Hello,

Quite a doubt here using GTO+ as in his book Matthew Janda shows that against a half pot cb opponent should defend at least 66.7% of the time to prevent his opponent from being able to profitably cb any two cards (1/(1+p) when p is the cb in % of the pot).
Whereas in that screenshot GTO+ give an overal defence of 63% and the cb is even smaller (47.5% pot).
How to explain this contradiction ? Who'm is mistaken GTO+ or Janda ? Can someone run the simulation in PIO ? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, thanks for your help

PIO is gonna give similar answer to GTO+. The ranges you set up don't allow for OOP to defend at a 66% frequency profitably. If you made OOP range stronger it could defend at that frequency.
A question you might have is why IP doesn't cbet at 100% freq since he autoprofits.
Try locking IP range to cbet 100% frequency and you will see that his overall EV decreases. OOP will also raise more as an exploit.

What kind of mega nit is flatting QQ and 14 combos of AK vs a CO open

The idea of defending a certain percentage is to stop the other player from being able to bet 100% of the time, turning an immediate profit. If one player is already able to bet 100% of the time unexploitably, such as the PFR on Axx flop, minimum defense frequency is not relevant.

Short explanation please? Like how could player doing anything 100% AND be unexploitable?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Haha okay it turned out that vilain has shown AKo at showdown so trying to guess what could be is defense range in bb vs my co open I put all AKo, half of AKs and QQ

So Renekton I've tried to do it and here is the result :
Quite surprisingly it seems that cbeting 33% as GTO suggests EV of IP player is 2.93 and with a 100% cb IP player EV is 2.92, just dropped from 0.01...

The calculation I've made to get the second one is 1.62x0.616 + 5.30x0.363 as 1.62 is the EV GTO+ gives when the cb is called which occurs 61.6% (EV of 4.14 in the turn as you can see in the file from which you need to subtract the cb to have the EV on the flop when called : 4.14 - 2.52 = 1.62) of the time and when OOP folds IP wins the pot of 5.30 36.3% of the time and I just have considered an EV of 0 when OOP raises the flop which seems accurate knowing that IP is cbeting 100%.

What do you think about that result ? Do you see a mistake in that reasoning ? Or maybe it just means that whereas IP plays GTO on the turn he may cb from 33% to 100% without big difference of EV ?

There exists many situations in which a player may not be meeting their MDF and this conclusion should be readily made by anyone with critical thinking skills. No need for a solver to prove this.

Can someone elaborate more on that?

MDF is only determined by Bet Size and Pot Size, as that's all we need to calculate it

For example if villain Cbet 100% of his range useing 33% pot bet we need to defend 75% of our range
And if he Cbet 100% of his range useing 50% pot bet we need to defend 67% of our range

In both cases villain Cbetting 100% but we need to defend differently

His statement is such that if the PFR can bet at very high frequencies it is due to a positional and/or range advantage such that if the opponent attempted to meet the MDF they would be losing more chips on average when compared to folding slightly more. See first post for one such example.

For example, assuming the BB defends a reasonable range then in most cases the PFR in position can bet on most textures with any two cards and profit--the BB cannot meet the MDF.

I feel as though it is worth explicitly stating that MDF =/= GTO.

Wow you are smart you type like some kind of person with a big nose.

#MAGA