Look.
Assume someone in this forum comes up with a set strategy to win with either AA or ATC.
Then there is someone of similar or more intelligence who can adjust to beat this strategy. Etc...

So you're saying it's impossible to tinker with the rules of HU NL such that there exists for one side an unbeatable strategy that is difficult to discover, but once discovered, cannot be overcome by the other side? By 'tinker with the rules' I mean doing things like giving one guy AA every hand, the other guy ATC, prohibiting pf raises, maybe forcing the ATC guy to flash one card randomly if they make it to the turn, or other tweaks of that nature, until you arrive at a modified form of HU NL in which one side should always win once that side uncovers the proper winning strategy, which nonetheless can be quite subtle.

aces would have a gigantic edge in lhe.

jewbinson, some games are solvable for unexploitable strategies that your opponent cannot adjust and defeat. For example, if this were a 10bb game, AA's "set strategy" would be to openshove flops. The value of the game is not 0, and there is no way for someone of equal intelligence to come up with a way to win. Connect four is a game where the person going second can never defeat the first player's unexploitable play. If you play with one card versus the other person's two, the game is not fair, etc etc etc.

Generally; not so long as at least 1 side has a range of hands, and not just 1 hand. Yes. Impossible.

And, even if, as you say, ATC has to flash 1 card OTT, then this gives advantage to... ?
Well, probably slightly to ATC, since the fact he can choose his card to show probably outweighs the advantage AA gets when he knows he is ahead/beat by ATC showing crap/the goods. Interesting, though. Even here, AA can adjust by giving ATC a range of hands. But then ATC can play crap to exploit this etc. etc. Level?

lol you wastes.

a random hand has around 15% equity vs AA.
preflop, we're putting in 1BB.
to make the math easy, let's say we'll lose 6 out 7 times. so thats -6BB.
we win 1 out 7 times. when we're ahead, we just need to win more than 6BB (and there's already 2BB in the pot) for this to be +EV.

simplifying the problem, but the solution is pretty legit.

10BB open shoves all flops. Can't we break even?:
We call the shove always and only with the top 14.796% of our hitting-the-flop range?

But anyway, 100BB gives option for play and strategy.

ATC doesn't lose an average of 1bb when it loses the hand. If it did, it would only win 1bb when it wins the hand. Ducy?

Sigh. jewbinson: 2BBs deep, would you agree that AA has an unexploitable strategy?

If you're levelling, wp.

?
How do we 'win' more than 6BB? If ATC raises to 6BB with AA beat, then AA should just fold. This is the simplest way to beat your strategy.

2BB deep in 1 game, insta-yes. 2 games, yes. 10 of these 2BB games, yes.
In lots, maybe 80+ games, maybe, not sure.


No, because we assume ATC always calls in SB. If not, then he loses for sure.

obv we gotta mix in some bluffs.

If you really think this, I doubt anybody will be able to explain it to you.

ingenious solution.

He didn't include this in his strategy.

lol

Also, if ATC starts playing >15% and bluffing, we can start shoving every hand, even the ones he raises/decides to limp and we will be +EV.

How about doing HUPLO next where you know your opponent always has AAKK or something similar?

Actually, you're right for 2BB. But 10 is different.

AFC would destroy.

Michel: "Right, okay, but seriously, I played for an hour, doing nothing but folding. Then I won a huge pot."

Joey Croissant: "Aces? Kings? Ace-King doublesuited? Suited aces? High connectors? Middle doublesuited connectors? Two big pair?"

Michel: "Rags."

Joey Croissant: "That's probably fine too, you're only like a 48/52 dog."

It's not, but whatever.

Why?

Is it ever right for AA to raise a bet by XX? A lot of boards will be dry, and have AA as 85-90% favourite against an ATC range, but AA really can't value bet, because he's never value owning top pair or smaller overpair as in normal HU play. So he's either going to push XX off their bluff, or put more money in bad. How about wet boards, is there merit for betting and charging XX to draw, or is it still just too dangerous to inflate the pot against what could still be a set/two pair?

And another one. On a T983cccc board, random finally has an equity edge over mers's red aces, so he can fold to a bet here. But as far as TNixon is aware, mers could have the Ac. So could this be one of the few opportunities AA could bluff (call here and bet the river, or raise here)? Of course he could get really owned if TNixon had the Ac.

Because you apparently lack the ability to understand how an unexploitable +EV strategy can be calculated.

The simple fact of the matter is that you will lose more often than you win against AA. The only way you can break even or beat AA, therefore, is if you can win sufficiently large pots the rare times you do win to compensate for your larger losing %. If the stacks are too small, this is impossible.

That's right. And even at 10BB deep. AA is obv shoving all flops. We call when we have top 15% of our range. Why don't we break even?

Flop is Ks8c7d

Which 15% of hands are you calling with?

Actually, answer that question for any flop you feel like answering it on.

Here's a little help.

K8, K7, 87. 27 combos

KK, 88, 77. 9 combos

That's 36 of em. Only 148 more to go. What are they?