Whats in a Range

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
You cant only think I have a set/flush draw how should I play it, you need to think I have a set/flush draw, how frequently should I bet/CR/checkcall with it in order to create ranges that deceive my opponent. Quite frequently then the answer to these questions is not you should to A, B or C, but rather you should do A X%, B Y% and C Z%, at least when you are playing against players who think about what you are holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Harrington usually gives advice in these terms, at least when discussing pre-flop play, yet we see so many one-word responses on this board to "Push" or "Fold".

Question for you: it's generally thought that there is no need mix up your play online as you so rarely encounter the same players or sit long enough with them at the same table. But as you point out in your original post, even those who don't think about it in these terms are always putting us on ranges and playing against a range of hands we could be holding.

So suppose I wanted to combine your advice and Harrington's in a particular situation and use the second hand of my watch to check-raise 70% of the time and lead out 30% of the time. But I've just been moved to a new table, and it's going to break up soon. Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise? Or should I actually check the second hand of my watch and randomize my play, even though I'm unlikely to be in the same situation with the same players again?

I guess what I'm asking is, if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[DeezNeez8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cant only think I have a set/flush draw how should I play it, you need to think I have a set/flush draw, how frequently should I bet/CR/checkcall with it in order to create ranges that deceive my opponent. Quite frequently then the answer to these questions is not you should to A, B or C, but rather you should do A X%, B Y% and C Z%, at least when you are playing against players who think about what you are holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Harrington usually gives advice in these terms, at least when discussing pre-flop play, yet we see so many one-word responses on this board to "Push" or "Fold".

Question for you: it's generally thought that there is no need mix up your play online as you so rarely encounter the same players or sit long enough with them at the same table. But as you point out in your original post, even those who don't think about it in these terms are always putting us on ranges and playing against a range of hands we could be holding.

So suppose I wanted to combine your advice and Harrington's in a particular situation and use the second hand of my watch to check-raise 70% of the time and lead out 30% of the time. But I've just been moved to a new table, and it's going to break up soon. Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise? Or should I actually check the second hand of my watch and randomize my play, even though I'm unlikely to be in the same situation with the same players again?

I guess what I'm asking is, if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to say in a situation like this u should always go with the 'better' option. However, of course, if you were at a table that appeared was going to stay together for a while (i.e. a deep stack final table or something) the second hand thing would be the best approach.

I am just a journeyman and really just wanted this question back on the front page so i could get a better answer than i can give.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[DeezNeez8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...but on a hypothetical level i believe Foucault's question remains unanswered.

[MLG]

On a hypothetical level if one option is clearly "better" you take it. The point is that the majority of situations in which you start with at least a medium sized stack do not involve a specific "better" option. In those situations a mixed strategy is the "best" option.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thought on this. I tend to like leading into the raiser with a set but I do play it differently sometimes. I think choosing to mix it up in a particular case should be done for a combination of game-theoretic and opponent-specific reasons.

Meaning - You often are at a table long enough for opponents to notice how you play certain hands. I'd rather have someone see me c-r a set once and lead into the raiser twice, rather than do the same thing three times. But which time I choose to checkraise will often be opponent specific. Say there's an ace on board and I expect someone to threebet push me with TPTK b/c he just saw me checkraise a draw or middle pair against him. Maybe it's a threeway pot and I think that if he doesn't have the ace he'll bet if checked to but fold if bet into. So either way I get the most, this time, and someone else sees me checkraise a set and makes it easier to get the raise next time when I lead into them.

The game-theoretic value is in the appearance of randomized play. A lot of times you don't have to randomize to have your play appear random.

[FGators]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is when stacks are deep, right? If stacks are shorter and I flop a set shouldn't I check to the raiser who is semi-short so that I commit him to the pot after he makes a play at it?

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is when stacks are deep, right? If stacks are shorter and I flop a set shouldn't I check to the raiser who is semi-short so that I commit him to the pot after he makes a play at it?

[/ QUOTE ]

When stacks are short you're getting TPTK or an overpair's money anyway, so you might be better off checkraising to get a continuation bet when he misses, or to let him catch a turn card.

[Cablelessray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since check-raising is presumably the 'better' option, should I just go ahead and check-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thge idea that checkraising is better than check calling or check folding here, and that the other two are worse options that you should use only to randomize is wrong. Leading into a preflop raiser with a set is a great way to get there stack. CRing is frequently the worst way.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thought on this. I tend to like leading into the raiser with a set but I do play it differently sometimes. I think choosing to mix it up in a particular case should be done for a combination of game-theoretic and opponent-specific reasons.

Meaning - You often are at a table long enough for opponents to notice how you play certain hands. I'd rather have someone see me c-r a set once and lead into the raiser twice, rather than do the same thing three times. But which time I choose to checkraise will often be opponent specific. Say there's an ace on board and I expect someone to threebet push me with TPTK b/c he just saw me checkraise a draw or middle pair against him. Maybe it's a threeway pot and I think that if he doesn't have the ace he'll bet if checked to but fold if bet into. So either way I get the most, this time, and someone else sees me checkraise a set and makes it easier to get the raise next time when I lead into them.

