did you even read that ? :

Because Solver says : " IT IS WRONG" ... lol. ... it is fundamentally wrong because 4b/ fold will make more money than call. And calling 77 will loose more money than folding 77.

Yeah I am not talking about preflop, pay attention.

The best play here is probably shoving preflop. People are oversqueezing broadways so we get to exploit that with a shove and not much they can do about it. Think I like Shove>call>fold.

4bet folding is insanely bad (no blockers/butcher equity).

Solver doesn't account for weakness of opponent.

Also @OP, I think a small block bet on the flop is fine but most of the time you should be checking back. SB should be checking a lot on this flop and can still have a tonne of good hands (overpairs) so think a check is superior.

This thread is way over my head. No friendly soul that wants to give some pointers where I can read up on what you are talking about.

Skickat från min PLK-L01 via Tapatalk

Vs another "solver". My understanding of solvers( which isnt much) is that it is a base strat. Something that if we play it perfectly we will lose less than if we deviate. My issue with this is solver doesnt account for opponents who dont play anything close to how a solver does. Which means if we stick to solver strat we will theoretically lose less than if we deviate due to being balanced. I'm in no way trying to argue or not accept that I made a mistake. 4b/fold makes alot of sense tbh, although we dont have blockers we do have position so I think we could even get a better hand to fold (88-TT possibly due to fear of not being able to play optimally OOP) so I do see the merit there. But!( theres always a but lol) is our ev higher playing 4b/fold vs. fold to 3b vs. have a calling range? Idk..when I get off work I am going to run this hand in crev and try to come up with a legit answer. Since I download all my HHs from ignition I get to see all the cards, I'm going to filter for spots where SB squeeze a rfi and flat to gauge a range. I'll also do the same for CO vs MP. Care to join in on this? I would appreciate some insight because you seem to know your **** lol

Also NO I do Not open 330 combos from MP lolz I made a mistake because everyone was talking about CO so I had it stuck in my head when I opened up my equilab. Idk the combos off hand but it is significantly less. Probably closer to 200ish off the top of my head

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That issue do have quite a lot of people (mostly who do not have much expierence with solvers)

You are supposed to LEARN how a solver plays (aka GTO). You are not supposed to PLAY like a solver. or rather you are supposed to play like it until you have a reason to deviate. But in order to fully exploit your opponent you first need to understand what he is doing wrong. only when you know what would be optimal for villain you truly know how he deviates from optimal. and only when you know what would be optimal (solver / gto) for Hero you know how to deviate from optimal in order to exploit your villain.

i.e. if you open 2.5bb from BTN and you know SB should 3 bet 15% vs your open size in an optimal strategy and you know what your optimal Call/4B strategy looks like, you then can deviate from that when i.e. villain is only 3 betting 8% SB vs BTN. you start flatting hands that usually would be 4b gii. also you widen your open raise range from the btn because SB is not defending enough vs your steal attempt. if BB also 3 bets less than optimal you can widen up your range again and steal probably something like 70% (depending on how far the blinds deviate from optimal)

^good post. Particularly the Final Thought.


This is why I don't discuss post-flop.

You aren't IP. You are OOP vs the cold-caller. That's what makes it a fold. If there was no cc IP on you, then it's a call, but with the cc IP it becomes 4bet or fold (in truth, I would likely flat 99-TT).

better lucky than goood!!!

I mean, I understand the point, but we are almost basically IP since CO will play like a wet noodle most ott imo

I don't understand. This is basically the simplest spot of all time. Why are we trying to make this so complicated? Playing like a calling station vs an OOP squeeze not closing action encouraging a multi way pot where we are OOP with 77 from these positions is terrible. Who are you trying to convince that this is correct, yourself, or other players?

probably the best thing ive read in easily a couple of weeks. i actually downloaded the trail of snowie and preflop is fold 100%, flop is check 100%, turn is call 100%, river is fold 100%. so i basically butchered the hand. according to snowie ( i uploaded around 4k hands or whatever the max for the trial is) i play at a intermediate level. i made 165 mistakes but only 9 blunders and cost myself (-$192) in EV. my overall EV according to snowie was (-.01)/hand. my actual EV bb/100 is 14.6bb/100 over that same 4k sample.

super interesting that's for sure! but out of my price range for now. i will save up and purchase as i can see exactly what it does and how it would apply now that zuko explained solver in that manner. i appreciate the help because you don't HAVE to explain anything..but you did so thanks for dropping some knowledge

Listen, obviously a check is standard on the flop. But this does not in any way account for the fact that a fish will not be checking overpairs nearly as much as a reg. In other words a fishes checking range here will be much weaker than a balanced reg. In this instance it makes sense to throw in some very small bets on the flop to get value from his broadways/protect our equity.

Solvers won't account for the imbalanced ranges of our opponents. They are obviously very good baselines but to some extent you have to think for yourself in real time. If you know people's ranges are messed up then I would advocate not playing like a solver suggests.

It's kind of strange people just automatically default to "solver says" without actually considering the opponent. There's a lot of money to be made by just exploiting people's massive range imbalances. It does not even take knowing what is an optimal strategy to know where a villain is going wrong most of the time. I don't need a solver to tell me that villain should not be raise calling A7o UTG v MP as it is minus EV. If you are not beating the micros without a solver then you aren't paying attention.
Food for thought..

I do like snowie but you need to understand it is not s a solver. GTO+ is a solver, Pio is a solver. not saying snowie is bad. just saying it is not solver... snowie advise comes from expierence, playing against many different opponents, not from countering its own strategy.

You are welcome

It is really impressive you do not need a solver for that. Guess what . If everyone would still raise/call A7o in any position (not even EP vs MP) we would all be f****** rich.

Some people play stakes above 5NL / 10NL and have to battel some actual competition. some people even want to move up to higher stakes. Some people have the actual motivation to study a lot and improve a lot in this game. I know you dont (because you said that in your other thread !) . But some people do. So why dont you just accept that?

Just by this sentence, me (and everyone here who is using solvers) know that you have absolutely no idea what sovlers are doing and how they work.

Didn't realise an A2o squeeze was 'actual competition'. Maybe I need to move up and see this competition.

I never said I have no desire to improve/study. I said I have no desire to play and continuously try to play my A game. I said in the meantime I will study until this desire comes back. At least read it properly.

Where have I not accepted people studying/getting better? Now your just making **** up. I am merely advocating that in this exact spot I think a small bet might be an exploit that makes more money than a standard check (having already stated a check is 100% standard). It's very boring when people twist words as I always advocate studying/improving.

Obviously they do if you input them in. But doubt you had input that this type villain is very likely to check most of his air and bet most of his overpairs? What does this solver say for this? (not that it really matters)...

My whole point is if you give people balanced ranges who do not have balanced ranges then you are going to be given solutions that are not as profitable as other lines. Why would we always play optimal versus fish?

Again...if you need a solver to tell you how to beat a fish then your not paying attention and are for sure ignoring some very profitable lines. I think everyone should learn a balanced strategy as a default. This does not mean we play a balanced strategy versus every opponent.

Yes and no. Most of Snowie's "experience" comes from playing trillions of hands vs itself while constantly iterating it's strategy to whatever it calculates has the highest EV versus it's own constantly iterated strategy. It makes mistakes (mostly on later streets) because of only having a handful of "allowed" bet sizings, etc.