Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
Why would they bother {with indifference probabilities) when there is no point unless the game contains another player who not only has a perfect knowledge of GTO ranges and percentages for indifferent plays...
On the contrary, the value of Solvers is not in learning GTO. The value of the Solvers is confidence in one's play, which in turn leads to more hands per hour at a higher EV/hand = more total $. And BTW, equilibrium play (GTO) is much more aggressive than even midstakes players play so Solvers give the confidence to dramatically ramp up aggression.
Pre-solvers, players had to rely on pseudo-science about "charging draws" and checking "showdown value". This pseudo-science knowledge was held by successful players and somewhat kept secret.
Post-solvers, anyone (with logic and computer skills) can know exactly how to play a particular texture given the player positions and player tendencies. No more secrets. Post-solvers anyone can know how to maximally exploit.
This is not necessarily rote learning, it is more about pattern observation. It does take skill but the skill is very different from the skill required of earlier poker generations.
Note that many of these solver conclusions about how we should play against, say, for example, a calling station, differ from conventional pseudo-science poker wisdom. The Solver is right if assumptions are right. The conventional wisdom is provably wrong. The assumptions are transparent and can be disputed, debated and improved.
As regards indifference probabilities, should we bet or check 2nd pair on Q82r versus an unknown? If we know that it is 50/50 we can more quickly make a decision and play more hands per hour.
Anything that causes decision delay while playing can later be analysed in a solver. It is like having a world expert always available to mentor us.
No more secrets. Greater confidence. Higher winnings.