So this is more what I mean. In the first photo, we've computed an equilibrium using an assumed 3bet range from our opponent and the solver tells us to do this facing a 1/3 pot cbet:
Now just imagine that our assumptions about our opponent are wrong, and his 3bet range is not that but more looks like this:
We re-compute the equilibrium for his actual range while keeping ours fixed and this is our new response to a 1/3 cbet:
We can see in this second image that our response differs significantly based on our changed assumptions. Not only is our ev lower across the board, there are quite a few hands that originally mix in the first equilibrium that now pure fold. A pure mistake in this case would be
to take an action the solver never suggests. If the action had the same ev as folding, the solver would mix, and because the solver doesn't mix on these combos we can safely conclude that
taking the original raise/call mixed actions are not 0ev, but -ev instead (JJ,TT,77-22, etc). This is what I mean by assumptions being wrong messing with the whole model. Different equilibriums will be generated from different assumptions (including preflop ranges), so I don't see how playing like a GTObot can't result in -ev decisions when our assumptions are wrong, at least sometimes or on some combinations. I'm open to being proven wrong of course.
Last edited by TookashotatChan; 02-08-2024 at 05:47 PM.