EXPOSED: Charlie Carrel Secret GTO Master
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- High stakes pro, Charlie Carrel, is one of the most vocal opponents of GTO. He staunchly believes that a max-exploit strategy is far superior, especially for newer players. But do his actions match his words? In this video investigation, we prove that Charlie doesn't just "play the player and not the cards". Instead, he uses a very methodical approach that focuses on EV maximization through range construction and probability assessments, which is the foundation of game theory.
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope Charlie does a video to counter this, and then you create a further video in response to Charlies next video. And this goes back and forth and back and forth, with each of you slightly adjusting your video’s/content each time until some kind of equilibrium is achieved. Just a thought
You sir, you are hilarious :D I chuckled out loud
...and then we can call the saga 'Finding Equilibrium' 👌
😂❤
Such a perfect way to explain game theory.
Studying solvers helps us understand the game and hopefully thru time we gain an intuition for deviating from it when our opponents are playing less and less accurately.
As you said, essentially when we exploit we are implementing a game theoretical strategy for that particular opponent to maximize ev.
The baseline gto strategy becomes a necessity when we are playing against other opponents who are also playing very accurately.
Loved this video and explanation. So much of this conversation about gto vs exploit is semantics as you said.
As a former University teacher of Game Theory, it infuriates me when poker players talk about "GTO" and then go on to relate it entirely to solvers. "Game Theory Optimal" (not a scientific term) can only mean one thing: making the most profitable decision GIVEN all relevant information you hold about an opponent at the time of your decision.
Therefore, it is NOT "GTO" to play entirely in alignment with the solvers if, say, you know that your opponent calls too much. The correct GTO play would be to take this information into account and adapt accordingly. Playing a perfect game theoretic strategy should therefore be seen as the ultimate exploitative strategy.
Yep you right. But the GTO hasn’t been able to take poker players tendencies to adapt to his strategy. That’s why people say “it is not GTO”. A little semantics here. But you totally right.
You program the solvers to take into account your opponents calling frequency.
@@edwardhalmarack7122 Sure, if you could program the solvers to take all your opponent's tendencies into account then simply following the solvers would give you the perfect game theoretic strategy. But there is absolutely no computer in the world that has anywhere near the capacity required to do that.
@@dingleberry4013 you just enter the hud stats………
@@edwardhalmarack7122 Okay, try doing that for all the information villain exudes at any given node in any given hand. The permutations are literally endless.
Of course, theoretically you are completely right and the solvers can indeed account for some information/deviations from optimality. But they are nowhere near being able to account for all of it/them. Even if they were, no human would have the capabilities required to transfer it to the tables.
I actually dont know how such an amazing poker content like this one is still free. It completly amases me the way you aproach and explain the basis and fundamentals of GTO with pure math background. I believe u are such an inteligent human being.
Exactly the reason why I've always thought gto vs exploitative debate doesn't make any sense
I love how you point out that a maximally exploitative strategy IS a GTO strat in that situation. In fact, given the assumptions we are operating under, the MES is THE GTO strategy.
❤
Yeah i love Steffen Sontheimer, very very good coach and explainer!
Hes also using RTA
@@santaclause3487 how do you know?
I think too many people define GTO to be exactly the same as Nash equilibrium (which they are not)
You still don't understand my position 😁 Podcast with me, brother. These videos where you misinterpret my words aren't doing the watchers any good, if they are trying to decipher their own poker realities.
PODCAST WITH THE MAN !!
You provide some of the best analysis in POKER today! Cheers to you good sir
so FE just dropped an hour long video basically disputing terminology with someone who's just averse to using certain words and i'm here for it. but this is such a weird conversation. it's like somebody said "i've played basketball all my life, i grew up on the courts and learned by practice and repetition." and then someone else comes along and explains the physics of gravity and wind resistance acting on the ball. and the basketball player being like "nah.". like the two aren't mutually exclusive. charlie is doing things that gto prescribes, he just got there by putting in reps. fine. the difference is a new player watching charlie's vid keeps hearing things along the lines of "it's just feel after millions of hands, i know these things to be true" and FE is here telling you how wind resistance affects velocity so you can get the ball in the hoop without subjective conjecture.
these are the forces that act on the game of poker and this is how we can use them to our advantage. charlie is basically just averse to this particular description of his playstyle in relation to the overall game tree. weird hill to die on.
