Quote:
Originally Posted by wazz
I'm probably exaggerating about the numbers of people that talk about it like that.
I disagree with the given result that jamming is better than calling. When you shrug at my having the temerity to disagree, you are explicitly placing the solver output as unquestionable.
GTO is breakeven against itself; are you aware that it's fairly easy to come up with a situation where the NE results in the minimum payouts? In the travelers dilemma, the NE is to lowball, maximizing the chances that we get the minimum payout. This cannot be the correct solution to the question of what strategy to employ to maximise our payout. This is a fairly big flaw in GTO, and while I'm not up to date on current GTO community trends, a lot of specialists cling to the result despite it being obviously wrong, because NE must equal the right answer. This is having a shiny new hammer and thinking everything is a nail. If it fails the common sense test, and we don't know why, it could very easily be a losing play.
OK, I have no interest in a strawman argument and don't care about the travellers dilemma.
Here is what solver wants to do.
Check flop - unless you have the nut spades then bet (AA75)
We mess up and bet the flop, it says, ok, fine wtf. On this turn, check behind unless you have spade or clubs, then pot it.
We get it right. Villain pots it, representing the nuts, or air, we have AA75. We have four combos it wants to call with at approximately 0 EV. The rest it wants to split between 75% folding and 25% raising. So, with this action, it says, hey, you want to raise the nuts you better have some bluffs, here is a combo that is a bluff 22% of the time you get to this spot. It makes your overall EV higher. Solver says you have better bluff catchers here. It wants to call with a lot of the AA hands, but not so much with this one... probably because it has so many combos it is calling with that it decides not to use this one. I'd look at the output and say calling probably isn't that bad of a play and is approximately 0EV. Which means here is where we can look at solver and turn this into exploitable play. Calling with AAxx is approximately 0 ev if villain is bluffing witht eh right frequency... but if he isn't bluffing enough we have an easy fold and if he bluffs a lot we have an easy call and if he is right.
You disagree, ok, fine, with what? If you aren't bluff raising this then what are you bluff raising and if you aren't bluff raising then fine - that's a different game.