Quote:
Originally Posted by PointlessWords
The fact of the matter is that MDA and solver have shown us that you make more by playing the same range or tighter versus looser opponents.
This is absolutely, positively untrue.
It is my observation, for example, that in the typical LOLive 1-3 game, the population Simply. Does. Not. Three-bet. Enough. And when the opposition does not three-bet enough, the smart money can get away with raising a substantially wider range.
Let us suppose that, [mirablile dictu,[/i] the action is folded to us on the button, and we strongly suspect that the players in the blinds have three-betting ranges that look like {JJ+, AKs, AKo}. That is only 3% of all dealt hands. If everyone in the game were playing solver-derived ranges, we would expect the big blind to be three-betting somthing like 13-15% of dealt hands. That is a huge difference, and solvers tell us that, even if the BB played perfect Nash postflop (ha!) our opening range can be dramatically wider, simply because we don't face three-bets from the blinds very often.
I should say that I have not seen specific data for live low-stakes games, simply because it is pretty much impossible to collect. But I
have seen analyses of online play that show that (1) the typical online 6max reg three-bets their big blind versus a button open 11.6% of the time, instead of the solver-recommended 13-15%. And when you node-lock a solver to account for this under-three-betting, the button's opening range expands from 43% to 58%. This is a huge jump, basically adding 200 more combos to the button's opening range. And this, again, is against a typical online reg, not your basic LOLive low-stakes mouth breather..
So no, MDA and solvers tell us quite unambiguously to play wider ranges against typical players than against ideal players.
Last edited by AlanBostick; 12-04-2023 at 01:06 AM.