# SPR "debunked"?

jeffnc
Red Chipper Posts:

**4,716**✭✭✭✭✭
I read that on another site somewhere recently, can't recall where. Anyone know anything about this?

## Leave a Comment

#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

## Quick Links

#### Categories

- 10.7K All Categories
- 500 Come Say Hello
- 3.6K Live Poker Hands
- 491 Coaching & Commercial
- 2.1K Online Poker Hands
- 855 Tournament Poker Hands
- 40 Omaha Variants
- 64 Local Poker Groups
- 2.4K General Concepts
- 282 New To Poker Questions
- 173 Podcast, Articles, Freebies
- 47 CORE
- 289 PRO Product Discussion
- 752 Off Topic Chat
- 22 Nutrition & Fitness
- 98 Challenge Forum
- 270 Hand Reading
- 137 Live Workbook (Vol 1)
- 62 6max Workbook (Vol 1)
- 32 Final Tables Workbook
- 54 Poker Software

## Comments

2,142✭✭✭✭You don't give us much info to work with haha. Hopefully a redchipper will have read it, see your post and give us a link *finger crossed*

457✭✭✭In all seriousness, I have not come across anything like this.

4,057✭✭✭✭✭-Stacks are often misused in weak strategies and have been since forever

-solves have turned weak players, who got caught in SPR disasters, around, as

-easily employable optimal strategies handle stacks really well

-ergo, someone offers the opinion that SPR is unimportant.

2,142✭✭✭✭4,057✭✭✭✭✭I'm not scouring the internet to find someone who is wrong.

4,716✭✭✭✭✭4,057✭✭✭✭✭4,716✭✭✭✭✭I found the location. As far as I can guess, I suppose what they were implying was that a solver would not necessarily play the way described in the examples for stack off decisions they way they recommended in Professional No Limit Holdem v. 1.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32/beginners-questions/please-someone-what-exact-mathematics-supporting-spr-concept-1749301/

964✭✭✭✭I one point I worked out a formula to determine what equity will produce what spr and posted it here a long time ago....it turns out its easier to do it backwards and very obvious.

The ration is 4 to 1 you have 4 the pots 1 the villain has 4 if you get all in you need equity of 4/9 or about 44% equity...

If you bet pot and get shoved on then final pot is still 9 but now you only have to call 3 so is 3/9.... or about 33% equity...

Understand equity away from the table....my top pair against flush draw with over card sets and 2 pair.....type thing....

Match it to the SPR...away from the table...and you have a quick way to make a decision at the table.

Buts thats all it is...the math can't be wrong...the assumption of ranges might be wrong....but the math is just math....as persuadeo says ratios can't be wrong.

There may be short cuts that are better...I have not really found one a like for doing my homework....to me what equity I need, what equity do I have..is still what I do.....

I do understand there are other ways to skin a cat. GTO and frequency approaches are popular....look at where does my hand rank in all the hands I could have.....what frequency do I have to bet or call so I can't be exploited...but I argue these are not the best way to maximize ev...in games where you can estimate equity well...(in fact I used to rant against it every now in then in this forum)

107✭✭Trying to equate it to pot odds or win odds or EV is showing a misunderstanding of what it is.

4,716✭✭✭✭✭One person there said "SPR has been debunked " which as you said is nonsense and makes no sense. But he was responding to the first person who said "SPR stack-off thresholds are not supported by game theory and the mathematics "supporting" them are unsound".

To be fair that's a different thing. I'm assuming what he means by stack-off thresholds as recommended in Professional No Limit Holdem. And maybe he's right about that. But if he means something else, then maybe that is nonsense too.

855✭✭✭4,716✭✭✭✭✭855✭✭✭786✭✭✭4,716✭✭✭✭✭