Could someone with pio solver run this hand through it pls

[shipitgood]

100nl, effective stack is 130.

Hero opens button  ace 10 dd to 2, villan makes it 8 in bb.

Villain is a reg, mostly tag but has some moves.

Flop is 2d7d8c, villan bets 75% pot, hero calls.

Turn is , villain bets 75% pot, hero can raise or call or fold, but decides to raise.

Of course, the same could be true of the flop apart from the folding bit.

I would be really interested to hear what pio says about this scenario.

I was watching a Rio video and it was fascinating seeing a guy using this software to disect a hand.

Thanks!

[teddybloat]

you need some other inputs.

if you give me assumed pre-flop ranges for IP and OOP player then i will run it for you.

ideally you would want to use psuedo GTO preflop ranges, but i dont think there are readily available 6max ranges. So use ranges that you would assume the average reg in the player pool would use.

[teddybloat]

Kev, pio has some BB v BTN 100bb 6max ranges and i used those.

I did type up an analysis but my browser died. So will quickly retype what i remembered. I have the tree saved so can post some screen grabs tomorrow.

I gave 2 betsizings on flop and 3 for turn and river.

I allowed a 35% and 75% betsize on flop. [interestingly here 75% is very close to the geometeric growth betsize that allows you to bet the same percentage of pot on all streets and be all in on river]

Villain is indifferent with his whole range on flop. That means the EV for checking, betting small and betting 75% are the same [or very close to the same]. Note this means that BTN is playing in such a way as to make those hands indifferent.

As for our repsonse, we have no raising range here. We continue with all pairs, gutshots+ and some BDFDs. Any Ax or Kx with a + calls. Our only indifferent hands are some of those BDFD and underpairs. Our flop play is pretty simple tbh.

Now here we want to quickly break some of these indifferences, and make good use of the solution. Remember that our indifferent hands are indifferent because of villains strategy. here we have reads. villain is tighter than pio's engine and more aggressive. Its likely, therefore, that we want to fold all those indifferent hands.

On the turn villain now checks 43% of his range. He bets value + gutshots [gutshots without overs it bets only without FD] with the 75% sizing - essentially polar. obviously we dont raise into a ploarised range and we again play call / fold. Here ATdd does much better flatted than jammed. As ATdd isnt indifferent you want reads to allow you to rasie it here. Its very likely that simply calling will be best.

[shipitgood]

Thanks a lot Teddy for running that through pio.

I chose that hand because it was a nice simple flop nut fd in a 3 bet pot.

It looks like a great wee tool for analysing nl hands, would you recommend it?

[teddybloat]

I would highly recommend it.

I use it a lot for my study sessions. The pro version has a scripting feature that you can get to grips with a little bit of effort and allows you to solve ranges across many flops. You can then with a click of a mouse generate incredibly detailed excel reports to see, for example, what the average cbet % should be, and what boards are best / worst for cbetting.

If you don't need that the basic version allows you to solve single trees.  When solving a tree we look for indifferences that  we can break using reads. So if some hands are indifferent between calling and folding, and villain is tight then we can straight away start building good ranges. You'd be surprised at how tight you might have to play against a narrow, strong preflop range that bets certain flops.

On the other hand most people grossly under value back door draws and gutshots - often EV differences are huge. Pio can quantify that for you.

You can also lock a strategy at a decision point to see how we should play against certain player types.

Want to see how GTO constructs check raising ranges, what hands it picks to bluff / bluff catch rivers, how it plays paired boards? Pio is the nuts for all that.

Lots of caveats to all this : betting structures are limited due to memory space. Wide ranges, deep stacked with multiple raise sizes, donk bets etc will take up lots of memory. So we have to limit the amount of betsizes or take time re-solving trees to find best betting sizes.

Pio  will answer the question: given the limited betting structure I arbitrarily impose on them, if two perfect players know each others range and strategy at every point in hand how would they play against each other?

People don't have betting structures imposed on them, they don't know their opponents ranges and strategy (most don't know their own range - what's your river starting distribution after x/c, x/r on 3677 rainbow HU 100bb deep?), and people dont play perfectly.

So study of solutions is only as useful as your inputs, interpretation and analysis.

If you are willing to spend time for dedicated study you will get a lot out of the program, especially if edges are thin in the games you play.