Yeah, it's kind of weird node like QQ is definitely a good hand, but I still lose somewhere between 6-12% when called.

I'm not huge fan checkraising the lower broadway flushes, because the card removal is pretty bad, like he might bet KsQo and that's the bet fold range. Additionally, if we do face a change sometimes we just have 22% equity against the nut flush and that isn't much fun either. I'm sure in technical sense at the right frequency it's fine though.

I don't have subscription, but they have free preflop ranges and they seem to have an impact on how people are approaching preflop play.

Yeah, I mean as computer models go they are as strong as any. There's some deviations I use in early position play away from the computer models because the 5-6 handed models are a worse approximations (nash equilibrium means something else multiway and doesn't get the same guarantees).

Not sure what you mean by this. A Nash equilibrium always means the same thing. No player may unilaterally improve his equity (key being unilaterally). Or do you mean the fact that these algorithms do not converge to a Nash equilibrium (they converge to a coarse correlated equilibrium although these are still strong strategies).

That said what makes you sure that your deviations are better than the solve? Empirical data? I guess that get tied in with an effective population exploit as well.

Holonomy

Okay, so I'm going to try to make this a little more readable. Basically, empirical analysis is always going to be a key part of the game, because a nash equilibrium isn't a maximum value strategy. It leaves money on the table against particularly terrible players. Obvious example is rock paper scissors, nash is to play 1/3rd rock, 1/3rd scissors, 1/3rd paper. We play against some who only plays rock. We tie with this player using nash. An exploitative strategy wins 100%. The 2nd reason is a bit more esoteric and I go into detail below about it.

The nash equilibrium is built from 5 other strategies which guarantees that the 6th strategy can't unilaterally improve. If one of the those 5 strategies isn't play the nash equilibrium strategy, the equilibrium response for the other 4 players change.

Since the equilibrium response is never played by 5 players at the table at one time, our response as hopefully one of the nash equilibrium players changes.

This means that there is an infinite number of nash equilibrium strategy pairs in 6-hand. Since there's an infinite number, there is effectively no individual nash equilibrium strategy in 6-max.

5 players could band together to make one side of the nash equilibrium, but I can't imagine playing in that game other than for study.

I'm not against using computer simulation as a base for 6 max poker, but you should be aware that the computer model is a model. And to quote George Box: "All models are wrong, some are useful".

You can see this in the scientific literature on poker bots. The headsup bot was killer winning something like 50bb/100 against a set of poker "pros". The 6-max bot won something like 4bb with a clear recreational player in the game.

so there's only about 11-12 value combos, 8x is a rarely turn bet and Jx is a rare river bet on the 8. I need 33% equity so he needs to find 4-5 combos of bluffs. A2s,A3s,A6s,A7s,T9s,QTs,KQo,KTs are all candidates with a heavy preference on no-spades.

And I think if you start clicking through a polarized bluff-range that is weighted away from spades -- that AsKs here is actually better here than TT.

The key here on the call and this absolutely key is that we need reg with a polarized range, because against rec he might erratically bluff 22 here, so we actually lose to some bluffs.

And I think if you start clicking through a polarized bluff-range that is weighted away from spades -- that AsKs here is actually better here than TT.

Shocking when I first read this, but makes sense double blocking the bluffing range.

I'm assuming he can hand read, but turning top pair into a bluff is pretty absurd at 5 preflop spr. You are betting A6s,A5s to make AJ,AT indifferent, which the range is so small, the ev add is going to be really really small.

Maybe I was off on counts, but it's pretty hard to get to enough bluffs here even with 65s being jammed. I get come up with 87 (3 combos) 65 2 combos, 76s as bluffs and even with those and no AK bets, AT has 27% equity and it needs 29%.

Any pair with a heart.

Is 5x (straight) ever folding? Standard 4x XR size?

Assumedly that's what you're trying to bluff. If you think it could, then you should bluff, if you think it doesn't then don't

Thanks TruePower!

Yeah pretty lucky.

Tough spot though the Jack is better for him. Lots of ways to bluff.

Very Lucky

Yeah those 2 combos happen sometimes.

People like to bluff and raising keeps them from bluffing so flatting is basically always preferred with something this strong.