Translated with the help of AI. We apologize for any errors and would appreciate your help in correcting them.
Translated by order of the educational portal
university.poker Source: upswingpoker.com
We can safely say that GTO-Solvers divided poker into "before" and "after". The Solvers took a revolutionary step both in their approach to strategy and in their general understanding of poker. Today we will talk about the most important aspects that players learned when using solvers.
1. Initiative is not the main thing
Previously, we always waited for a pre-flop racer (or an opponent who was the aggressor on the previous street), since he owned the initiative. There were also constant discussions about the importance of retaining the initiative, and for some players it itself was an occasion for a bet. But with the advent of solvers, it turned out that all this was not so important. Obviously, without a position against the pre-flop racer (or the player who made the bet on the previous street), a check is often made. But the initiative has nothing to do with it. The main reason why we so often wait for the aggressor is that the edge of equity is on the side of the opponent. For example, the button makes an open-raise, and we protect our big blind.
Cards come out on the flop: 
Here we make a check not because the button owns the initiative. It's just that in a similar situation, our range is much inferior in equity, and we just have to wait. Moreover, in poker there are many cases when we have to seize the initiative ourselves, that is, to make a dock bet. Usually, 6-8 years ago, if someone made a dock bet, he was immediately ranked as a recreational player (i.e. labeled a "fish"). But the solvers showed us that the right action in many cases is a lead (dock bet).
Here's a similar situation. UTG open rate, the big blind defends itself, and comes out:
On the flop:
solver here offers the big blind to lead (make a dock bet), because such a flop is one of the few where the UTG player range is not ahead of the big blind range.
On the contrary, such flops as: and are 
more suited to the BB range.
Such examples may occur on different streets. For example, the button opens, BB is protected, and the flop comes out. 
Here, the player on the button is better to make a big c-bet, but to do it less often and more polarly, i.e. he puts only with part of his range. And such a range will not always contain, for example, 6x hands. This means that when the BU on the flop makes a big c-bet, the BB collides, and on the turn comes out
, the player on the BB can widely use the dock bet. Because suddenly he has an advantage in 6x-hands giving him thrips edge.
2. Our small bet was not small enough and our big bets were not big enough
With the advent of solvers, it turned out that we all used suboptimal bet sizing. For example, the largest of all small stacks - 33% of sweat. Similar bet rates were encountered before the appearance of solvers, but not as often as in our time. Now there are many cases when we bet 25% of the pot.
Take for example the 4-bet-pot, where the flop drops out:
or 
Here you need to use really small bets: 20% or even 10% bet. Before the solvers, no one played like this, now many players use such micro-bets, because at a distance it gives a solid profit the long run. At the same time, many large bet bets, overbets of 150% and 200% of the pot are now being made. This mainly happens on the turn, but also often on the river turn. We received confirmation from the solvers that betting all-in 200% of the pot is not complete madness.
And this is confirmed by the game of many reg players, who adopted a similar technique from solvers and introduced it into their toolkit.
3. edge in equity and nuts - the basis of optimal frequencies and bet size
First, let's give some definitions to make sure that we speak the same language:
- Range of the player with the highest equity has an advantage in equity;
- The range containing the largest number of Nats and peri-Nats hands has the Nats advantage.
It is these two principles that determine all our actions.
- When we have an edge in equity, we want to bet, and bet with certain sizing.
- When we have a nuts edge, we can usually lead (bet without a position and (often) without initiative), and we can consider an overbet bet.
As you can easily guess, in most cases, the edge in equity will be on the side of the preflop aggressor.
- For example, when the button opens and the big blind is protected, there are practically no flops where the edge big blind has an advantage in equity. However, the advantage in equity does not always give an advantage in nuts, and many examples can be cited. The UTG opens, the explosive is protected, and falls on the flop:
Here, the big blind has the advantage in nuts, although the preflop-argessor has the edge in equity. This allows BB to lead in a week to seize the initiative, rather than playing standard through a check. Another example. Button opens and we 3-bet from the small blind. button opens and we 3-bet from the small blind.
Button calls, and the button opens on the flop:
Despite our edge in equity, the advantage in nuts is very large for BU. Therefore, we (in place of SB) have to check about 75% of the time.
4. How to play without a position
The strategy of playing a preflop racer without a position involves a lot of checks and significantly fewer counterbets. If you go back 7-8 years ago, then in a situation where someone opened and BU called, even good players usually made a c-bet without a position. In such a situation, the solvers play "from protection", choosing a passive strategy at the beginning. However, they do this not only with weak, but also with strong hands, planning to widely use both check-call and check-raise in the future. Naturally, if you check-raise a vellya, you should also check-raise a lot and as a bluff. Thus, we can play aggressively and without a position, but this is aggression... through a check. If you compare how people played without a position 7-8 years ago and how it is done today, you will see a huge difference.
