Why do you say this? For all academics? Certain fields?

1. supply/demand of key positions
2. sexual allegations coming out in many areas now (though this isn't anti academics per se, just something that many departments are now dealign with given how crude and sexist and domineering generations of male professors have been over the past few decades)
3. upheaval in journal acceptance/reviews
4. increase in scrutiny of publications due to #3

to name a few

I'll certainly defer to you guys on the specifics for how the algorithm for the bot is actually programmed -- I'd imagine that the reasons behind why it was done the way that it was has a lot to do with speed and efficiency vs current computing power.

I just hope that we can all get behind the fundamentals behind how betting ranges are determined when checked to heads up on the river in a gto solution. We determine what we can bet for value and bet those hands. We then add some bluffs for balance based on pot side. We check back all other hands. Agreed?

I think it depends on the makeup of the ranges and how they interact. In the pure (bluffcatchers) vs (nuts + bluffs) scenario, yes you're right. However, having a range that is only (bluffcatchers) is clearly not part of a gto solution. Thus building ranges with this process is not going to give a gto solution for real poker:

Instead, we need to account for the possibility of a check raise, as well as the size of the pot and the size of the bet before we can decide on bluffs.

Here's some river discussion free of charge:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...22/?highlight=

Got a bit sidetracked at the beginning, but the meat of the discussion came to temperature here imo:

no it's not so simple and one-directional. The "bluffing" and "value" ranges are determined together. Sometimes it is helpful in interpreting a solver solution, to think about it one way. e.g., if it’s pretty clear what the candidates for your value range should be, then you can figure out how much of the bottom of your range (modulo blockers) can be supported as a bluff. Polarized vs condensed range situations are the most common example of this, but this is not that common in limit holdem. But consider another scenario, where ranges overlap significantly. You might have some candidates for a value bet, and you try to figure out an appropriate number of bluffs, but then you realize you don’t have enough bluffs (i.e. some hands you are looking to bluff with actually have >EV by checking), this means villain can fold a wider range than you were thinking which means you might have to pare back your value bets, rinse and repeat.


So really they’re just 2 sides of a coin.

See, I don't think it depends on this at all. If we somehow happen to arrive at the river with perfectly symmetrical ranges the solution might look one way and if we have a massive range vs range advantage the solution might look another way, but the method for determining which hands we can bet for value remains the same as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In such a situation determining our value range becomes trivial and not worth discussing since those hands win at showdown 100% of the time. But I think that it's pretty clear that if we have hands in our range that will win at showdown 90% of the time we should be betting those for value also. Same with hands that will win 80% of the time, and so on. There is a threshold at which point betting the hand in question moves from a value bet into spew. Our task is to determine which hands can be bet for value. Including hands that are spew is incorrect. I hate to keep harping on this concept but I feel that it's extremely important and I am honestly shocked that we can't all agree on this small point.

As for our opponent having a range that is only (bluffcatchers), I never said that that has to be the case. However, when we are in position on the river and our opponent checks to us, that opponent should have MOSTLY folds and bluffcatchers -- some slightly stronger than others. The best bluff catchers might be able to beat some of our worst value bets, but mostly they will lose when we value bet. They will also have some checkraises -- some for value, and some as bluffs. These checkraises and the bluffcatchers together make up our opponent's "continuing range". When determining whether or not our hand should be included in our betting range as a value bet, we compare how it is doing against our opponent's continuing range (which, by definition, takes our opponent's checkraises into account). If it's strong enough we bet for value.

All of the excerpt that you cut-and-pasted regarding river play basically makes the same point as thesilverbail makes here:

This is an interesting point and it's something that I have not thought about very much, but I don't see any flaws with this in theory.

I would say that if we are in a situation where we don't have enough bluffs on the river that might mean that we have played a previous street suboptimally. For example, we might semi-bluff certain types of hands on a previous street -- say, flush draws. In that example, if the flush card comes in on the river then we have no river bluffs. This is probably an indication that how we constructed our bluffing range on that previous street was unbalanced.

The other possibility where I could legitimately see this happening is on extremely narrow range situations -- in those spots there are just only so many total combos to go around. So then if the board runs out a certain way (somewhat rare) we just might not have any bluffs on the river.

