I hear you. But to nitpick: looking at ^^^ range (last page) on the right is gto+ adjusting to the wider range pre and choosing to barrel 99/66/44 SDV combos it otherwise wouldn't versus a tigher range. So I'm still not sure about this logic. Perhaps there is some other solver balancing going on.

Understanding why 66 is bet and 65hh is checked is important from a theory standpoint.

But your solve isn't complete since it's playing river like a solver with different preflop ranges. You need to add in how population plays river. Once you do that you will see more turn checking with SDV.

But again I'll go back to the concept point. Why do you think you check turn with 65hh but bet turn with 66?

These are the important takeaways from the hand, we don't care about the mixed frequency minutia we care about why 65hh is always checked.

It's the difference between a frequency mistake vs a fundamental mistake.

Their junk smashed the board. A lot of the whiffs would also have already folded on the flop.

I can see why pair + 6 outs is a better BC to check and realise, yeah.

I can also see the argument for exploiting their poor range construction on the river with MDA. But i can't help but suspect there's still a cutoff point where we start losing EV (by basically hoping for good rivers) when there is a clearer exploit earlier on the turn we know prints?. I'm not sure how you quantify the EV of either scenario because there's just so many variables and assumptions by the river. Plus my understanding is that 3b pot MDA is less stable and we should lean towards GTO (exploit) but i imagine you might suggest otherwise

The solver is the baseline strategy so the burden of proof is on you to show why you are deviating from the solver.

Saying they overfold OTT isn't enough of a reason because we also have overfolds OTR as well.

If you map out MDA population vs GTO frequencies, the biggest discrepancies are usually OTR as a default.

How?. We have about equal amount of sets/2p and then we print with our OPs and TPTK.




As for them overfolding flop i doubt it. Solvers fold TT and below

I'm not saying we should deviate from a solver (i think they're brill) I'm saying we should give the solver as much IRL data/range as possible and then use that instead.

If we know they overfold rivers per MDA, (agreed), then does it even matter which BCs we take with us? EDIT: no wait, that works in favour of checking...

Because they have a ton of Q and J and draws that they aren’t supposed to have in a solver. I didn’t say they overfold either.

You base it on unblocking his air hands that he puts in his river betting range, this is one of main reasons you check back 65hh. We unblock a lot of hands that will have air OTR. You need to realize that our opponent's under check-raising flop is good for us now when we X back turn. They will be wider than they should be.

You are also underestimating how often you can raise here as a bluff OTR after checking back turn. You should look at XC30-X-BF ranges to see how far away from MDF they are.

You need to get all the river data and formulas to figure out what is higher EV between calling and raising. Folding is 0EV but we should never fold based on population data.

yeah, ok. That makes sense


This was all u/Haizemberg's idea anyway. it's 100% his fault

Dude don't think you understand, perhaps i wasnt' clear: that IS a population range, down to the %. I cribbed it using hand2note and figured out the relative frequencies.

If anything it's 2-10nl heavy but that only makes it more fish accurate (which is what newguy is supposedly targetting). They don't call as much pure Q/Jx as you'd think

Don't even get me started on donking. Fish donk 2x more than GTO and now you want to turn SDV into bluffs. That get's you exploited unintentionally by Fish that donk merged on rivers.

But yeah check turn.

Good thread.

I see. What is their fold to 3b %?

CO vs BU I got ~44% whole pool vs 3x.

People don't adapt to low rake environment so just use the 500nl sims

I thought the reason solver x's back the turn with our hand is because it prefers using a large size overall, and that only isolates us against the stronger portion of villain's range?

Can someone test this by only allowing B33 on the turn, and seeing if it changes how often it bets 65s?

Not sure locking turn size solo would be a practical exercise? Solver'll just juggle strat across streets.

But I can tell you given options b33, b75, b150 OTT, it will use b33 some tiny amount (~2%) and that includes a sprinkle (10-15%) of 65s, so that's interesting

Yeah you want to copy the turn ranges from Wizard or do create subtree configuration in Pio

Turn good sim


Turn B33 only


EV gets wrecked

Thanks TBJ

Results

That's funny. Idiot called unblocking 55