Carrell is a sweetheart. I believe if u met him in-person, esp. off the felt, u can't dislike him
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like you've overly reduced the definition of GTO. I think your reduction implies that GTO and optimal are the same thing.
Optimal play answers the question "given a strategy, how do you maximize EV against it?" where GTO play answers the question "Given a decision tree, what strategies will be found at equilibrium?".
Right. His statement of the Von Neumann existence of GTO theorem is also a bit inaccurate, and the theorem doesn't say anything about evaluating all possible strategies for both players.
I diagree. Isn't the equilibrium strategy different with different players?
And isn't the strategy same for maximum EV and equilibrium. Are you suggesting those two are reached with different strategies, given same sets of conditions.
@@webpkric Max EV is conditional on villain's strategy, even if it's insane/subotimal, whereas GTO is defined as you best responding to the villain also playing GTO.
@@webpkric probably not what you're asking, but GTO doesn't require uniqueness or symmetry, so it's perfectly plausible for a GTO strategy to have every player playing a different "style"
Great video. Thanks.
You say solvers are EV maximizing calculators and they are. But how do I get a solver to factor in an opponent's mistake on future streets in a time efficient manner? For example say my opponent will under bluff the turn and I want to know how to adjust on the flop given this read. I would have to node lock all 47 turn cards in the given line. It's just not a very practical way to study.
Do you have thoughts on this?
I had this same question awhile back and came across Poker Scientist. It allows you to study and train against Balanced, aggressive, or Tight playstyles.
This is a very good question. If you cannot model (is too time/energy consuming) reads and tenancies which you are very certain of, using solver is not a answer. Players ignore using solver on such spots and mention them play exploitatively.
What they are actually saying is getting similar solution in the solver was too difficult so I used GTO concepts in the head to come up with a satisfactory close enough solution.
@@TeeheeTennessy , spot on. You could observe this in-game by Goose when he said for example in the AA hand on 8873x: I need JJ to value shove on the river. In GTO: JJ shoves, Goose knows this. His intuition is that villain however deviates from GTO by not shoving JJ and that could shift the play for AA.
solver? lol
10:40 Absolutely relate to this one!
I remember back in 2017-2018 when I was starting playing poker, I was watching Doug Polk assigning ranges in certain postflop scenarios and I was like wtf??? Yeah it makes sense, but it wouldn't come to my brain like that like it did so flawlessly to him.
Basically Charlie is a GTO first player masking as a exploit-only player. One of us. One of us.
Charlie is an arrogant know-it-all. Probably loves to hear himself talk which is why he disagrees with everyone about GTO.
Charlie identifies himself with "exploitative play" even though his "exploits" mostly come from GTO principles. It is also an excuse for clicking occasional buttons
@@grutopsy Yeah thats what I mean. Ive heard him talk about using blockers or unblockers when he wants to call so I think he is mostly strawmanning. Most top players dont religiously use solvers but acknowledge they are an important study tool.
This is some serious poker hand evaluation inception happening.
one of tje best videos I watched on this topic. Very very good. Does anybody know if charlie reacted to this? Would be super ineresting to see 🙂
Amazing work as usual Mr. Equilibrium
2:16 When OOP holds AKo, how come the solver prefers to raise holding Kc and not Ac? Seems like backdoor flush equity isnt the driver here and im not sure what is....
Isn't this the guy that got picked off on Triton trying to bluff Patrick Antonious with 3rd pair? That was tough to watch.
Talk about high-quality content! Amazing video 🎉
Charlie is awesome at poker. I play exploitative but I know damn well I've taken GTO strategies and incorporated them in my game, but Im not going to hero call based on GTO.
Seems this video went completely over your head.
@@Ohrami how so?
@@clintrichardsonclintfromny203 Because it defined GTO in a way that doesn't mesh with your own definition yet you continued to use that incorrect definition and logic afterwards.
@@Ohrami Making a lot of assumptions arent we tho? Is not check raising a baby paired flop from the blinds a GTO strategy? I use this.
Is not hero calling a weak ace high hand under the right circumstances a GTO strategy? I take a bit more into account and sometimes sacrifice GTO for future chip value in a tournament.
I am however incorporating GTO into my game.
