987 rainbow or a straightflush w/e. AA plays the board every time, P2 wins sometimes.)

you most likely misapply something, P1 just isnt allowed to go allin on flop vs geometric flop sizing vs that range, but he can very comfortably call the bet.

yeah, heavily offtopic, but {AA} is the strongest possible range in nlhe, it cannot be -EV in a theoritically sound model vs anything.

You underestimate the power of the nuts vs. bluffcatcher situation over 3 streets.

AA should fold pre for -50bb/100 or w/e.

maybe underestimate...

but this is just cleary wrong, it doesn’t turn into 0ev bluffcatcher on any street, not even close.

interesting.. not familiar with this solver, will PIO it on the weekend. merry xmas

This is related to the nature of multi street bluff catching. For P1 to be indifferent to calling the a large river, P2 needs 1 bluff for every 1 value bet. Going back to the turn, for P1 to be indifferent to calling a turn bet, P2 needs 1 bluff that bets turn and gives up river for every combo that barrels turn and river. So P2 really has 3 bluffs for every value bet when he bets turn. Using the same logic on the flop he would need 7 bluffs for every value bet and so he doesn't have enough bluffs on the flop. You can check that this is true by running a very high SPR unpaired flop in a solver.

Here is a 500 SPR pot on T75 with the given ranges




P1 checks range on the flop and always folds vs a bet. P2 doesn't even need to bet all his sets to get P1 to fold range

Why are you people posting solver outputs and wasting time like that. This is rapidesh's thread and he is better than the solver. He can do this **** for you.

Actually my solution was only challenged by enzet, I agree that P1 has to fold pre and I haven't thought about that.

Grotendiek's solution is +EV, but it isn't the highest EV for P2

It was a ****ing joke. Don't be so dense.

This thread is a prop that you can't beat 200nl...

How can you say 500k hands is nothing? Run a variance calculator...it's a lot. It also takes you a year to play that many hands.

I don't think you have any understanding of sample size. You make massively losing overadjustments based on hud stats/pool reads. Pretty certain your hud does you more harm than good.

I always thought Huds were garbage, I got a lot better at poker when I stopped looking at my hud, it may be useful when playing against those who are using very very extreme approach like 3betting 50% or 1% but apart from that it's pretty meh

Whats going on here? We come here for awful poker not for a bunch of pin heads trying to sound more intelligent than each other.

Where iz the police???

Strange to see you say this, bc I know you’re a good player. There are pretty important stats that vary from reg to reg that I wouldn’t be able to gather necessarily while multitabling, like wtsd, flop C/R, flop bet %, etc etc, which definitely help me to adjust against specific opponents

Did you always play few tables while paying close attention to each? Then I can see how an argument could be made for close note-taking rather than relying on stats

For a lot of people, HUDs are likely more detrimental imo. Some people are really good at exploiting stats but theyve usually broke t&c somewhere and likely bought hhs. Otherwise the sample on a lot of stats are just too tiny.

I look at only 2 stats on huds. vpip and pfr. And thats just to find out if theyre reg or fish.I dont actually pay attention to those actual numbers. I often click on my own stats and it changes so much within 10k hand samples. And we very rarely get that many hands on people. Rapi would probably instantly improve if he just ditched his hud (or simplified it to reg, fish and nitfish) and treat every reg as if they were baron and linus. Then he will achieve 10bb+ winrate as hes clearly the best. (yes i know hes trolling).

like vs x/r, are you really adjusting your continuing range that much whether the stat tells you he x/r 10% or 20% over a few k hands? sounds like its going to **** you over more than not.

tbf to rapid, 500k hands isn't "nothing" but it definitely isn't a conclusive sample by any means.

The second bit bout overadjustments on hud stats I'm not aware of so not speaking to that bit

legit only use hud for recs these days. and for folding vs supreme nit regs

Pretty important imo knowing whether a guy has 3 or 10% 3bet ...

imo not really that big of a deal imo

1. do regs exist with lower than 6% 3bet at 6max? If they got 3% they quite clearly wont be around in ssnl pool for long that its safe to just assume any reg has standard 7-11%

2. fish have no coherent 3b range + likely sample issues. Sure it can help with more extremes. but not pretty important overall.

Very much so, see it at 1knl all the time. Pretty important to know whether a guy is 3betting everything IP pre or playing a cold call range etc too.

This may be true at 2k+ or whatever, definitely isnt at lower stakes

How can you say that 500k hands is not a conclusive sample and think someone using a HUD isn't making massive overadjustments? Do you not see the massive contradiction there?

There is some stuff you don't need a large sample for. For example, doing "fishy things" like open limping which a reg will never do unless they misclick.