Why do we play passively without a position? Because we have no position!
- For example, if you open with CO, and BU makes a call, then on any unpaired flop, where all cards are below 10, it will be correct to play your entire range through the check. Another example. You do an open-raise on SB, and BB calls on the flop:
Solver says the small blind should check out here 65% of the time. However, more recently, no one has done this, with almost all of its range SB put an extended bet. Continuing the logical chain, we can conclude that if we have to wait very often without a position, we must also have a reliable check-raising strategy.
Let's say we opened and made a check-raise on the flop:
It's easy to determine the velly range of our check-raise here: we have overpairs, sets, a top pair with a top kicker. However, it is also necessary to make check-raises in bluff or semi-bluff, for example, with KT-QJ with backdoor flush draw, as well as suited 7-6 or A-4. If you do not have an active check-raising strategy, your opponent will easily outplay you by implementing equity too easily. Because if you never check out the flop, your opponent will always see the turn. And the check behind on the turn will also give your opponent a free card on the river.
5. The impact of blockers
In the old days, if a player had a flush draw and it did not close to the river, the player sometimes bluffed to try to pick up the pot. But today we know that the solver in such a situation does not recommend bluffing. With your missed flush draw, you block the flush draw in the opponent's range, so the likelihood that the villain will call your bet on the river increases. So in a similar situation, the solver recommends not continuing to barrel as a bluff, but giving up.
Turning the situation around, we will be in the role of a player who received a bet on the river. Here you would like to have blockers to the failed flush draw, since in this case the opponent (if, of course, he is sufficiently qualified) should bluff less. This is the concept that the solvers brought to the forefront, but mainly it is used only by reg players of middle and high limits. There is another not so common derivation from the concept of blockers, which the solvers gave: blockers play an important role, but "anti-blockers" are no less important.
Imagine that you 3-betil on SB against BU, and received a “rainbow” flop 
. On the flop, you are going to bet c-bet with all your hands. And the novelty from the solver is that on the turn you need to continue to barrel with worm (!) barrel hands. The fact is that the villain, according to the TRP, will float on the flop with backdoor flush draw: clubs, peaks and diamonds. Therefore, when we have hearts, we "anti-block" these floats to the opponent, with whom the opponent will be more inclined to surrender to the second barrel on the turn.
6. Block betas (on value and as a bluff)
Block bet is a small bet that is used to prevent an opponent from betting more.
When you block bet on the river, your range should be broken down so that you can use both small bet and large bets. A small bet has its advantages. And the use of solvers shows how important this is, and how actively we can use block-bet in different situations. Previously, block bets were made to make life easier and not to play check-call against a large bet. However, it soon turned out that block-bet could be used incredibly widely. Let's say you defended yourself with a call on BB and then waited for the flop and turn. On the river, you can bet with the 4th and even the 5th pair, and sometimes with A-hai you will want to bet on the vellya value. In such a scenario, you will have a certain number of strong hands and a certain percentage of bluff, so you need a large bet (plus a smaller block bet).
If we play BB against the button and have a top pair, we can often bet big on the vellya. But on BB vs MP with most of the top pairs, you will play through block beta. Essentially, you're building two different ranges around the arms you might have. Block beta can be used with a variety of hands: these are medium and lower pair, as well as Ah, with which you can collect a little velly and cheaply reach the showdown value. This rage needs to be balanced with bluff bets. Plus, we need to have a number of strong hands to protect our range, otherwise our opponent will be able to simply raising every time we make a small block bet.
7. TRP - strategy of superaggression
It's amazing to see how the solver plays certain hands, and how aggressive he is. Even the most aggressive players of the past years are not able to compete with him. We can say that the solver here is a real maniak. And this should be learned from him. That is why people like Michael Addamo or Doug Polk are now in the top: they have raised their aggression to a higher level. This is because they are sure that playing super-aggressively is the right thing to do.
Even online top registers of middle limits cannot compete in aggression with solvers.
They don't call as often as the solver does. They're still good poker players, but Solver's strategy is so unpredictable, so aggressive, and he folds as little as real people can barely imagine.
Here's a good example. The BU opens, the big blind defends, and the flop drops out:
According to the solver, BB should check-raise here in 25-30% of their hands, but even the most active pros are unlikely to be able to show 15-18% of check-raises here. Solver almost never folds, he calls super-wide. It distributes the range between small and large bets very evenly. His well-balanced strategy with different bet sizing is very difficult to resist. Who knows if people could ever reach the top of the GTO strategy. I try my best, but solver finds new ways to surprise me every day.
