Without knowing the computer's exact range in this spot, can we really say that there are better bluffing hands?
We can't be sure because nobody approximated the whole NL yet. We do have quite decent approximations though for games with less than all bet sizes (say 2). In my experience at least the river ranges in that line should always contain enough combos with spades that you can't afford to bluff all of them, let alone add stuff without spades.
Claudico team for sure has answers, it would be nice to get some insight. I see two possibilities:
a)the approximated river range was such that T5 no spade turned out to be a bluff (as there wasn't enough better hands to bluff in there)
b)the river wasn't approximated well enough and the all-in frequency for T5off didn't converge close enough to 0 yet
I have problems believing a) is possible. On the other hand b) seems even less likely if they recalc it on 64 cores every time (because rivers games are small and that's a lot of cores run for a lot of seconds).
Maybe we could get river ranges from Claudico for that spot and see which one is true.
It's hard to think of some exploitable consequences of this mistake. I guess it means that not accurately estimating a villains value range on the river, so it won't be taking blockers into consideration as it should be. Which means the guys should have some slight hope with river decisions and blockers.
If hypothesis about rivers not being solved well enough is true then probably value shoving a lot should bring nice profit as there will still be a lot of random calls which didn't have enough time to converge to 0. WCG was already paid off a few times like that.