Why Solver Would Never Lose a Fight

A Solver doesn't really fight, it's just a piece of software. But if it could indeed fight, it would never lose. In this video I talk about how a solver algorithm can help you survive your next road rage fight - and perhaps help you play better poker strategies as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
✓ If you are looking for a staking deal, or a coaching for profits deal, send an application at www.metagame.p...;
✓ If you want to hire me as a private coach, send an email to [e-mail];
✓ If you want to get in touch with me about doing other types of business, send an email to [e-mail].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Follow me on Instagram: / saulotrcosta
- Follow me on Twitter: / saulocostapoker
- Follow Metagame on Instagram: / metagame.brasil
#poker #pokerstrategy #pokercoaching #onlinepoker #pokermadesimple

[@lipepiv]

Very nice video Saulo! Great editing and content! Only one thing that was missing is showing the defensor's shift in strategy (both in the toy game and the poker hand) to get to the new goal of making other hands indifferent. I believe it just calls a bit more 99/88 in the toy game (which would make 42 now loose as bluff), and in the poker hand IP would also call more with bcatcher in general making Q3 now a pure check ? That's interesting because it shows that the MDF math is also volatile and depends on the removal properties of your opponents bluffs, as we would call a high % of our range in the poker hand if the agressor would have more KQ/KJ. Can you post a print screen (or just the numbers) of calling frequencies in both cases in the poker hand, and the caller's calling strategy ?

[@sharkyjawz1342]

Best video yet! Really like the variety in the content. There's some great stuff being put out lately by yourself & Patrick Howard over at Mobius. Hope the channel continues to grow, not for any altruistic purposes, I just want more content 😈 In the inverse example - our bluffs often modulate to "share cards" w/ value to remove EV from villains catchers.

[@Luckdss2]

Very nice video Saulo!

[@kakofigueiredo6990]

it is interesting to see how sensitive the balanced solutions are, in that same spot if you remove all KQ/KJ from the range, the hands with high card/low card start to bluff at a higher frequency, another interesting point, especially in river spots, is that small frequency errors between call/fold already make very bad bluffs like 53ss become +EV bluffs, or very good bluffs like KQ become -EV, keep up the good work GL

[@seiscero]

Give your video editor a raise, awesome job! BTW how come Max & you have such an awesome english? Bilingual school? Sounds like native english.

[@susymay7831]

🔥 Three Key Things For NLH Success 🔥 1. A strong mental game 2. Put pressure in unexpected spots 3. Exploit the recreational players

[@facesbookses2044]

Awesome content. So in the end when OOP has alot KQ KJ which now are indifferent bluffs in that scenario are OOP gonna step up a notch and start bluffing A high? surley they have to much SDV. So where will the rest of our bluff come from? Will there be just much more mixing with other high card low card combos like J4?

[@sneakerworldromania32]

Good Luck from Romania 🇷🇴🙏🏻

[@taav2518]

Well done, tks a lot!

[@D..233]

Que conteúdo, Meus Senhores !!!

[@brendacosta5862]

Amei a edição 🥰💜👏🚀

[@thisfnguy3748]

Awesome Content. Keep up the hard work.

[@thisfnguy3748]

You got a discord I can join?

[@lieuwestraatman3732]

Very good video, naice

[@entropyl3i]

It’s just a math problem. I don’t like the toy game example, you are making the simple math problem looks more complicated. You have some portion of your range as pure value, you need to pair it with some bluff, and the optimal size can be inferred from the stack size and range construction, so the bluff frequencies can also be calculated. In a simpler set up, everything can be calculated precisely.

[@saulocostapoker]

Everything in poker is a math problem...so I don't get your point necessarily. And it is definitely not trivial to figure out which hands from your range want to bluff, and how much. That being said, thank you for the feedback and participating, if not this one, I hope you will like my other videos!

[@entropyl3i]

@@saulocostapoker I actually like the problem you’re discussing here, just the way you explained the solver behavior, and the example mentioned is not helping the audience to have better understanding to the critical point here. Could be a better video when carefully choosing the ranges in the toy game.

[@oneone_isme]

actually I'm a little confused and not totally understand T-T

[@AlexXanderMarketing]

I like cats

[@brendacosta5862]

Essa voz 🫣💜🫣💜🥰😊

[@vojtechmatulik1292]

Who is wiritng your scripts? There is no way you come up with "wind is blowing through your hair" lmao

[@bertjames9661]

first

[@T.G.Lautenschlaeger]

False statement since solver against solver can gain huge margins, that concludes that if you are some really good human player you would also be able to capture some of these margins.

[@saulocostapoker]

Hey Tim, what exactly are you referring to as 'statement'? Also, not sure if understand correctly "solver against solver can gain huge margins", can you elaborate? Solver can't gain anything against itself, in a zero sum game any strategy played against itself will lead to 0 expected value (or negative, if there is rake).

[@SoCiTo123]

​@@saulocostapoker maybe tim refers to exploitability parameter...

[@T.G.Lautenschlaeger]

@Saulo Costa I am referring to the title of the video. A Solver can lose to another solver.

[@T.G.Lautenschlaeger]

@@Pocket-AA-Pro Wait, I did not mean to hate.

[@GuilhermeAugusto-yu7nx]

@@SoCiTo123 there is no way to explore a solver that plays gto, gto is an unexplorable game ...