Maybe my thinking is invalid and Id love to see someone else comment on it who is more knowledgeable about game theory. Here is what I am thinking tho...
Well, both. When you think about how ranges are balanced its kind of an equity distribution, especially in PLO, with some exceptions. Its great to take the pot down and its great to know you have future blockers/runouts, its great to know that on average you just have way more better hands on X boards. Solver loves blockers/future equity way more than your actual hand-strength. That is the main takeaway from solvers for me.
April 29, 2020 | 2:51 p.m.
Like in a 3bet pot in PLO the turn is an Ace and there are no straights or flushes out there its obviously a great card for the PFA-s range since he can have all the AA combos.
April 28, 2020 | 10:31 p.m.
1) Because on a card/board that favors your range and not your opponents range you want to valuebet all your good hands. You want to bet all the other hands as well due to the fact your opponent just does not have enough good hands often enough to continue, and if villain continues you do not gap your range and can keep repping certain range on later streets.
2) Well, I ll just make up a random example.
UTG reg opens, everyone folds. you are on BB and decide to call. Flop Comes 864ss.
Now thinking about villains range, he/she should not have too many sets, villain should have all the overpairs, no straights, no two pair. You on the other hand should have all the sets, a lot of 2 pair. atleast 4 combos of straights, way more 7x, 5x. So Leading or x/raising a huge range makes sense. You should know most regulars rangecheck this board for the exact reasons, that is why having a leading range on the boards that favor you makes sense.