Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="fundiver199, post: 6890290, member: 397965"] For me the goal should not be to try to copy the solver 100%. That is almost humanly impossible to do in real time, because there are so many partials and so many different postflop situations. So for me the goal is to check, if I am completely outside the decision tree of the solver, and if the solver does something, I would not have thought of. And in this case folding preflop is in fact to tight. But of course if I had HUD-data telling me, the opponent was a TAG or NIT, then it would be reasonable to fold the bottom on the GTO defending range. But I should know, I was doing an exploit and have a reason to do it. On the flop for me the most interesting part is, that the solver leads with your hand 70% of the time, and actually does a lot of leading with its overall range around 30% of the time. This is something, I think, many of us completely miss out on, because we are stuck in the "always check to the preflop raiser" mentality. But there are boards and configurations like this one, where its correct to do a lot of leading, and if we dont try to work that into our game to some extent, we are leaving money on the table. But again if the opponent is over C-betting, and I have HUD-data showing this, then maybe its fine to not have a leading range and instead check-raise him more, as my instinct was. But once again I should have that information and know, that I am deviating from GTO, and why I am doing it. The problem here is, that the GTO opponent check this flop back quite a lot, and this mean, we dont get a chance to attack some of his Q high, K high or A high with a check-raise. Which we kind of want, since all those hands are currently ahead of our J high. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language