@@clintrichardsonclintfromny203 Any play at all can be a GTO strategy according to the video, which again you're failing to understand and why I'm saying it completely went over your head.
Analyzing another pro’s analysis of another pro; this is truly some next level content!
I’ve been studying with your videos and finally binked my first tournament last night to 5x my bankroll. Just wanted to say thanks for the entertaining and educational content that you create, I’m sure it helps a lot more people than you know!!
Cheers
This was a really interesting one! Thanks!
Hour long video?? Let me get my popcorn
Get ya popcorn ready!
Awesome video as always, and I agree with most that you said, but I would add a few things on the mindset part.
Working on your mindset isn’t just to play more focused and calm, but can also help you to learn anything faster. And I mean, when I started playing poker losing was so much harder to deal with, and we all hear stories of people even throwing things at walls.
Besides, even MTTs regs that have a good theory understanding can get nervous in important tournaments and end up playing very bad, just because they can’t focus on what matters and what you can control - the next decision. So the format you’re playing heavily impacts the importance of working on your mindset.
U notice how Steffan is using RTA?
Oh this should be good. Loving your content man
38:00
Realistic thing to say that you bet B25 to fold all the Ahighs? Not sure if AQ and AJ are actually foldet out here by villain (I only play micros, maybe people are too sticky in my mind with Ahighs so I get this wrong, idk)
I assume Villain has enough weaker Ax that do fold to the bet so that's why both pros go to B25?
Of course he plays with elements of GTO, whether Charlie is conscious of it or not, he picks up things from watching other players that they learn from GTO.
Otherwise how would his knowledge of the game kept so up to date that he can beat tough stakes like 500z? Considering he doesn't play much these past couple of years
he does not win at 500z I can almost guarantee you that.
@@TheLazarussLedd How?
@@KamratKamala he spewes too much, he raises hands he should not because he feels like it and to lesser degree he calls hands he should not again because he feels like it. 500z players regulars basically have their game decently solid so if you are constantly stepping out of line you gonna lose.
@@TheLazarussLedd Thank you for your opinion.
@@TheLazarussLedd 500z players are not playing anywhere close to unexploitable lol
Like Steffen and dont like Charles but in the AA hand I 100% agree with Charles.
Watched the 1st 10m but have to go to bed. Watch rest tomorrow.
Good explanation of GTO and solver. Going to use this when someone asks.
A suggestion for those who are watching. I have several casinos in my area of South Florida. Each one plays different. When I sit at a table with a bunch of unknowns I make a few initial assumptions.
#1 How is the average player at the casino playing at these stakes?
#2 If they play different than the average then what type of typical style are they playing?
#3 I always assume they are only thinking about their cards or what I am immediately representing due to the board.... like if I raise on a 3 flush board. They do not think deeper than that nor do they balance. This is at low stakes 1/2-2/5.... BUT I have seen this same thing at 5/10 from many players.
So, if you have to start with a baseline of unknown players then start with the average of the casino and work from there. Don't start assuming they know what they are doing.
One caveat, I have not played at the casino in 2 years due to COVID. I am just starting again now. From what I understand, at least where I am, the 2/5 game is just a nit backpack profest in South Florida. Not fun.
I was watching the 5/10 game the other day while I waited for a while @ the HR.... Nits, all of them. I played their hands blind as I watched. No follow up on barreling, no 3 betting, no squeezing. They might have all been old men.
Great videos as always.
Also if you need to get a solver GTO+ is inexpensive and good enough to do the job. I use it along with Flopzilla often.
love the video , real juice here, thanks!
that overbet bluff hand QTs river
-We can see in the solver when HERO pass the mouse over QTs that will Bluff 99% QThh with missed Flushdraw....
-and our combo will check 99,5% i dont get , maybe i am missunderstanding something, someone can help?
my point of view is that bluff our combo is better because villan will have more folds o n the river ...
you guys can see in the exacly 39:16
39:16 why does the solver bet w QhTh? Blocks the folding range no?
Love your channel, valuable content.
So your point is that a GTO approach is better?
I watched that video and I came to conclusion that Charlie watched his video before and just parroted him
I had the same feeling, too many coincidences to be true...
Very relevant and interesting content ! Thanks
Love the music, conspiracy theories often come out true ...
