How similar are the suggestions of PokerSnowie to PioSolver when they both analyze the same situation?

Got the book and really like it so far!

This happened to me also. You should be able to press the narrow button to previous pages on your browser and all the text you wrote could be there also. then just copy the text and log in again. to prevent this happening in future, just copy the text before pressing submit button.

I think you'll see more similarities than differences, but I didn't carefully analyze this.

Keep in mind my computer with PioSOLVER could reasonably run 2 bet-sizes on one street and one bet size on the other two streets, and this is after I bought $200 worth of RAM. It could run more complex simulations than this, but it took too long for me to do these more complex situations very often.

PokerSnowie is using 4 different bet-sizes on each street. So you'll get some different suggestions just by that fact alone.

Your best bet truly is to get both versions of the software and look for yourself if you can afford it and that's something you're interested. It's likely not something that can be addressed particularly well in a book, as so many little changes (how many bet sizes there are, stack depth, pre-flop assumptions, etc) may change the results.

hey just got this book and start reading it and have a question that i want to ask about mix strategies that i dont understand the concept

it is on page 35 Q&A/
Q:#1about betting or ch T8ss on 974r
so in this ex. you are saying that when you plug ex in solver is it will suggest that we should bet 97% of time and ch 3% vs optimal villain, and that EV between both lines is the same, it doesnt matter that one line is recommend more 30 times??? ....

so what does this mean?? in order to realize X EV when we bet 97% of time we need to ch 3% of time and when we are checking we will realize Y EV and Y=X, if we dont ch 3% of time X(EV of betting 97% of time) will drop significantly??
Is this about long run 97%:3% infinity hands (like for ex. we can have 97% vs 3% ratio if we bet first 970 situations and ch last 30 out of 1k situations, but we also have the same ratio if we ch behind every ~34hand out of 1k hand for ex) and in any given singular moment/hand in vacuum it doesnt matter if we bet or ch???

i really dont understand how EV of both lines one that we need/going to take drastically more often then other are the same???? does it mean that like when we bet we get more folds etc = win smaller pots and when we ch we win bigger pots or idk???
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS CONCEPT LITTLE MORE IN DETAILS

P.S. English is not my first language and maybe some wording/concepts i am misunderstanding, any way I really y like how you explain things, i have "applications..." also but dint read it so far and will read it after i finish this book

Questions like this were answered in a recent Poker Theory thread: The Equivalence of Line EVs in Mixed Strategies.
The short story is that to make both your checking and betting ranges as "max EV" as possible, many combos need to be placed in both ranges. When they are placed in each range at the correct frequencies, the EV of each action (for a particular combo) is the same, and the total EV of the entire strategy is maximised. That said, a real life player will never be able to detect tiny imbalances in the way you play a specific combo in a specific spot (e.g. you check a combo 75% instead of the optimal 40%, for example), because you won't play "infinite" hands with the same opponent.

Yup, we play em one hand at a time.

An optimal opponent doesn't change his strategy regardless of what your strategy is.

Against such an opponent, sometimes the EV of two lines is exactly the same. When that is the case, there's no reason to believe each of the two lines part of a mixed strategy must be taken exactly 50% of the time each.

For example, in some spots with a mixed strategy maybe it's optimal to bet 17% of the time and check 83% of the time. In another spot, it may be optimal to bet 44% of the time and check 56%. But so long as your opponent doesn't exploit you (and an optimal opponent won't), both checking and betting will have the exact same EV and you can choose to always bet, always check, or do a mix of both.

I like the last option the best. I know that in the context of the conversation at hand, it doesn't matter which we pick. However the probability of facing an optimal opponent is quite low, thus the need for mixing becomes apparent without an exploitive plan.

I dont know how to put this in english
You are saying that it doesn't matter that ine line should be used 97% and other 3% the both have same EV
I was trying to ask if we use mix strategy how come ev in different lines is same when one is /should be used way more often the other?
Is this the case because optimal oponent will play their gto freq and not try to exploit so it doesnt matter if we play good frequences because our oponent is playing gto and no matter what we do bet or ch our line has same ev, because he will call/fold same freq when flush card hit irelevant of the fact did we bet or not on flop so thats why both beting and ch have same ev? So vs this kind of oponent we can play pure strategy of only beting for ex??

What if we play vs exploatative villain that will adjust?? Does this mean that we need to/must play mix at some frequency and if we dont mix it up EV of one line goes significantly down and we need to mix it up in order to maintain the EV of that line as high as posible? So when we play mix strategy we are trying to find frequences/ratio of bet & check lines and equilibrium where both this lines have same ev and then use that frequencies/ratio, because if we change frequencies/ratio from what we find is optimal and use one line more then optimal (vs hypothetical exploatative villain that is adapting fast ) the ev of both lines drops?

Idk if my questions are clear enough...

Because a counter-strategy exists if the lines aren't taken at the right frequency.

Say for example we know in a spot that the EV of betting and checking would be the same against a GTO opponent. Well, if we ALWAYS bet, then it'd be possible for an opponent to develop a counter-strategy for us (if he's an exploitative player).

So, even if the EV between two lines are the same, they must each be taken at the proper frequency or a counter-strategy will exists. And if we're trying to play GTO, we must remember GTO ranges do not have counter-strategies. So while it may not matter at what frequency we take mixed strats against a GTO opponent, it will matter against an exploitative player. By being perfectly balanced ourselves we make sure no one can exploit us.

