OTB #088: Live Poker Hands Versus The Solver

Last weekend I travelled to Dublin to play The Irish Poker Open Main Event.

Today I'm going to break down 2 live poker hands versus the solver and compare my in-game thoughts to the solver solutions, because they both confused me and I ended up going against what I thought would be solver-approved.

Let's dive in...

KK on Q624 facing two all-ins

Still some way from the money, I opened from the Lojack off 40bb, the Hijack called and the BB called.

The flop is Q62r. The Big Blind checked and I decided to check as well.

My thinking: With the HJ right next to me I want to do a lot of checking in this spot, but this isn't a board where he should have connected that hard given he shouldn't flat 22 preflop and even 66 isn't great to call in these positions. My plan was to check raise if the HJ bet to get value from worse hands straight away.

What the solver says: There's a lot more betting than I thought here. The solver (RocketSolver) wants to check about 60% of the time and bet 25% pot 40% of the time. My exact combo of KK bets about 1/2 the time for 25% pot.

If I did check, the Hijack bet and the Big Blind folded, I should check raise 100% of the time.

If the Big Blind jammed over the HJ bet then I should just call.

If the Big Blind called, I should always raise—I have no calls versus this line.

The Hijack checked back, the turn was the 4s, the Big Blind led for about 1/4 pot and I raised enough to be committed against them.

My thinking: The Big Blind can have a lot of stuff that we beat right now that will be forced to stack off like Qx, pair+draw, combos draws etc. I expected the Hijack to fold almost all the time so wasn't worried about the next decision...

What the solver says: Raising here with KK looks good, the Hijack rarely has a hand he can continue and I can get value from a lot of worse hands that BB holds.

I raised and the Hijack shoved!

WTF?!

The Big Blind called and now I have another decision...

My thinking: I was really confused. The Hijack shouldn't ever have a hand unless he's slow played a flopped set, but 22 shouldn't ever be in there and 66 isn't a full frequency call either. I guess he could have 44, but that should fold pre too. Also, if his hand is that strong, I don't think he wants to just send it here and make me fold.

The Big Blind call should be pretty strong as well, and at worst it should be something like Qx with a flush draw or Qx with a straight draw. He can have straights and sets, and maybe his best Qx like KQ wants to just stack off now, but I certainly wouldn't be loving life facing this action.

I eventually settled on the Hijack essentially saying he can beat an overpair, so he must've slow played 66 and I folded.

What the solver says: The Hijack shouldn't jam any hands. If they have 66 then they should just call, together with hands like KQ. As played I should call KK.

I folded, the Hijack showed 44 for a turned set and the Big Blind showed 66 for a flopped set.

The Hijack should fold 44 preflop and the BB should check the turn with 66.

Takeaway: Sometimes people just make plays that make no sense to the solver. My fold with KK happened to work out this time—mostly because the Hijack's shove just isn’t supposed to happen in theory.

In messy multiway spots like this, when the action gets weird, it’s easy to second-guess yourself. But these are the moments where trusting your gut and understanding of ranges really matters.

AA on 952TA facing turn donk and river jam (ITM)

Now inside the money, I opened off 21bb with AcAd to 2bb from the Hijack and just the Big Blind calls.

The flop is 952 with two clubs, the Big Blind checks and I bet 1/2 pot.

My thinking: At first I thought that on low boards like this we'd want to have a big bet (3e is ~1/2 pot) and check strategy, but then I realised that it's unlikely the Big Blind is defending with 95o, 92o or 52o so we might get to use a small size too.

I didn't consider checking back as I had the Ac, but maybe I should have.

What the solver says: GTO Wizard's postflop AI suggests 25% would be the better bet size. If I give the solver the option to use 2e (roughly 1/2 pot) as well, then it still prefers the small sizing with AA.

It also checks sometimes too.

The overall strategy is a mix of betting and checking, with the small size preferred. The best top pair and first overpairs are the most likely to benefit from value betting on this flop.

The Big Blind calls and the turn is the Tc. He now leads 1/2 pot.

My thinking: I didn't think this was a turn that the Big Blind gets to lead in theory. I still have a lot more equity and a higher proportion of strong hands.

The Big Blind has quite a lot of weak hands here like 5x, 2x, some 9x and unpaired hands that improved to a flush draw.

I think calling the donk bet is okay to keep in what I perceived to be more bluffs than value. I want him to continue bluffing hands like gutshots with a club on the river.

What the solver says: There are no donk bets on this turn. If they do bet 1/2 pot, I'm supposed to raise all-in, but I'm not sure how good the solver is at responding to lines that shouldn't happen.

I just call and the river is the Ah. The BB puts me all-in...

My thinking: I definitely think he can have some bluffs. I also think that there's a chance he plays worse value hands like a set this way.

I called and he showed 76o no club.

What the solver says: 76o with a club is a reasonable bluff on the river, but without is just a check. Their bluff cost them a decent amount of $EV.

Takeaways: When players take weird lines—like leading the turn or jamming rivers out of nowhere—it can be tempting to panic or assume they always have it. But it’s important to stay focused on how our range stacks up and think about what their line actually represents.

The solver says I should shove the turn, but in real life, letting bluffs keep firing can be more profitable.

By the river, I figured the BB was either really strong or bluffing, and since worse value hands could play this way too, I felt good about the call. Solvers are great, but in spots like this, trusting your read still goes a long way.

Summary

It’s always interesting to see where real-life poker hands line up with solver outputs—and where they're totally different.

Across these two hands, I found myself in some tough spots where solver logic suggested different decisions than what I landed on in-game.

Sometimes I was too tight, sometimes I was spot on, and sometimes the lines my opponents took just didn’t exist in theory at all.

But that’s the game, right?

Solvers are a great tool for learning and refining strategy, but in the moment, you're playing against people—not machines.

And being able to adapt, read the situation, and trust your intuition still matters just as much as knowing what the solver spits out.