# fl0ww

0 points

I like that the 5b range widens from the standard 5b range vs. a normal 4b sizing. Similar to how BB 3b ranges get wider vs slightly bigger RFIs.

### Feb. 12, 2020 | 4:49 a.m.

Thanks! Which solver did you use for this? I've been thinking about upgrading to PIO preflop.

### Feb. 12, 2020 | 3 a.m.

That'd be fantastic. Here's my SB vs. BTN 3b range, 2.5 BB -> 11 BB: https://hastebin.com/pinikegeto.css. I'm not sure what the 4b range should look like, although I usually see QQ+, AK, and then a tiny bit of random Ax bluffs. This is the BTN RFI range I'm assuming: https://hastebin.com/apiwoquhud.css.

Thanks a lot for your help!

### Feb. 11, 2020 | 6:56 p.m.

I recently encountered a few players who like to 4-bet to ~35 BB against a standard 11 BB OOP 3-bet. How should I adjust to this? Suppose, for instance, you're 3-betting a ~15% range from SB vs. BTN and face this line. Does it even make sense to have a calling range there? If so, what hands should call? If not, what should a 5b-jam range look like? I always feel like I'm in tough spots with hands like AQs, AJs, 88, etc.

Thanks for any help.

### Feb. 11, 2020 | 4:46 p.m.

In a common PIOsolver analysis of a hand, we typically assume that players are playing according to GTO ranges preflop. Suppose we make this assumption and then play optimally according to the solver's solution. Would that mean that our strategy is unexploitable for the whole game tree? Or is it possible that players can exploit us by changing their preflop strategy and therefore invalidating our range assumptions?

In other words: Is solving a postflop spot with the assumption of GTO preflop ranges equivalent to solving the entire game tree from scratch, including all preflop play?