# How do I know if my percent of previous hands is too high or too low?

Red Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
Using Live Workbook Vol I.

Thanks!

• Red Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
Thanks for the response!

So it's more about the reason for each hand that you include or omit rather than reaching a certain percentage?
• Red Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
Awesome. Thanks guys!
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭✭
I'll pose this to some of the real geniuses out there...

If we're in a situation where our opponent bets X amount, shouldn't we be defending a certain % of our range based on that amount to avoid being exploited? Of course, I know this logic implies that our opponent is exploiting us--which @Adam Wheeler has helped me with the past few days:) I suppose this would be very much opponent dependent--obviously, it's ok for us to fold 99% of our range to the OMC Super Nit should just made a pot sized bet. But, in certain situations, against certain player types, our continuing range could be too high or too low. Perhaps what I'm writing is the long form of what @SplitSuit mentioned already?
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
edited May 2017
I would think that the bet lays out what should be theoretically the correct frequencies to defend. But obviously you have to base your decision as to defend or not some holdings on V tendencies and the dynamics that developed over time at the table. Another way to see this is the calling frequency you need should be theoretically the optimal bluffing frequency from V. So if he bets pot optimally he should bluff 33%. So then you could ask yourself based on V tendencies and game flow, is he bluffing more or not here, wen you define his value range and his bluffing range then you can base your decision on this and decide if you defend or not with the hand as part as your whole range.
• Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
We should "defend" with those hands for which defending has a higher EV than folding, regardless of our defending frequency. Calling with -EV hands to prevent ourselves being "exploited" is (by definition) a losing play.

This principle is not inconsistent with Game Theory, it is more fundamental and should be the foundation on which the Game Theoretic play is based.

If this would lead to us being exploited, the correct fix is not to call with more hands, it is to look at our play earlier in the hand.

Now for the hard part - how do you determine which hands are +ev ?
• RCP Coach Posts: 4,081 -
bigburge10 wrote: »
Perhaps what I'm writing is the long form of what @SplitSuit mentioned already?

Yup =)

The simple answer for defending and continuance #s can be found in 'Poker's 1%'. The advanced stuff can be found using software like PIO Solver.

Just understand that as you change any variable in your opponent's frequencies that your own frequencies will often times shift quickly.
📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.