Honestly, this is a little but silly imo. Game theory is almost universally accepted as referring to the situation where the opponent knows your strategy and adjusts to it in a rational way. This isn't at all what we are seeing in the AA hand, as villian would then fold more if they knew of this strategy. This is pure exploit. The fact that you can use mathematics or models to assess this isn't this point - the point is that when you do this you are not assuming that the your opponent is adjusting and reacting rationally to your strategy. There is a clear devide in the way of thinking about hands, depending on the situation, and arguing that it isn't because of semantics misses the point imo. For what it's worth though, Charlie clearly considers GTO concepts very carefully against good players and is largely just dicking around for clicks with some of the things he says about GTO/blockers etc.
Nice video.
More on yout girlfriends' progress and lessons!
Yep, You don't know the difference between Nash Equilibrium and and Maximizing EV vs a fix strategy/strategies. I am teaching some very talented students game theory, and they always confuse these too.
This is it: 10:01 - 10:14. Tbh Charlie comes across like that one kid we all knew in school "That did not study for the test bro omg....zzzz" but ends up getting an A+ anyway" :D (In reality he study all night)
now i am waiting for you reviewing charlie's review on steffen reviewing fedor holz's cash game play.🤣🤣
Can't stand when some people who worship solvers-only as "GTO" find it necessary to rip on Charlie as a player. Charlies an incredible poker player, and is not fun to play against (trust me).
That is not what's happening here bud. Charlie uses GTO. Any good player will tell you the best style is a combination of GTO + Exploitative... Charlie is just doubling down because he either does not want to admit he's over exaggerating about GTO or doesn't realize that over millions of hands of experience he has naturally employed GTO strategies.
@@zacka1337 That's basically what I'm saying. I'm saying he is playing GTO.
DO you guys think Charlie is gifted player or just super experienced?
Both personally
Great content! Thanks for the video!
Can't we all just get along? 🤗.
Erm I'm sorry but you didn't expose anything ? Couldn't you have made a 2 minutes video saying that Charlie's definition of GTO (and 99% of people, including me tbh) is wrong, and GTO is actually looking for the most EV ? I don't know if you're right or not, of course for everyone GTO = play like a robot, and your point makes sense, but since Charlie doesn't use your definition, it's not like he ever said he wasn't looking for the most EV ? Actually I would argue it's quite the opposite.
to say fuck gto you need a very deep understanding of gto first so telling micro player fuck gto is a bit hypocritical
@@TeeheeTennessy thing is, exploiting while playing 15 tables is very hard and imo if you want to become good you have to put in volume.Overall ,for new player ,the ABC approach seems to be the best way to learn at first. How can you exploit without knowing the basis? Maybe for a live player exploiting might be easier but for an online grinder idk...just my opinion.
Agreed with last part and yes a new player shouldnt try to learn to play 15 tables at a time but he should aim toward that because of variance and hourly especially micro grinder that need to play a huge volume to make ends meet. Of course if we are talking about people who doesn't know anything about the game then it's another discussion but for evolving micro grinder i definitely think that learning gto the best way you can will get you quicker to higher stakes than trying to exploit every spot or player.
I agree. The micro player who is using solvers is going to improve over the one that doesnt regardless of player pool.
@@TeeheeTennessy Doug Polk was a leading proponent of GTO, "never fold sets" but he definetly does play explo ie folding a staight on the flop v Helmuth,now Charlie playing Gto,this just confuses people and helps to muddy the waters
I'm convinced he watched Steffen Sontheimer's video before making his "reaction" video. And I think "I don't care about GTO" etc has become his shtick, and he just keeps going with it just to be/feel edgy.
I think the word "optimal" is so open to interpretation and opponent-dependent that it is virtually meaningless. If they bluff too much, or not enough, or they're a maniac, or always a nit without the absolute nuts, or whatever, then what is actually optimal is dependent on that, so the overlap (between what a solver says is GTO and what is an exploitative play) is where all the money is.
The stake size is not all that important, if you are also playing at that skill level, and if you are a high stakes reg doing a bit of low stakes tourism for easy money, then that in itself is, by definition, both exploitative and an optimal strategy.
I realise I am playing semantics with the word 'optimal' here, but in a zero sum game, when we all play like a solver, we are basically playing a giant game of rock, paper, scissors with variance itself, and any exploitative strategy that takes that into account will give you an edge.
