Don't mix it up.
What I mean when I say this, is that you should always strive towards being able to make pure decisions. 100% left, or 100% right, 100% call, or 100% fold.
What I mean when I say this, is that you should always strive towards being able to make pure decisions. 100% left, or 100% right, 100% call, or 100% fold.
In solver world, many hands get played in many different ways and at a certain frequency.
This is very important since the solver plays vs the solver in a world of complete information, so it will know and take advantage of its opponent never or always playing a hand in a certain way.
When you play vs a perfect strategy, everything is close, because your opponent is playing perfect. EV’s therefor in either bet or check for example show same results.
This is very important since the solver plays vs the solver in a world of complete information, so it will know and take advantage of its opponent never or always playing a hand in a certain way.
When you play vs a perfect strategy, everything is close, because your opponent is playing perfect. EV’s therefor in either bet or check for example show same results.
In real life though, nobody plays perfect which means we have an opportunity to make better decisions.
The truth is that most of the time a bet or check is not close, and the better players realize this, and go and find the answer so they can choose the better option more often.
Now we can't know it all in every spot, so if we have no further reads about the spot and we have a hand that is close, sure check, call, raise it a certain % of the time.
But this is usually where players stop, they stay in solver world, they are looking to play “correct”, and overrate the importance of board coverage, balance and re-exploitation.
What we should do is mark these situations and go into the lab to see if in the future we can make a pure decision based on what we concluded out of our analyses is the most +EV play in a vacuum.
The truth is that most of the time a bet or check is not close, and the better players realize this, and go and find the answer so they can choose the better option more often.
Now we can't know it all in every spot, so if we have no further reads about the spot and we have a hand that is close, sure check, call, raise it a certain % of the time.
But this is usually where players stop, they stay in solver world, they are looking to play “correct”, and overrate the importance of board coverage, balance and re-exploitation.
What we should do is mark these situations and go into the lab to see if in the future we can make a pure decision based on what we concluded out of our analyses is the most +EV play in a vacuum.
So, are you striving towards playing maximum EV strategies? Or are you stuck in solver world?