Ben Kushigian

Haven't checked the sim but the 32ss is almost certainly not a thing. I agree it's probably indifferent vs 1/4 or 1/5, but even if you hit your straight you might be against a better straight, and possibly a flush.

Hey, I know this is a few years old but I thought I'd chip in! Douggyfr3sh your idea of collusion is basically correct, though I'd phrase it a bit differently.

Nash equilibrium definitely still exist in any poker scenario (Nash's theorem says so, and there's a whole bunch of fancy math to back it up). The problem is, Nash equilibrium aren't what we think they are/want them to be.

We want an equilibrium strategy to mean "no matter what anyone else does I always earn at least X." This is because (a) this is a really nice property, and (b) this is what happens in HU spots.

Equilibrium actually means that "nobody can gain EV by unilaterally changing their strat from an equilibrium strat."

In multiway situations, even if I'm playing an equilibrium strat, player A can deviate and cost me money. Maybe they break even, maybe their deviation actually costs them money! All we know is that if I lose money because player A deviated, that money didn't go to A.

A common example is trying to steal the blinds in a raked game. Suppose I'm supposed to mix raise/fold 76s form the CO and BB is supposed to mix call/fold some set of hands. If instead of mixing call/fold they pure call my hand is not not winning the pot preflop (rake free) that 8% of the time. This means that I'll have to fight for a raked pot, and my break-even hand is now probably -EV.

What's funny is that BB's EV doesn't change, even though they are the ones that deviated! We are paying more in rake, and that is going to the house. But BB's EV stays the same w/ their 0 EV hands, even when they pure call instead of mix call/fold.

So the person playing "GTO" loses money and the person making the mistake gets away without a scratch!

Unless, of course, you counter exploit :)

Also, the fact that there are too many 1/2 pot bluffs means other lines got stronger. For instance, maybe a lot of those extra 1/2 pot bluffs should have been checks; if so, their checking range got a little stronger, though since it's a wide range losing a few combos won't change much. Converselyt, maybe the extra 1/2 pot bluffs should have been overbets; in this case we are removing a few bluff combos from a narrow polar range, and this will drastically change how we should respond. Have you looked at all into where these extra 1/2 pot bluffs are coming from? I'd imagine it's a bit of each?

Hey Frankie, love this video! Was this DB work done on hands from a site like Iggy w/ revealed hole cards? I'm assuming so if you're able to determine bluff percentages but if not I'm curious how you go about interpreting your data when you reach showdown.