In these cases, assuming both players actually played well up until the river, it's an interesting concept that we might actually have to value bet less often so that our opponent cannot just auto-fold his whole range. However, notice that we have still not yet come up with any legitimate situation where it is correct to ADD MORE value bets to our betting range. That's because the very next hand that we try to value bet is spew. It just is.

Determine our value bets by comparing how the hand is doing against our opponent's range. THEN add bluffs. Come on guys, work with me here . . .

Sorta random but relevant:
https://youtu.be/tRiaGahlyy4

The extreme situation with no bluffs rarely happens in limit holdem, but i've seen solver solutions where weird things happen. Like you suggested, usually they show up in extremely assymetric range situations e.g. EP vs BB defend on a weird runout. If you tried to follow the simplistic approach of fixing a value range and then choosing (1-alpha) worth of bluffs, you would go badly wrong. The main reason would be because the (1-alpha) model doesn't apply when your worst bluff have non-zero s.d. value. (the formula for alpha is derived assuming pure air or nuts). A common example, you open as EP, BB defends, and you barrel to the river with a busted flush draw. Your worst FD (say JTs) has non-zero sd-value because BB should definitely only be x-calling a lot of his worse FDs since your range is so strong. I have seen a few completely reasonable scenarios where the defender ends up folding maybe 40% of his range in a 5 bet pot.

>However, notice that we have still not yet come up with any legitimate situation where it >is correct to ADD MORE value bets to our betting range. That's because the very next >hand that we try to value bet is spew. It just is.

In NL there are often situations where it is correct for one player to bet his entire range (typically an overbet) and the other player folds his entire range. In that case, there are no real "value" bets since they're not getting any value, but you need to make them to "protect" your bluffs.

In fact honestly, and this falls in the dangerous category of maybe giving away actual useful information, after studying these solutions, I've realized that a far too common mistake made by people who know a little game theory (myself included), is to devote too much mind space in a hand to what their own range is and where they are in it and not enough to what their opponent's is and what it should be.

Any more?

You are the man. Everyone should watch this - thank you.

PS. We miss you deeply in slippery chip land UHBW.

Won't you take me to... dun dun dun... Value Town...

Why you guys are so late everyone in plo is already using solver w 500+ Ram server in some other country sim out solution 24/7. and you guys are here talking about an old technology

LOL. Omg if you pulled that on me after a bet like this I’d die laughing.

Agreed re the video.

Thanks Jlot. You are missed as well. Slippery chips, meh, unless we’re talking towers ;-)

Meh I mean people pay big $ and use the solvers but not many have any idea how they really work

After seeing results this may sound result oriented but A7o by Cepheus/villain is for sure a value bet HUHU.

TAG or Fish, too many players chk call down too light on these boards, including as low as Qhi+ based on meta and play history.

Cepheus/villain should have a lot of bluffs though as you note but so should most competent HUHU players I think in Cepheus's shoe as aggressor

Thanks for this.

What I don't seem to get from cepheus is how light it calls down.

It opens, I 3 bet and barrel AA9JJr board and it calls down with T7.

It opens and I three bet and it calls down with Q5s on a AKJJ4hhh board.

i bet if you changed an ace to another low blank and the jack to another low blank it'd fold. i think the removal here factored into the call.

i'm guessing another card removal decision. it seems to base a bunch of its decisions on card removal based on my review of various hands.

Ya basically. Like if he doesn't hold a card critical to your barrels, he is way more likely to call

With assumption that Cepheus is GTO and plays correctly mathematically/statistically, do you think it is practical/beneficial to take card removal to the extent that Cepheus does?

Specifically, as a HERO playing against a solid human GTO LAGTAG HUHU, should we be doing the EV analysis off the table often enough to make a decision like Cepheus does in real time a default play (NOTE: Default as in X% frequency if board and hand requires)?

I won 1.5 of these hands.

yes otherwise you could play a pure strategy and exploit me for not playing a properly mixed strategy.

More specifically:

If I don't randomize my 0ev river calls and folds, and if I only call exactly the top portion of my range which makes my opponent indifferent to bluffing or checking the river, then you could bluff with any decent blocker in addition to the neutral ev bluffs from the bottom of your range, for much more profit than those hands would receive from the pot vs cepheus.