In other words, what is actual 'optimal' varies hugely and is impossible to define. If you KNOW someone is a slave to GTO, they become the easiest players to exploit, as long as YOU know GTO well enough to predict what they will do.
Therefore, what it is important to recognise GTO when you see it and know how it works, and exploit the tendencies of anyone caught sticking to it, so what is GTO and what is exploitative, flip.
Just remove the O from GTO. Call it something else, because 'optimal' is much too loose a term to be of any use.
Have there been any actual rigorous tests of gto vs. exploitative in a low stakes ring game? Can an exploitative player do better than a bot playing gto? If so, by how much?
Also are there any bits that remember how their opponents play and use that information to exploit?
Did you not watch the video? If exploits are reliable then definitely are going to perform better than a more generalized baseline GTO. If you fuck up with the assumptions then you are punished hard as well. SO I don't know how can you test this concept.
0:40 Based and ritpilled.
Best video yet
Hmm i think this is all fair and i get the criticism that says GTO vs exploitative is mostly semantics. But there are a lot of guys that think exploitative play is like “voodoo” since you never _really_ know what mistakes your opponents are making, so you should focus on GTO
Is this content still free or did you charge my credit card without letting me know?
this channel wouldnt exist without charlie lol
charlie is living rent free
This was very cool. I subbed :)
If everyone finds equilibrium that means game over. Well done destroying and ending the game keep it up 👍🏻 💪🏻😤🙄
Sven calls told me about it and hes made millions so far
Finding equilibrium is not for everyone.
I can tell you where is a treasure.
I can give you a map.
And you will never find it.
I dont know how many players know what balance is.
I think a lot of players can explain to you what playing balanced means.
And the fact is that 99% of players plays unbalanced in many ways.
@@ignaciopiedra1598 As long as you can't put in a solver the emotionnal and personnal parameters equilibrium is just some kind of pointed direction to evaluate pure blunders and identify leaks in exploitative ways. No need to be scared of anything, at the end of the day, humans are still playing drunk, are still considering tells in their decision making, are still shitting their pants playing bigger stakes cg or mtt regardless, are still leveling theirself, will ever be tilting...human won't ever be able to be somewhere close to equilibirum without committing insanely and even that. LLinus is still losing mtts, and random guys winning them. It will be okay. Let's run sims in the mean time.
@@___gh0st___ Nice. We are just humans behind two pair of cards. Emotional imbalanced people trying to play balanced poker is a joke.
Nice. Very nice.
👍
@@ignaciopiedra1598 nope, far from a joke, this is the proper way to learn and improve I think, but solvers are only making decisions based on solved ranges in the first place, and optimum vilains along the way of solving a spot, there's a lack of information that cannot be totally solved as long as you cant ever know how someone play as it is based on his human flaws regarding of context. That epic controversy between exploit and gto looks like a global misunderstanding of pros and cons of the 2 sides of the same coin if you ask.
Really great video-- thanks
I don't think most player's goals are to reach to the highest stakes. And most players even if they study GTO from the start are not going to make it to the top because there are a lot of other variables involved in getting there.
Exploitative approach on the other hand has a much higher chance of getting a beginner player to low/mid stakes faster.
Well if you take his content and do this big thing about GTO discussion, don't eliminate part where he PRAISES what steffan says - I don't care if i'm balanced or not here, because that's one big anti-argument about gto playstyle. 17:25 :)
I didn't cut that part to create some type of narrative- I just didn't want a 2 hr video. Of course, Charlie will agree with the sentiment of not worrying about being balanced so I didn't think it added much to the discussion.
Charlie Carrel: Fuck solvers! Let me show you how to maximise your EV!
Solvers: Let me show you how to maximise your EV!
Phenomenal video
"Saying that game theory is the equivalent of a solver is akin to saying that math is the equivalent of a calculator".
Genesis - Act 1:1. Now, let's talk about exploitating...
Charles is minus ev in zoom 500 2022.
GTO + Nodelocking = Exploitative?
This who wants to be A millionaire music is killing me but I love the content man lol issa joke
Best poker video ever
The one thing with Charlie is that he doesnt seem to realize how closely he is following the standard thought process of those players he considers to be GTO-oriented. In order to exploit you need to know what a correct/solid strategy looks like - oftentimes Charlie is aware of the correct/solid approach and "exploits" what he considers to be the tendencies of his opponents.
