Solver is meh about overbet size and prefers just normal sizing.

though basically same EV.

was your solver developed in the 19th century because you're telegraphing river

On January 17 2022 19:12 Santafairy wrote: was your solver developed in the 19th century because you're telegraphing river

Of by telegraphing you mean I only rep 8x for value with this size, it doesn't matter theory-wise so as long as I have enough/not too many bluff combinations for what I'm repping. At least thats my understanding of poker.

what hands do you think you have here?

On January 18 2022 09:14 Santafairy wrote: what hands do you think you have here?

Idk why don't u just go ahead and get to your point instead of being all cryptic about a spot I already said solver prefers a normal sizing.

my point is if you play the rest of the range that you're supposed to have here differently then it's useless

the solver is telling you what to do on river? what about how you got there?

On January 18 2022 13:45 Santafairy wrote: my point is if you play the rest of the range that you're supposed to have here differently then it's useless the solver is telling you what to do on river? what about how you got there?

U realize even simplified strategies will have at least 2 bet sizes on river, sometimes 3.

U can have 8x along with condensed value range in a normal sizing and have a polarized range with 8x only as value for overbet size and I don't think there's anything wrong with that theory wise.

That being said solver likes just having 1 bet size on river. Buts it has it has 0 ev bet -0.01ev overbet at superlow freq. There's nothing wrong theoretically with this size.

size should be 0 if all your value hands have bet a previous street

and if you never lead until river on this runout you're a retard

On January 18 2022 15:21 Santafairy wrote: size should be 0 if all your value hands have bet a previous street and if you never lead until river on this runout you're a retard

Lol...so ur saying all if my 8x should have bet already.

The retard is you cause that is obviously retarded.

yes, that would be retarded, which is why i believe it's what you'd do

you posting this and going "wew i checked the solver and it says the size should be a little smaller" is fucking masturbatory bullshit

>win hand
>pretend to be enlightened kasparov who analyzes wins too and conclude your size is slightly less than perfect
wow great play bro

this would be like pierce brosnan opening a handsome blog and uploading a picture of himself being 12/10 and going "do you think a windsor was right here or should i have used a half windsor instead"

except instead of being the high stakes beauty of pierce brosnan you're more in seth rogen attractiveness stakes which makes this hand dumb as fuck

you can call me exploitable but i insta call shit like this all day with any pair or ace and it's always right because the river bet screams "I am a Retard who is Pokering by Bluffing and then Jerking Myself Off with a Solver Afterwards"

look in your HH for this texture runner runner gutshot with FD and see what you're doing. what i think doesn't matter. i don't play this way. look for yourself so you can know

Lol I'm not saying that at all.

Not going to debate u any further if u think leading 100% of all 8x on turn is a reasonable strategy idk what to say. You are obviously wrong lol...

never said that get your fucking eyes checked

popcorn.gif