SikBluffBruh

Is your last response Pierre in regards to my over-calling question? Bc there definetely is a known frequency to over calling, I just dont know how to go about figuring out the math behind what it is. However you will definetly hear players make statements like "if you start calling with x hands youre going to be over calling too much"..
Its the same statement used as over bluffing but the opposite obviously

" Do keep in mind that this does not keep in mind future play. If these betsizes are done with more action possible (such as on the flop) then the frequencies are not so easy to calculate. "

If turn and river bet are both full pot bets would it just be .33x.33? ....... (11%)??

" However, his main concern (at this point in his explanation) was to avoid ending up at the river with a range that contains many more bluffs than he can profitably bet. "

Well how is he figuring this out ? Is this just manual math hes done in specific spots over and over and just memorized it or???

Do you know the formula to go about figuring something like this out?

If both turn and river bet is full pot would it just be .33x.33? ....(11%)?

Well if thats the case, then why in Polks hand does he state bluffing 4 or 5 combos out of 26, meaning only bluffing 15-19% on a pot sized bet when youre stating you should have 33.3% bluffs in a pot sized bet?

Also, on the flip side what is the math behind over-calling?

For ex, with top pairs\mid pair\low pair etc, youre going to call some but fold others, examples of better ones to call with may be higher kickers\blockers etc,
But how can we figure out the math behind the total amount needed to call before one can claim youre over-calling?

Thanks for your response

Is it a annual memership like HM3 or a 1 time purchase? Ive looked on PTracker site trying to find out but see nothing about it being annual.

"You can run a sim with multple betsizes to see which sizing it prefers and the EV of that size."

Yes where can you find the ev difference of each size so I know which size is best to use?

Yes, I didnt know iI just needed to insert the commas, Thank You.
However, now I notice it takes too long to run one sim using two diff bets sizes, so I mys well run one sim with one bet size and another with another bet size, exactly the way ive been doin all along. Unfortunate.
P.s. Is there anyway to tell the difference between ev between what bet size is better?

" Why not make one solve where both betsizes are available and see which size is preferred? "

YES!
Apparently Piosolver does this,
can GTO+ not do this as well??

" Do you mean running a solve with 2 betsizes and seeing within that solve the difference of EV for each betsize option? "

Yep absolutely, this is what im trying to get at

Hey Robbiish.
Since my game focuses primarily on heads up nlhe sngs ive been thinking deeper about this post and after re-reading it, the part about having higher ev with a bigger raise stuck out to me this time vs your other comment.

So I ran the solver again and looked at the ev differences and yes, the ev does very slightly* go up with some of the more premium heads up hands (Ex. Qts kto etc) when you rfi bigger.

But the remaining hands in your entire range also slightly lose ev.

I even took it a step further and ran a opening 5x raise, compared, and seen the same results,
Premiums gained ev again slightly more while also losing ev on the remaining entirety of combos.
An interesting note tho about opening to 5x the solver really starts to mix up raising and limping frequencies with MANY* hands. (Ex. Kk will raise 73% of time and limp the rest)
Im sure its pretty obvious why...
But if not id imagine its bc the higher you rfi the more polarizing your range will tend to get.

Anyway, I dont think theres enough swing in ev one way or another to really say one of those rfi's vs another is better without adding up all the total ev for the entire ranges vs one another.
Which would mean me having to add and subtract each hand manually in the holdemresources calculator since the calculator doesnt do it automatically.
Im not going to do that but just based on the eyes I dont think one is really going to be that much more profitable then the other.
Tho in real life id use the 5xrfi strategy last out of all 3 options bc that strategy would be most difficulyto employ bc like I said, it really starts getting tricky with raising many* certain hands x% of time while limping them the other % of times.

One last thing to remind you guys and factor in that I briefly mentioned before is that holdemresources calculator does not take into effect your true "equity realization" like the more sophistocated solver "simple preflop" does. Now im not sure how "simple preflop factors in actual accurate* true equity realization when it doesnt run every single postflop board and action. But my understanding is that, considering any effect of equity realization is more accurate then only considering raw equity.

Thank you for writing out the thorough explanation\math.

Here ya go bro. Opening range of 2xbb in one pic highlighted, and opening range of 3.5bb highlighted in the other.
For what its worth imo my default is 2xbb raise heads up and bump it up to 3x when im confident opponent is just abusing calling every hand &/+ the more comfortable I am against opponent, stack to pot sizes etc. etc.
(hu sngs stack to pot sizes constantly changing)
But even if played cash I cant imagine opening to 3.5 unless its a pretty loose fish/bad player

" If you use a 3.5bb you have to open a tighter range."

