![]() You don't just add up some numbers PREFLOP and then assume a flop/turn/river and all your opponent's actions.Īre you saying that if you always bet $50 on the flop and move in $185 on the turn, you will have a higher EV if you do it against the one guy who called $25 (and probably folds on the flop) than if you do it against the four small stakes players (where it is almost four times as likely you will get called on the flop). Go read Noam Brown's research paper for when he programmed pluribus to understand how solvers work but napkin math is not how you prove AA is better 4 ways than 1. And you can't assume you automatically get to showdown. There are MULTIPLE equilibria in MW pots, that means one person can unilaterally increase or decrease your EV and you may have zero defense vs that strategy. Sklansky, you don't understand multiway pots. AA NEVER wants 4 callers compared to 1 caller if given the option between the two, this has literally already been proven to high confidence levels. ![]() ![]() This excerpt sounds like it was written in 1975, and it would probably not be bad for that time period. Did Sklansky just use napkin math to prove that AA prefers 4 callers to 1 caller? Without understanding concepts like position and implied odds? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |