You have no idea what you're talking about.

This is spot on.

It's what emboldens folk to one-liner a thread with "solver checks range" without conditioning with how IP must defend at equilibrium. If IP doesn't overfold then the guy whos strategy is to exploit the pop tendency to overfold in 3b pots and mono flops is no good? Riveting revelations

Then other guys whos inclination was to bet hear these whispers of a solve and do a complete 180 (DooDoo bang bang).

Poker is now a cult, the solver is the messiah and anybody with a 8GB ram PC who can click buttons can be the day's prophet.

If v bets the part of his range I think he bets otf, then I have ~70.15% equity ott range vs range.

If Vs flop bet is value heavy, I still have ~59.44% equity range vs range over 2 million trials.

I reduced my range accordingly to how I would react to his flop bet.

Do we xr AA/QQ and xc AQ or are these all xc's? I currently have AA/QQ as a xr.

Like I said raw equity is meaningless in itself. Having a flush draw is a lot better than having A high despite having less equity.

Being IP is a big advantange on dynamic boards, you don't want to build pot as OOP with crappy bluffcatchers.

Hence why checking range gives v a chance to bluff which narrows our range and widens his.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by raw equities. I'm comparing two ranges and how they react to a x/b/c line. Care to elaborate?

having x equity doesn't mean you'll realize x

sometimes it's ok to cbet range with less than 50%, sometimes correct to check range with more than 50%

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with these %?

Solver says you should fold pre

I'm a nit and I would check/call both of those...

Hand was well played as is. Personally, I don’t raise A3hh when defending the BB. BTN vs Blinds is when spazzy happens, and I like to lower the spaz level.

Mono flops are checked at a very high frequency, and c-betting 1/4 pot as an exploit is, well, very exploitable.

Golden

+1, let's strengthen the xc range and cooler the ever living $&!+ out of V when the board pairs.

I'm inclined to flat smaller open sizes and 3b 3x opens, but, whatever works. I'm not opposed to changing it to A4s+, whatever wins the most $ in the long run.

And so are you. I really mean that.

thanks!

Yeah okay. Keep betting weak hands on bad boards while OOP and tell me how that works out for you long term.

My exact position on all of this is identical to this article I just saw today: https://upswingpoker.com/winning-calls-that-lose/
Zero difference in any respect. Tired of arguing with idiots about things that aren't even remotely controversial.

I don't like this. Would prefer if Upswing kept teaching the lemmings to play a poor man's GTO in every spot.

Nothing in that article, applies to this hand, at all. Mono flops require caution, solvers and theorists agree. Wait for the turn, then exploit the population as you see fit.

+1. Useless article mentioning concepts which have been around for ages...

I feel like Upswing is full of outdated info

Not true. What applies, and can't be argued against is that solvers give the wrong answers when you don't apply what they are telling you in the appropriate context. You would be massively misapplying solver information if you bluff at the levels a solver tells you to vs a population that calls to much. This is the huge mistake DDP constantly makes. And on the other hand you can't get by with purely exploitative play without understanding the concepts that a solver is teaching.

You have to do both simultaneously, applying output from solvers in the correct context.

The point of the article flew over your head. Not at all surprising as you seem like one of the least intelligent people on these forums.

Misapplying concepts out of context is why you will never become a winning player.

i am a winning player: lets post graphs and i guarantee my winrate crushes you. back to 5nl




ok waiting for you, gtfo.

can't we just all get along

I'm not a solver nor am I a mensa member. If I can illustrate, moreso to myself, in a manner I can understand just how overall ranges interact after a given action, based on what I think they are preflop of course, I will have a good idea of the strategy I want to employ in the future. I don't want to do a thing because a solver or another player tells me I should do without knowing why. In this instance, if checking is going to widen Vs range when he bets and give me an overall equity advantage, and a significant one, with our entire continuing ranges, then that's a reason to x, imho.

Doing things blindly just because someone on the net told me to or because a solver told me to do it doesn't help me to my satisfaction. I want to know why; no offense of course to solvers' programmers or folks who use them. I'm sure they work great for people who understand how to use them to their full extent. Solvers, nor 2p2 members, will be playing my next session, nor will either give much of a **** whether I play well enough to beat these games.

Tl;Dr.

Well I agree with that and at the risk of repeating myself, you should try to expand your analysis to more than just equity %.

You could try Matthew Janda's books, they helped me a lot in my understanding of poker.