Quote:
Originally Posted by 3m3million
Apologies if I am explaining something that you already know here, but I don't quite understand your comments on how the solver works.
This can be tested pretty easily, you run a simulation CO vs BTN 20 big effective, giving the CO the option to bet the flop, turn & river. You look at the EV across as many boards as you want to run (obviously the more you run, the more accurate results you get) you then run the same simulations without the option to Cbet the flop and look at the EV again.
At these stack depth, I would think that using a solid Check / Raising strategy vs the BTN & having the option to use bigger sizings on Turns / Rivers (still allowing you to get AI) will mean that the EV loss is minimal.
Let me be a little more specific. In this specific example, the CO opens with 15.8 percent of his hands and the button calls with 15.9 percent. So the number of hands is about the same (and the hands that the button would 3-bet with are not included). However, the CO's range is uncapped while the button's range is condensed.
Thus, and this simplifies things for sake of argument, the CO should bet all its value hands plus a certain percentage of bluffs on the flop. On the turn, the CO will again bet about the same percentage of value hands but a different percentage of bluffs, and the same again on the river.
The button, will mainly be left with bluff catching hands (because of his condensed range). Thus, the button should GTO call with a certain percentage of hands on the flop, and again call with the same percentage of hands on both the turn and river assuming the CO always bets the same size of the pot.
My claim is that this GTO betting scheme will give the CO a significant advantage, which is not what the book says --"The BN's range is tighter than the Hero's, creating a more equal situation that will ultimately benefit the BN, given that they are playing IP post-flop."
A little later in the chapter the author states "In fact, the CO's range is generally weaker than the BN's and CO could easily opt for a 100% checking strategy with minimal to no EV loss." But the upper part of the CO's range, since it's uncapped, should be stronger, and when you throw in multi-round Game Theory, I question this conclusion, and I think this idea, whether I'm correct or the author Michael Acevedo is correct, is worthy of discussion.
Mason