Yea i understand this but that is not subject of my question i guess is lost in translations

I try again my question is
how we know that ev of ch and beting is same or not and if not which line has more ev?
how we can tell approximately how much ev one line has and compare to other?

Like for ex in that hand page 35, Q:#1 if we are 100 deep what is approximately the EV of beting on flop and what is EV of ch and how we calculate them??
i know you said that ev cant be calculated but as theory point if view how we define/calculate EV of different lines , what factors/methods should we take into consideration to try and determine/guess what approximately EV one line has and then to compare to other line and see which line we think has better EV

In correlation to this if 2 lines dont have same EV should we always take the line that has more EV or no, if no why?

Idk if my question is more clear now

Ty for your time and responses

If he (seeing we cbet every time vs. an optimal or so player) starts to call/raise more often, we just call/bet more often from that point onwards, and if he adjusts to that, we will upgrade for calling/betting still further, or will not bet as much in the first place till he again adjusts.

Trying to calculate what EV is higher between different lines is the main goal of all 1000 pages of the two books I've written.

It's based on a huge variety of factors that are discussed in detail in both books. There's no easy way to do this.

Yes, always take the line that has more EV.

oh boy, puting my thoughts in English is hard, i guess we dont understand each other what i am trying to ask

let me try this one final time

so my initial Q about that example(page 35, Q:#1, hand T8s on 974r flop) is
-u are saying that if we put this hand/spot in solver we get that "we should bet 97% of time ch 3% of time vs optimal opponent" ( and then "Must checking end betting have exactly the same EV vs optimal opponent"
-how(from where did u come to that conclusion)that EV of betting and checking is the same?? how do we(you) know that this lines have same EV??how do you get to this conclusion
and then you continue " in any mix strategy the EV between both lines must be exactly the same"
-what does this mean, does this mean that the EV of all 97% we bet = all 3 % we check or what ??
how do we know that (when??) both lines have same EV???

my understanding of how this work is something in lines of that we need to figure out when/in what ratio/frequency both lines have same EV and then to apply those frequencies ????
so for ex if we find out that betting 70% and checking 30% have same EV then we should use those frequency?? is this correct or way off???
if this is correct how we find out what % of time we should bet/ch?? how we find bet/ch ratio that have same EV??

idk if this time will be more clear what my question is (i cant figure out how to express my self and the question i want to ask correctly in English)

any way again tx for your answers and for your time

By putting the situation into a pseudo solver or Snowie, and by accepting that - at equilibrium - mixed strategies occur where the EV of each option is the same. Example from the thread I linked to:

It says right there on the screen that the EV or checking and betting AQ in that spot is 4.96bb. Snowie isn't perfect, but it indicates that you're unlikely to be making a mistake whether you bet or check AQ in that spot. Many other hands also use mixed strats in the same situation. (FWIW, you would be making a mistake if you checked back TT, because betting middle set has a higher EV than slowplaying it).

Hey, I just finished reading the book and have to say this is the book I was waiting for. The approach you think about the game is easy to understand even on advanced level. I bought it because I want to imrove my MTT game when playing depper stacks and have to say my whole view of the game changed in the positive way. I didn't read the Applications previously, so thank you for clearing a lot of concepts I missused in my game. I also be very happy to see more material from you in the future. Keep up the good work!

mhm i see
(i dont use this programs) so as i can see in this example it is saying we should bet 24% and ch 76% so...

does this results mean that if we ch 76% of time and bet 24% then => those both lines have same EV???(i guess this is true but just to make sure)
or does it mean that in vacuum in every single hand/similar spot EV of ch and betting is the same (we can for ex bet like 50% and ch 50%, or bet 80% and ch 20% in single spot in vacuum and ev of both lines is same)???

Whatever line you choose to take, the EV will be the same, the frequency of which you take one or another doesn't have any effect on the EV for the hand. This is a mixed strategy meaning that the solver recommend different line with the frequency you should be using the line. The ev is the same, even if the strategy was check 99% bet 1% the ev would still be the same. Thats how I think this work for solver I may be wrong though.

so you are saying if ev=same no matter what freq/% u are betting/ch u can like bet 100% or ch 100% of time and it doesn't matter if opponent doesn't adapt?
i dont think this should be true
like for extreme ex if we are playing vs passive villain that is never calling turn if he dont have 2 pairs or better (for any reasonable sizing)and he is not adapting we should bet flop bet turns to max EV
and if we are playing vs passive player who is rarely folding one pair that was top pair on flop no matter how much we bet or how the runout is we should clearly ch behind and realize our eq and then bet to max EV

The frequencies don't matter vs an optimal villain. Obviously they do vs a random hypothetical exploitable villain.

How can the frequencies not matter vs an optimal opponent? If the optimal strategy says check 99% of the time and bet 1%, but your actual frequencies are 50/50 then you are not playing GTO anymore. Your optimal opponent would gain EV vs you.

Pretty sure that's just wrong but Matthew can elaborate.

Have you read the new book?

Trying to get my head around this My understanding is that if I play vs an optiomal (GTO) opponent and deviate from a GTO strategy, I lose EV ... does deviating from GTO frequencies not equal deviating from the GTO strategy? I'm gladly going to try to understand where I am wrong here