But in general he always favors some kind of presumably profitable goofy adjustment with his exact hand over a balanced strat. I wouldnt recommend his approach, even at microstakes. On the plus side hes thinking outside the box which is sometimes a good thing. But on the downside hes way overthinking some spots and it takes way too much mental energy to execute such a playstyle across various tables. Especially for aspiring pros who will grind many tables, often Zoom, this is just not applicable.
I think the issue is this: he has so much experience he credits his play to intuitive decisions when in reality that experience has made him a GTO wizard.
He doesn't seem to be making very many goofy adjustments though. Most of what he says is solver-recommended and thoroughly reasoned out. Many of his assumptions likely come from his own understanding of the mind of a typical rec.
Keep the amaziness and the great content guys! God bless you!
Gto assumes everybody is playing GTO, right? Or at least balancing their ranges perfectly. It’s cool to know what u should do most of the time, but to think u should do something 80% of the time at low stakes and try to do something else 20 does sound moronic. I think that’s what Carrel means. It’s cool to know, but unless ur a nerd playing online HU or make it a job, who gaf
Who is this guy talking with the long hair? I like him
GTO is playing rock 33%, paper 33%, scizzor33% RANDOMLY in order to never loose or never win, why do you never win or loose playing GTO? because GTO focuses on finding the EQUILIBRIUM of the game in order to not be exploited even if your opponent is playing 99% paper 1 % rock which is never gonna make you as much money as playing 99% scizzor 1% paper against the same opponent... GTO is the formula to be the best break even player in the world
actually this is incorrect and even explained in the Video;)
GTO wants to maximize EV. What you describe is the Nash Equilibrium, that you will reach, when two GTO players face each other.
As long as we face a Northern American/European dude who (data is backed up) tends to take Rock way too often GTO clearly goes for Paper (in a 1 round game).
Depending on the GameSetting the Level of Exploiting might be different and not a pure strategy, but still
@@Gosecore ur wrong brooo GTO is 33%, rock paper scizzors because if the european dude knows that u know his data tends to take rock 1st round he can adjust and go for scizzors which would exploit u so GTO is 33% each randomly in order to not get exploited so get ur illformed facts straight before u debate someone
@@Gosecore and charlie has never agreed to anything you said your delusiona;
Actually hate how pretentious Charlie is
Charlie is the creepiest dude of all time
I appear in the tweet comments lol
good vid
I love you FE
No, you changed the definition of GTO. 90% of people mean unexploitable play when they say GTO. You are the one who is discussing semantics, not Charlie.
1. I don't think you should assume something is true just because a majority believes it to be true. 2. Go research game theory yourself and you will see there is no requirement that the game be symmetrical. Yes, it needs to be unexploitable, but that is relative to what your opponent can exploit. Something cannot be optimal if there is an alternative, superior strategy. 3. The bottom line is that the way Charlie speaks of GTO makes it seem like his view and GTO are miles apart, but in reality, his approach has much in common with what the solver and other "GTO players" do. Of course there are differences, but there are differences in everyone's strategies even so called GTO players.
What I say is if Charlie accepted your definition of GTO he wouldn't even disagree with you.
But what he actually is arguing is that so many people aspire to play unexploitable, symmetrical GTO and that he think this is bad.
What you did in that video is saying that it is not bad, but then argue it's not bad because his definiton of GTO is wrong. This is a useless point to make because you guys are talking about two different things.
@@dominikb5332 +1
Love this shit
By your definition of GTO in this video, any donk as long as he tries to think how to get the most value is playing "GTO" as hes trying to maximize his EV, however poorly.
Start with any 2 cards, and read your opponents souls. Please don't watch this channel or study.
Yeah but I already sold mine, how you gonna beat me?
At like 15:30-16:30 why are you showing pointless shoves here that don’t even take into account the same variables he’s using. Solver believes he has flushes. He has less than 5% of the flushes he’s supposed to because he’s a recreational snapping turn. So when we 200% pot a flush, that’s just bad. Because yes magnitude trumps frequency but only to an extent. If he calls a 100% pot bet 50% of the time and a 200% pot bet 20% of the time. Then 100% pot is just much better.
Like I’m confused what point were we trying to prove here? that you have a solve that doesn’t account for the real variables