For example, if the five cards on board were JT864, QJ should almost always fold to a bet and a call.


To answer this question specifically, all of the profiles that I tested MADE this call in the particular scenerio that I simulated.


That's just tip of the iceberg. There are worse errors than that.


Keep in mind, however, that the TTHE would become far more vulnerable to manipulation if they were to fold too often, than the other way around. It's probably better to have them call too much on the river than fold too much.


In order to properly use TTHE, IMO, you have to modify the simulations to help account for some of the errors that they make. Keep in mind, that these errors go both ways, and sometimes AA puts in too much money. So its not all a one way street, although its likely that AA is benefiting more.


If you will notice Sklansky's UTG EV estimate was $1.25. Mine, using modified TTHE sims, was 1.20 (including rake/toke). My AA UTG was making $90. Sklansky's got it at 50 and seems to be willing to go higher, based on his answer. So my modified TTHE sims are showing the pairs (and AKo) still higher than Sklansky's baselines.


Do the modified/controlled sims better approximate human play? They seem to, but still not fully, in my view. I don't have the time and inclination to properly document for others what the errors are, and how to modify for them...so just take this as speculation.


Are these modified sims better than the more generic ones? Not necessarily better, they just have different underlying assumptions about how the opponents behave.


Keep in mind that the users of TTHE generally know its limitations better than its critics.


Regards.


ps I wonder if these differences in these EV estimates account for the slightly less agressive play with big pairs by S&M that others seem to advocate? Or is that neither here nor there?