this is a little bit off-topic, but the icmizer results confuse me quite a bit.
although i think i understand the concepts of ur examples.
in 6:24 we see the bt shoving range has to be pretty wide with 63% (surprisingly including e.g. 93s, 73s, 96o, 86o) when sb and/or bb calling ranges are somewhat standard (bb calling 29% when sb folding).
9:15 u talk about a bt 'ok'-shoving range of 41%.
(besides, compared to the result from 6:24, can we call a 22% or 1/3 less than the optimal shoving range still 'ok'?)
and in this case bb's optimal calling range would be 31%.
so the button shoving range decreased from 63% to 41% means 22% tighter, which results in bb's calling range getting 2% looser!?!?
but it general u said, and this is my logic as well, if someone is shoving wider than optimal, we have to call wider too, which is contrary to the results.
this is a little bit off-topic, but the icmizer results confuse me quite a bit.
although i think i understand the concepts of ur examples.
in 6:24 we see the bt shoving range has to be pretty wide with 63% (surprisingly including e.g. 93s, 73s, 96o, 86o) when sb and/or bb calling ranges are somewhat standard (bb calling 29% when sb folding).
9:15 u talk about a bt 'ok'-shoving range of 41%.
(besides, compared to the result from 6:24, can we call a 22% or 1/3 less than the optimal shoving range still 'ok'?)
and in this case bb's optimal calling range would be 31%.
so the button shoving range decreased from 63% to 41% means 22% tighter, which results in bb's calling range getting 2% looser!?!?
but it general u said, and this is my logic as well, if someone is shoving wider than optimal, we have to call wider too, which is contrary to the results.
July 13, 2017 | 9:53 a.m.