# just started question

Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
hello,
I just started the 6-max workbook. I am very pleased after reading the first few pages. I think it is going to to be worthwhile. Maybe this is answered later on but I will as k any way as soon as I get the question. If it is answered later in the book can just say"keep reading". thank you question , you say "If you only remember two things about ranges, remember that they are
linear and logical. Linear, (******not to be confused with the other poker usage
meaning ‘depolarized’*****[/b
]) states that ranges go from street to street and from
action to action. A range can never get wider (if a player does not play 96
preflop we do not assign 96 in their range when the flop comes 963 and
they raise). In fact, a range can only stay the same width or, more commonly,
shrink as a hand progresses. Unless a player continues with 100%
of their range, they fold, raise, or check-behind with some subset of hands.

what id a player is depolarized. throws in 9,6 every now and then or alwasys, you have been thier 46 hands and seen it once. his vip is 20-35% he will be gone soon , they stay one hour or less. you know they are depolarized becuase they raised or 3bet utg with 9,6o maybe the pot was chked down and JJ won(the other guy) who called the 3 bet. now you see 9,6o, 46 hands, he will be gone soon. do you .......assume he did this one time , sacraficed the money to get to showdown and show and sew everyones ability. or does he do it all the time every 5 times? do you know factor in everything 9,6o and above always???????? in the intial preflop linear group?
thank you,. his vipip is not 80 its like say 30 in 6 max. all indicators wwsf are good say 51%. ???do I now include this wide wide range all the time against him?
Tagged:

• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
question #2.............. Page 20
if j10s then why no q10s?
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭✭
I have not read the 6 max work book, but I have read articles and other post of split on his linear approach. IMO the linear approach has one major flaw in it. And that is latter information with bigger bets has to have more weight then early information with small bets.

That not to say you should ignore a preflop range. But preflop ranges especially at low stakes tend to be the most erratic. Its probably a mistake to say this nit would never shove the river without the nuts...the nuts is 86 but he would never play 86 in his preflop utg range for a raise therefor I going to call.

The nit never shoving the river without the nuts is probably a much higher % fact then the nit would never raise 86 utg. This is a mistake Split make in his linear approach imo and has to be accounted for.

This is an extreme example, but understanding that later info is more important, can often help you plan out hands. often layers preflop and flop play can be some what erratic, but by the turn, they play face up. Planning hands around the turn information is one of the corner stones of my game currently.
• Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
Eazzy wrote: »
I have not read the 6 max work book, but I have read articles and other post of split on his linear approach. IMO the linear approach has one major flaw in it. And that is latter information with bigger bets has to have more weight then early information with small bets.

That not to say you should ignore a preflop range. But preflop ranges especially at low stakes tend to be the most erratic. Its probably a mistake to say this nit would never shove the river without the nuts...the nuts is 86 but he would never play 86 in his preflop utg range for a raise therefor I going to call.

The nit never shoving the river without the nuts is probably a much higher % fact then the nit would never raise 86 utg. This is a mistake Split make in his linear approach imo and has to be accounted for.

This is an extreme example, but understanding that later info is more important, can often help you plan out hands. often layers preflop and flop play can be some what erratic, but by the turn, they play face up. Planning hands around the turn information is one of the corner stones of my game currently.

Think I better jump in here before things get really nasty between @Eazzy and @SplitSuit ...

One of the challenges I find with hand reading is the uncertainty with our range estimation, on each street. I don't think anyone can confidently assume a hand is 100% in our out of an opponent's range. I think the linear approach will work perfectly well if your range assumptions have "soft" rather than "hard" edges, with unlikely hands having a non-zero probability. Much more difficult to implement in practice unfortunately, but we can achieve it by discounting the number of combos.

So the player we currently believe is a "nit" might get a 5% chance of having 86s in his opening range, for whatever reason. The linear approach (as I understand it) can still lead us to the conclusion that our opponent only has the nuts. As the hand goes on, we might eliminate all the probable hands and just be left with the improbable.

Please note I also haven't read the hand reading workbook or done the Lab. Would be good for someone who has to have a go at answering the question...
• RCP Coach Posts: 4,071 -
lol @colldav, it never gets nasty with me. I understand @Eazzy's approach and while I disagree with it, I see why it's more preferable. I force previous ranges to be set in stone and when wrong, I use that information in FUTURE hands rather than leaving ranges to be malleable and flexible in THIS hand.

This is largely because if a framework allows for flexible ranges in a given hand it gives far too much room for players to just say "well, he must have XY because XY is the nuts" rather than making logical deductions about ranges based upon previous information, frequencies, etc.

Of course, in a game where players can show up with partial combo of nearly any hand due to random tilt, brain farts, misclicks, etc. - I see the value in the @Eazzy approach. I just see it leading to an incorrect amount of finagling trying to get a range to match the narrative that player wants to tell themselves to justify a bad play.
📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
.....emmmmmmm , my question at the start of thread.....never mind
• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
...also he says "linear" not narrow. So if you have a player like that just widen his range.
• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
""t. I don't think anyone can confidently assume a hand is 100% in our out of an opponent's range. ""

I can.
• Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
star681 wrote: »
""t. I don't think anyone can confidently assume a hand is 100% in our out of an opponent's range. ""

I can.

Correction: I don't think any normal human can confidently assume a hand is 100% in or out of ab opponent's range."
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
star681 wrote: »
""t. I don't think anyone can confidently assume a hand is 100% in our out of an opponent's range. ""

I can.

When the young peasant prides himself on an uncommon cerebral and cognitive superiority, perched at the top of the pyramid of the freedmen, only the monocle which filters the intensity of the radiance of his knowledge comes to skew the judgment of the simple-minded who can not be impregnated with such an intellectual magnitude.

Through the thick, woolly and damp layers of his naïveté, the correlation between knowing and his stupidity come to collide with his inability to communicate adequately on the social scale of interactions.

All his assumptions inevitably lead us to a futile answer. Futile but necessary to the continuity of the resulting health consequence of his intervention. This answer can only be unpleasant, to meet its intellectual out of norm or sub-standard, to the monocle to filter.

But this reposnse is 42 hhhhhhhmmmmm Ka // yyyyy --ma; sm
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
I would add that Angel Dust is a helluva drug.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭✭✭
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
i--WWaazzzzn///t ta.;lying boutt mE
• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
lol