Weird bc according to holdem resources calculator of a gto solution (barring some minor bottom of range equity realization hands) it shows that the gto solution is opening wider with a 3 x raise vs 2x.
(Im sure will be the case for 3.5 as well if I ran it)

" It is not a scientific or purely mathematical point. "

Seems like Y could still find a gto solution by tweaking his range and or postflop strategy to counter x for bluffing too much, as well as for Z when Y calls wider simply using math/nash including still not being exploited preflop....
& too the point that neither could proftiably counter against Y.

I do appreciate the example though

" However the devil is in the detail. A nash equilibrium is defined as a situation where no single player can improve their EV by unilaterally changing their strategy. If two players do it, however all bets are off – the key word in the definition is unilaterally)."

I dont see why the third party being cooperative in POKER makes any difference, maybe for other games that are more scientific and infinite. But thats not the case with poker which can be entirely math based and limited.

Can you simplify to me why if we know opponents strategy (or ranges), while also knowing they are going to play a gto strategy...why there is easily not a gto solution against them no matter how many opponents there are so long as they dont adjust (open themselves up to being exploited while also opening us up to exploitation if we dont adjust).........?

Whether or not there is 3 or more makes absolute no sense to me what so ever.

If three players players A, B, & C play rock paper scissors for money, using a GTO strategy..

And so A, B, & C equally randomize what they throw so not to be exploited bc every other player will also be throwing equally randomly.
then each player will win 33% of the time while being paid 2:1 on their wins thus breaking even for a GTO based strategy.

you could take this example and apply it to many many multiple opponents/& or poker as well. As long as you know every persons range and that theyre playing a GT.
I dont see whats making it even questionable a gto strategy exist for 6max,9 max, etc

I don't know what you mean exactly by "cooperate" but if we know what their squeeze range (along with other players ranges in the pot+ranges+that theyre playing gto) is and that they are playing gto vs our range then we should be able to still find* a mathematical gto solution vs them at 6 max

" I'm still not buying in to the idea that snowie ranges are so exploitatively tight that we could just go crazy againts them. Maybe you could provide an example of a snowie strategy that you think is highly exploitable preflop? "

Oh idk, take the example like belrio42 mentioned below. Where we make our range a range that's very* loose to where all 5 other players who are using a snowie like range are not comfortable/experienced on how to play against us and do not/fail to adjust. All the while weve already solved/studied how to play proper gto against their ranges (snowie).

Would that not exploit them heavily?

I think what hes saying Samu is if I change my range from a range they are playing optimal (GTO) against, (ex. loosening it up drastically) unless the the opposition adjusts correctly and quickly*, their previous/(still current) optimal strategy will no longer be optimal, and can be exploited

" I don't know about others, but I use Snowie ranges often because they're free, pretty reasonable, and pretty convenient. "

Gotcha, appreciate the response.

" As for Snowie's tightness, there's nothing wrong with playing a bit tight at the micros/low-stakes. "

Are we sure about this? This used to be the case in the past. But in the past players were MEGA loose at low stakes. But they've tightened up significantly. Online poker is tough as nails today...even the micro stakes. a .01-.02 cent game is almost certainly tougher to beat then a live $1-2 game.

So whats making Snowie's 6max preflop range so commonly suggested?

" You say that the snowie ranges are tight. I'm not sure if they are? Compared to what? "

Compared to the past...I think this is the tightest times Ive ever seen these kind of starting ranges suggested. Hands Down

" That said snowie preflop ranges are considered to be pretty good and in fact I often recommend them as a starting point for players who are asking advice for preflop."

If snowie's range has nothing to do with even the thought of being close to GTO....Then what makes it so commonly suggestable?

And what would stop a player from playing a highly looser range/inputting it into a gto tree against a table of players whose range is pretty identical to snowies and just wrecking them since snowies suggestions are going to be to tight on how to counter?

But I thought snowie's 6max preflop range was considered very close to preflop gto I should have stated so thats why it is suggested to go ahead and use.

If not why is it the suggested preflop range to use?...Especially if regulars already know the mass population regs use it and has exploitable holes in it because they are playing SO tight.

Also, What is the difference between nash equilibrium and gto/solved?

" Poker Holdem No Limits is not GTO solved not even for heads-up although we know that for heads-up there is a GTO strategy. "

" And if we knew human players are generally not capable of playing perfectly by e.g. only 3 betting 65.734% of the time with a certain holding from a certain position against a certain position against a certain raise size etc. "

So its not really that it cant be solved for 6max, its that its simply unknown....and furthermore practically impossible to ever completely remember and apply in real time as a human...correct?/just to clarify

No, maybe I dindt explain myself well.

What I meant by minimizing loss is I might for example have a average ev/stack size of $7.00 if I fold to his 5 bet vs calling it and then having say $8.00 average ev/stack.

So I understand your point there.
But thats still not profit when I had $10.00 at the start of the hand

Where as if I just call the 3-bet and play a hand as big as ak in pos against a super tight abc player I might end up with a average ev/stack size of $10/$10+

No?