Considering our own range

LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
edited January 2 in General Concepts
When looking at our range, considering what we want to do with each combo in our range, do we use:

1) our perceived range by villain

or

2) the actual range that we have as a result of our strategy

I'm gonna guess the second but how does villain know our strategy? Surely what villain puts us on is extremely relevant for our decision making.

Comments

  • pokerdj4pokerdj4 NYRed Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    I think it's back and forth at most stakes. I play 10nl and there are fish along with some deeper thinking TAGs. When playing fish I think it's okay to only think about what our opponent has. Against a player who thinks a little deeper we should look more into "what does my opponent think I have".

    Villain can only know our strategy if they are actively paying attention/looking for our leaks and ways to exploit us. And then only if they study the game. We tell them our strategy when we get to show down and they see our hole cards and recount the actions taken. 3 betting AA and getting to show down won't tell your opponent much. But 3 betting 76s in the CO vs UTG open and getting to show down will.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3
    You'll focus on 2 while being aware of 1.

    I'm afraid you guys are going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time, at some point.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
    edited January 3
    persuadeo wrote: »
    You'll focus on 2 while being aware of 1.

    Let's concretize.

    Suppose we are perceived to have 10 value combos and 20 bluff combos when we bet pot on the river. Villain should call 50% of the time and does accordingly.

    Suppose now that we have a value combo which villain would never put us on. Like some obscure two pair or straight. Assuming we want to value bet it, do we:

    1) Include it in our value range without adding bluff combos

    or

    2) Include it in our value range and add 2 bluff combos to compensate

    In my mind that is the same question as the one in the OP. When developing our bluffing range, do we consider what villain thinks we have for value, or do we consider what we actually have for value?
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭✭
    @LeChiffre : I usually add them in my value range. Without including more bluffs but either by playing a more value oriented range (usually these are only a few combo more, not than many that we have a skewed range) or, if I want to keep a balanced range, by taking some combos out of the bottom of my betting (value) range and including them in the top of my checking range.

    Also don't forget that if you play exploitative poker, you will have different ranges adapted to your different Villains. So usually I don't ask myself "How does this combos fit my range?" but "How does this combo fits my (exploitative) strategy against this Villain's profile and range?" .
    My range is more of a balanced guideline I use to deviate from, only sticking to it if V is smarter than the low stake field I'm facing.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So which one creates the error in his calling frequency, lechiffre, 1 or 2?
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 268 ✭✭✭
    This is certainly a big question. I try to approach it as building a default strategy based on what I do with the different parts of my range - this is what I use when I sit down at a new table or play zone online. As I learn more about my opponents, I shift into a more exploitative strategy that plays on my perceived range.

    If you consider your example, where your opponent "knows" you're betting a perfectly balanced 2:1 value to bluff ratio, and so has a perfectly unexploitable 50% calling frequency on the end, assuming his calls beat all your bluffs and lose to all your value, doesn't it make sense that you would want your value range to expand quicker than your bluff range?

    Let's take it to an extreme, and assume that instead of the 2:1 value to bluff ratio, you remove all bluffs. Now let's look at those two cases side by side.

    2:1 Ratio
    Value (2/3 of the time):
    50% of the time, V calls and you win 2x Pot.
    50% of the time, V folds and you win 1x Pot.
    +1.5 Pot Total
    Bluff (1/3 of the time):
    50% of the time, V calls and you lose 1x Pot.
    50% of the time, V folds and you win 1x Pot.
    0 Pot Total
    So, (2/3)*(1.5) +(1/3)*0 = 1

    All Value Ratio
    Value (100% of the time):
    50% of the time, V calls and you win 2x Pot.
    50% of the time, V folds and you win 1x Pot.
    +1.5 Pot Total

    So, against someone calling perfectly at MDF, bluffs drop to 0 EV and there is no (immediate) reason to bet them. Of course, this is only assuming V actually calls at this frequency, and will continue calling at this frequency. The important reason for including bluffs in your river betting range is to force your opponents to either keep calling at this 50% threshold or sacrifice more than their fair share of pots. If they defend less, it opens up one avenue for exploitation; if they defend more, it opens up another.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 268 ✭✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    All Value Ratio
    Value (100% of the time):
    50% of the time, V calls and you win 2x Pot.
    50% of the time, V folds and you win 1x Pot.
    +1.5 Pot Total

    My mistake. This piece should actually also be multiplied by 2/3 as well, because 1/3 of the time you are going to check for 0 EV, which means both methods end up having the same EV. Which points to the fact that if he is defending properly, bluffing is the same EV as checking. Numbers start to change when his defending frequency changes (which in reality happens dependent upon your bluffing frequency.)
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
    edited January 3
    persuadeo wrote: »
    So which one creates the error in his calling frequency, lechiffre, 1 or 2?

    Since we are "breaking the rules" by having more value than we are supposed to in our range, he should deviate from the 50% by calling more. So he would be making a frequency error.

    I think that's what you mean but with you I can never be too sure =)

    Anyway, I think that answers my question. I guess similarly if we are perceived to have too little bluffs in a spot we should.... ok I see where this is going. Question answered. Cheers.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 777 ✭✭✭
    You are trying to optimise the value of your hand vs your opponent's range.
    Your opponent's range is, to a greater or lesser degree, based on your perceived range. It is not based on your actual range, except to the degree that your perceived range aligns with your actual range.

    Therefore your play should be based on your hand and your perceived range.*
    If your opponent is not "range-aware", your play should be based on your hand and your (perception of your) opponent's range, not on your own range.

    In the past I considered the following thought experiment:
    You play regularly in a home game.
    You 3-bet a range of premiums (QQ+ and AK).
    This week, your new coach has told you to instead 3-bet a range consisting only of suited connectors. (54s-T9s)

    Two cases:
    1. The flop comes down AKQr.
    2. The flop comes down 876r.

    On the AKQr flop:
    Against a thinking player, you should be betting your entire range - you will have a profitable bluff because your opponent will fold too often based on your perceived range.
    Against a calling station who will call down with any pair or draw, you probably should check your entire range, because your hand is way behind your opponent's range.

    On the 876r flop:
    Against a thinking player, you can play as if you had an overpair, because your opponent's range will be based on this.
    Against a calling station who will call down with any pair or draw, you should be betting hard for value because your hand crushes your opponent's range.


    * Note that to optimise all of your hands, you end up optimising range vs range.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file