Scope of the research
The research looks at how players make decisions when outcomes depend on chance, interaction and changing incentives.
The aim is not to identify a single “best play”. It is to understand how a decision performs under different conditions, where it remains robust and when it starts to fail.
This includes work on risk, survivability, execution error and the effect of small disadvantages over time.
Questions within scope
The research considers questions such as:
- What happens when a decision depends on assumptions that no longer hold?
- When does a theoretically favourable line become too fragile in practice?
- How do stack pressure and changing incentives affect the range of possible outcomes?
- How much damage can small execution errors cause over time?
- How should decision quality be judged when results are heavily influenced by chance?
Equity Decay
Equity Decay describes the loss of practical value when assumptions drift, downside risk increases or execution worsens.
The term does not mean that theoretical equity disappears. It is used to examine the gap between a line that looks favourable in theory and one that can be carried out reliably in practice.
This matters when a decision depends on precise inputs, stable conditions or a low tolerance for error.
How the work is approached
Each investigation begins with a defined question, an explicit reference point and a clear account of the evidence available.
The analysis then examines how the result changes across repeated observations, differing conditions and reasonable variations in the underlying assumptions. Where probability or simulation is used, its role is to test the distribution and resilience of the result rather than to imply certainty.
Conclusions are reported with their scope, assumptions and limitations made visible.
Interpretation boundaries and limitations
Poker results are affected by chance, sample size, player behaviour and the conditions in which a decision is made.
A good result does not prove that the decision was sound. A poor result does not prove that it was wrong.
The research therefore separates outcome from decision quality and does not treat short samples as evidence of a lasting edge.
Where an analysis depends on estimated ranges, behavioural assumptions or simplified models, those limits are stated.
Research index
Public work may include research questions, methodology notes, preliminary analysis and commentary on topics such as:
- Range Compression — how pressure can distort a player’s range;
- Averages Hide the Knife — how averages can hide serious downside;
- Solvers and Simulation — the difference between a fixed solution and a changing game;
- Equity Decay — how a line loses practical value as assumptions, risk and execution change.
Only work considered suitable for public release will be linked from this page.
Poker notice
Poker involves chance, variance and financial risk. Nothing on this website guarantees a result or removes the possibility of loss.
Examples, simulations and observations are provided for research and information only. They should not be treated as promises of performance or instructions for play.
Explore related work
Read public Poker research and commentary.