tombos21

Interesting video.

If a -EV “mistake” is the highest EV move in the long term due to metagame tactics, then it’s not actually a mistake but the correct exploitative strategy and, therefore, +EV.

Reframing the timeline from one hand to a lifetime of hands resolves the paradox of -EV metagame moves.

EV in solvers is displayed in "big blinds per hand". You multiply by 100 to get bb/100. This is the expected value of some strategy given the assumption that you've run into this spot.

But we're getting into that situation just a small fraction of the times, so my question is: Is this conversion of any use?

Yes, the impact of that one spot would be minimal on your overall win rate. But consider what happens when you repeat that experiment for every possible spot.

One thing to be cautious of is that most sims are not run to high accuracy. For example, if you solve to 0.5% of the pot, and the starting pot is 6bb, then your sim is only accurate to +- 3 bb/100. A lot of people try these EV comparisons and neglect to solve to an adequate accuracy.

EV is displayed in big blinds per hand. Multiply by 100 to get bb/100.

Looking at the URL this appears to be NL50 6max with a 2.5bb open from UTG? It's much easier to see the EV using the Strategy+EV view in the solution browser:

Playing only 7.5% of hands is ridiculously tight UTG. Maybe that's okay as a low-stakes exploit but feels very nitty. I'd recommend shaving off any hand less than 0.02bb if you want to play tight.

The GTO range for a LJ high-rake 3bb open looks strange. It's very top-heavy / blocker-heavy as the solver assumes you'd only really get action if someone 3bets. So the solver optimizes for hands that block 3bets rather than postflop playability.

I don't recommend this above range in practice. But that's the answer a solver will give if you ask it how to open 3bb from LJ in a high-rake scenario.

Your nitty 7.5% open might be a decent exploit if your opponents don't fold too much. I generally recommend opening tighter from EP than GTO recommends, as the low-stakes population doesn't fold enough preflop. But 7.5% is very tight.

I love a good poker experiment!

QQ and JJ are the same hand here. As long as the overall bluff:value ratio is correct the strategy is unexploitable. In practice, the reason the solver mixes many hands is to improve board coverage and minimize blocker weaknesses.

As an example, try giving the defender KQs and KJs instead of KK. These bluff-catchers interact with the QQ/JJ bluffs, forcing them to bluff the same proportion of each. If you only bluff QQ then the defender can exploit you by calling KJs and folding KQs.