Quote:
Originally Posted by Z06Fanatic1
Solvers are great for cash play or when you're playing against a field of professionals, but trying to range general populations is extremely challenging. Even in an online MTT setting, the general pop stats in a Sunday 109 Major vs a weekday 215 are going to be dramatically different. You want to play highly exploitative against most amateurs - solvers aren't great for that.
This discussion is already way outside the scope of what I wanted to discuss because with all due respect fold pre is absolutely bonkers and while I appreciate the comments (really, I genuinely do) there is literally no reasonable range you can give V where it's not an objective error to fold pre.
If you wanna discuss exploitation in this context it should be flatting WIDER than equilibrium because humans playing the blinds are not squeezing enough in terms of freq nor are they squeezing enough lighter stuff. Nor are human OOP openers playing as well as they need to to reach a non-exploitable state.
With that being said, redirecting you back to my question (and adding in a few more)
1. What do you think his open range is? I've given you credible data that people are typically opening 24-28% here. What extraordinary set of circumstances can you have possibly gleaned from this thread that would make you think this player, playing in a $2,650, is departing so egregiously from that pattern so as to make you want to fold pre?
2. Fold pre, OTB, with A9s, facing a HJ minraise, 30bb eff, is definitely being exploitative--that does not mean it's good. What things are you seeing that basically no one else is that makes you want to nit up that hard? Because I'll just reiterate: fold pre is so unbelievable nitty it's kind of hard to fathom.
3a. Why do you think nebulous ideas like "game flow" trump hard data when it comes to making a
risky assumption about what his open range is?
b. Are you aware of what a
null hypothesis is? Are you aware of how and why one sets a
null hypothesis, and how one goes about deciding to reject it? Are you aware that judgments about "game flow" also constitutes a
risky assumption--which besides ranges and strategies is among the most important abstract objects poker players deal with, since poker is a game of
imperfect information--just one made not with data but with nebulous feelings that may or may not be grounded in reality?
4. How do you propose exploiting someone if you don't know that Nash equilibrium?
5. Do you realize the whole digression about solvers is a complete strawman, that no one in here is suggesting to copy the solver, that the OP and several other posters even explicitly comes to the conclusion that this is an EXPLOITATIVE fold depending on opponent's skill level, are you aware that the point of the OP is to collect thoughts on that EXPLOITATIVE conclusion?
6. You realize your conclusion that this is a call OTR bc better Ax rarely get there--which may be totally correct--is an equilibrium argument, not an exploitative one?
Last edited by EggsMcBluffin; 10-11-2020 at 08:41 PM.