AKQ
Legend
Bronze Level
A Retort to Nutted Equity Advantage Theory
To include extremities in dictating our strategy (Nutted Range Advantage) is similar to playing scared
When 160+ combos are possible, but theory guides you play to nutted range advantage.
Causeing biggerbet sizings for your range bets due to what a player would do with 8 of those combos of 160+
Though when we analyze the solver in specific spots it does not make those range bets, but rather chooses specific spots to bet bigger ( such as 1010 77 33 aa or 22 rather than a range of j9s k10s+)
So why do we justify continuing this logic of nutted range advantage when we know its a fallacy of logic
Overestimating Nutted Equity advantages
Nutted Equity Advantage states that only 1 player has the possibility of holding the nuts like 1010 77 33 on a 10 7 3 board
but due to the many strategys employed and the spectrum of player styles
How can you say any player couldn't have the same nuts in any specific spot?
Especially in theory in 2024
Doesn't every hand have a chance to be dealt every hand?
no matter if you are the SB BB or the cutoff
If the cutoff gets dealt AA does that reduce the chance of the BB having been dealt AA as well?
thats the gamblers fallacy in definition
those 4 aces could land anywhere and where you found those 2 does not mean it lessens the chance of the other two being anywhere
If you continue without the gamblers fallacy
then every chance is independent of the other
To say the BB doesn't have the nut advantage is false in some sense in modern theory
What the BB has in spades is range distribution advantage
What I mean by this is.
the amount of combos the cutoff raises with comparable to the board has a calculable equity we can punch into flopzilla and calculate our equity versus said BB range
seeing combos versus pot equity on various streets reveals some juicy information
most equity comes from having the nuts on the flop and if they don't have it the equity drops significantly by the river
Include more combos and it becomes bluff city
We calculate the BB's equity vs the Cutoff by calculating the BB's entire range
Meaning we could be always be drastically underestimating the BB's equity in real but look fine in theory based poker, due to our inclusion of every possibility and mathematical outlier
The BB has a range distributed to him
and it has every hand possible
So how does the cutoff have a nutted range advantage against the BB?
it doesn't
it has a nutted range Distribution advantage
That includes extremeities of high equity nutted hands and TONs of low equity hands to avg out very low
In math we would call these outliers and in some cases not calculate them at all into further equations
We are mistakenly translating our nutted advantage into strategy's and Theory's I believe they don't belong
and my opinion ... the biggest piece of the puzzle missing is Equity Distribution and formulas
To include extremities in dictating our strategy (Nutted Range Advantage) is similar to playing scared
When 160+ combos are possible, but theory guides you play to nutted range advantage.
Causeing biggerbet sizings for your range bets due to what a player would do with 8 of those combos of 160+
Though when we analyze the solver in specific spots it does not make those range bets, but rather chooses specific spots to bet bigger ( such as 1010 77 33 aa or 22 rather than a range of j9s k10s+)
So why do we justify continuing this logic of nutted range advantage when we know its a fallacy of logic
Overestimating Nutted Equity advantages
Nutted Equity Advantage states that only 1 player has the possibility of holding the nuts like 1010 77 33 on a 10 7 3 board
but due to the many strategys employed and the spectrum of player styles
How can you say any player couldn't have the same nuts in any specific spot?
Especially in theory in 2024
Doesn't every hand have a chance to be dealt every hand?
no matter if you are the SB BB or the cutoff
If the cutoff gets dealt AA does that reduce the chance of the BB having been dealt AA as well?
thats the gamblers fallacy in definition
those 4 aces could land anywhere and where you found those 2 does not mean it lessens the chance of the other two being anywhere
If you continue without the gamblers fallacy
then every chance is independent of the other
To say the BB doesn't have the nut advantage is false in some sense in modern theory
What the BB has in spades is range distribution advantage
What I mean by this is.
the amount of combos the cutoff raises with comparable to the board has a calculable equity we can punch into flopzilla and calculate our equity versus said BB range
seeing combos versus pot equity on various streets reveals some juicy information
most equity comes from having the nuts on the flop and if they don't have it the equity drops significantly by the river
Include more combos and it becomes bluff city
We calculate the BB's equity vs the Cutoff by calculating the BB's entire range
Meaning we could be always be drastically underestimating the BB's equity in real but look fine in theory based poker, due to our inclusion of every possibility and mathematical outlier
The BB has a range distributed to him
and it has every hand possible
So how does the cutoff have a nutted range advantage against the BB?
it doesn't
it has a nutted range Distribution advantage
That includes extremeities of high equity nutted hands and TONs of low equity hands to avg out very low
In math we would call these outliers and in some cases not calculate them at all into further equations
We are mistakenly translating our nutted advantage into strategy's and Theory's I believe they don't belong
and my opinion ... the biggest piece of the puzzle missing is Equity Distribution and formulas
Last edited:
