BootsMollie

So when the EV difference is within the Nash distance I would ignore things like this; in a sense there is no hard evidence that a bet with QJo yields a higher expectation than a bet will with QJs. The Nash distance could be seen as a kind of 'grey area' in what the solver 'knows'

0.3345(55) = 0.183975
11.03 - 10.88 = 0.15

If you solve further and the EV difference becomes significant with respect to the solve accuracy then I would just guess it is some subtle blocking effect (that you should probably still not worry about)

What is the pot size, how accurate is the solve and what is the EV difference between betting for a suited combo and an offsuit combo

Agree with Ryan - I believe Pio doesn't want to split its range, leaving its small bet or check back range less protected. Pio uses the advantages IP has to allow them to over realise equity with their full range rather than going thicc with one part and playing other parts differently

Same deal as with a lot of boards people simplify to 1/3 on in SRP IP vs BB; because BB can't check raise effectively IP gets to bet everything. I believe splitting range allows BB to check raise vs the small bet and solver calculates that more EV is captured overall by merging

I don't care what kind of videos you make so long as they have stupid cartoons and amateur animations

ok cool sorry I got confused.

I think that a solver would mix between calling and 3betting flop, solvers do like to 3bet hands like this just because you have so much equity

Against a good player I reckon jamming turn is probably the play, and what a solver would tell you to do most often.

There's an EV calc you could do but given that against e.g. tens no diamond you have so many outs you only need him to fold a small percent of the time to make it profitable.

I imagine against range you're in decent shape so in your shoes I'd just put him to the test/ deny equity if he does have the open ender or diamonds himself.

could solve for you if you don't own the software, pretty cool hand

I think you just want to check call down on this runout

don't know if you have any player pool reads in your games that would change this though

as played I'd probably fold somewhere along the way

Is this a button straddle or UTG? If it's UTG, did the button call and all the blinds fold or the big blind (meaning the 2nd blind) call or did the straddle call? Or did BTN and BB both call but the BTN just folded the flop?

Pretty disappointing

I came for some origami instruction

Yeah maybe I've got to try to remember/ understand that making a mistake is sort of being shown an area where there is room for growth, and treat that as a positive. Thank you for the reply :)

Yeah Jared does talk about a specific kind of tilt he calls 'mistake tilt' doesn't he. I am a bit of a perfectionist in other aspects of life so obviously that is being brought to poker. Thanks for the reply :)

Thanks for your reply, easier said than done of course but still good advice! :)

I don't play in your games so I can't help there but I'd be jnterested in going over some Pio stuff (analysis/developing heuristics/simplifications/etc) if you would like

100NL cash on Ignition, don't really play their fast fold format though

edit: I have Pio pro though not edge so if you were wanting to do preflop stuff I can not assist :(

The reason a solver will like to bet small with high frequency in some scenarios is it allows you to merge your range and increase betting frequency..

Using a polarized flop strategy has a drawback in that your checking range will be capped.

This will generally give your opponent a polarization advantage on future streets which allows them to gain EV, provided stacks are deep. (As SPR approaches infinity the more polarized player actually approaches capturing 100% of the pot, if you were interested. Remember to play with infinite money at all times)

By taking some of the hands that would have checked as part of a polarized betting strategy and turning them into small bets, you reduce your checking frequency and negate some of the disadvantage of checking a capped range.

Highly suggest looking at some toy games (e.g. 222 2 3 where one player has AA, QQ and the other has KK, then from there look at turn situations on the same board where one player maybe has AA-44 and the other QQ-66 or similar) which will show you how being polarized/capped etc affects strategy.

Of course! For a recent solver based work though I don't think anything compares at the moment

Although for something only on cbetting maybe yes look elsewhere as well

akissv7 is good to mention the effect of range advantage on cbetting strategy
The equity of two players' ranges on a certain board should be the overriding factor that dictates the frequency with which each player bets.
Note that leading is included in an optimal strategy more frequently when the caller has an equity advantage; solvers don't care about who the aggressor was on the previous street, they only care about EV.
Polarization is also a factor; although it bears more on bet sizing than frequency.

Although bets are commonly described as for value or as a bluff, Michael Acevedo points out in his book that a bet being a value bet or a bluff is actually a result of the bet, and not the reason to bet. If you 'value' bet the 2nd nuts on the river, and your opponent calls with the nuts, was your bet a value bet? If you turn 3rd pair into a bluff, and your opponent hero calls with worse, was that a bluff?
He goes on to say that there are two reasons to bet - to realize equity, or to prevent your opponent realizing equity. A value bet is actually just made to realize equity, and a bluff prevents your opponent realizing equity.
This description also covers other kinds of bets - for example, a block bet. A block bet helps to realize equity, because although it is somewhat likely you get called by a better hand, you only had to pay x amount to show down rather than a larger amount.
Also, a cbet with 99 on Q75 could be called a block, and/or a bet that essentially avoids turning your hand or range face up (to quote Galfond). If you check back every underpair, your opponent can play many turns very aggressively and thereby prevent you realizing equity. Betting 33% with 99 as well as the stronger parts of your range helps to realize equity.

As far as deciding which hands to bet and which to check, one consideration should be board coverage (I think range diversity is another term)
.For example, if you never check top pair, and the turn pairs the top card, again your opponent can play very aggressively and you will have a hard time defending on future streets.

I think that going through some different flops with some kind of equity calculator should be very helpful to get an idea of how different boards interact with ranges.

At the table, it is useful also to think about the distribution of hand strengths in each player's ranges - when you 3bet the BTN vs LJ and the board comes 653, your opponent should have all the sets and you will have few, (if you are 3betting good ranges) leading to a lot of checking back and betting small - your opponent should be more polarized than you meaning that many of your hands don't want to commit a large amount and get raised.

Highly recommend Modern Poker Theory where Michael has done a lot of work and data analysis to present some really useful concepts and heuristics on this (and every aspect of the game)