*Originally posted by jbpatzer*

So precisely what simulation are you suggesting I do?

This is the crux

I'm still thinking about it. But I already have some ideas where we could start:

We're trying to improve our ranges to take advantage of the fact that we know the TEQ function better than our opponent. The easiest case to study this is a BvB situation.

Let's assume our opponent's strategy as static. This could be him always playing ICM nash ranges or any other (fish) strategy.

So if we know his static ranges exactly in a certain BvB spot, we are able to calculate the preflop equity E we need against his shoving/calling range R as a function of our TEQ predictions T which is a vector with entries of TEQ for the cases which can come up (for example call-win , call-lose, shove-opponent folds, ...).

Since we don't know the real T, we have to use a model giving us a T'. This will in general yield a different minimum equity E. Now when does this have an effect on your strategy?

Be h0 the last hand you could call/shove with using T' (and I really mean "hand" not range up to this hand as your h in the simulations) and E'(h0,R) the preflop equity of h0 vs the range R

If deltaE = E(T,R) - E(T',R) > 0 then we have to take out h0 of our range if

E'(h0,R) - E(T',R) < deltaE.

And if deltaE < 0, we have to take the hand h0+1 in our range if

E'(h0+1) - E(T',R) >= deltaE

We could now try to find out how big deltaE will be by inserting several T in the magnitude of the TEQ differences you got out of your simulations so far and calculate all

|E'(h0,R) - E'(h0+1,R)| for N=25, 50 and 100. (again, we have to be careful here since h0 is a single hand, not a range)

If we see for a certain N that |E'(h0,R) - E'(h0+1,R)| >> |deltaE| there probably won't be much of a strategy change to expect.

Now this is more of a spontaneous idea and it could be easily bullshit! But anyway... I'm looking forward to hear your opinion on this!

edit: if I keep editing like this, I'll eventually overtake pzhon's signature