The game-theoretic value is in the appearance of randomized play. A lot of times you don't have to randomize to have your play appear random.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think what your saying is absurd... isn't 2+2 the place where we have all decided that having a set with different variables should be played in different ways? i mean maybe having an Ace on board really should differ the type of play you make. i believe what MLG is trying to say is that for ever specific situation, there is a correct percentile way of playing the hand. the question of if it is possible for a human to do this is another matter.

to imply that your goal is just to appear random is not logical. if you just appear random, but are not accually random, a perfect player could beat you in those situations, a good player would be able to take advantage of the fact that you appear random, but are not atually random. randomness to some extent is what gives you the ability to make money when playing other good players.

to another matter, i wanted to discuss, and ask you all about the ability to answer this thread. having reread it countless times, i would say the real question is if there is a strategy that can come out of this incredible poker insight. and my answer is no, although i am open to other's oppinions [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but here's my stab at it:

the reason this type of thread has no relevance at lower stakes is quite simple to see. at low stakes, no matter how much better you get at winning, or "maximizing your profits", as we are toaght here on 2+2, your oponents honestly really never get much better, they still call you down like donkeys, and/or allow you to out play them like donkeys. in short, if there are a losing player at some stake, they will most likely always be a losing play at that stake, or at least for a very long time. now, as we move up in stakes, we begin to encounter people who accually think! what a shocker... they start saying"what does he have?" which is what this thread is about. how there is an obvious answer to the issue of oponents saying what does he have, and that is"what does he think i have?"
these players are beat by a simple question also. so we get to a place now where everyone is thinking what does he think i have. and here is the issue. original question was the existance of a strategy that can be deduced from there insights. and here we find our answer. let's say you are playing a head's up match. hero vs. villain
you as the hero, adjust first to how villain is playing. you are able to adjust to his ranges, and his betting styles and structures. but wait! villain is not an idiot, so he imidiately adjusts to your game, figuring out your ranges and betting structures. you then do the same. and as you can see, it will never end. so, is there any starting strategy that is more correct than any other? short of folding the nuts throught 20th nuts, and only raising hands that don't play on the board, can't any realistic starting strategy be viable assuming one is able to adjust to his/her oponent?

last, but i hope not least, i'd just like to say that this thread is the first i've accaully enjoyed reading, and i've been reading 2+2 for months. i'd say post of the month material easily... assuming i didn't just ruin it

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
On a hypothetical level if one option is clearly "better" you take it. The point is that the majority of situations in which you start with at least a medium sized stack do not involve a specific "better" option. In those situations a mixed strategy is the "best" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was getting at. I didn't mean to start a tangent about how to play a set out of position. In fact, I didn't even mention what hand Hero had in my example, because that was irrelevant. What I meant to say was, suppose there is some situation where you would advocate 70% check-raises and 30% leading out (maybe it's a set, maybe it's a combination draw, doesn't matter). There are at least three ways of interpreting this:

1. Check-raising is the 'best' way to play this hand, that's why we do it most often, but we don't want our opponents to catch on to our plan, so we have to lead out sometimes. But when I'm at a table that's going to break soon and I expect to be in this spot only once, I should check-raise every time, since it is on balance best and I need not worry about deception.

2. Check-raising is not 'best'. The combination of 70% check-raises and 30% leading out is 'best'. It sounds like this is what MLG is saying. How can this be the case? Because your opponents are always playing against a range of possible hands you could have, and you gain EV every time they either incorrectly estimate your range or incorrectly play their hand against a correctly estimated range. The latter occurs quite often at lower buy-in tournaments, which is why it is less important to use mixed strategies at those levels. Your opponents aren't likely to estimate your range correctly (though they are putting you on a range, even if they don't think they are), and they often misplay their hands even when their estimation is correct (drawing with improper odds, for instance). You ought to be able to exploit these mistakes without mixing up your play too often.

At higher levels, your opponents will estimate your range more correctly even when they have never played with you before. Conventional wisdom has it that an UTG raise is generally a big hand, maybe TT-AA, AQ-AK. Your opponents likely put you on a range such as this one the first time they see you raise under the gun. They don't assign you this range because they've studied your UTG raising tendencies, they assign you this range because there are mathematical reasons why you would not generally want to build a pot out of position with hands weaker than these. If you really do raise only these hands UTG, then your opponents can exploit you by folding, calling with good implied odds, calling with the intention of taking the pot away later, or re-raising their biggest hands, knowing you can pay them off.

Suppose you've just been moved to a new table deep in one of the big Sunday tournaments, and you decide to raise 87s UTG. If folds around to the BB, who mucks AJ, and you take the blinds. Has he made a mistake? Not if your range is 40% TT-AA, 58% AQ-AK, and 2% suited connectors. It doesn't matter that you had 87s this time, any more than it matters that Villain hit a two-outer after you made a great call. Although BB has never played with you, he's got a good idea what your UTG raising range is. The only way to combat this is to have a wider, less predictable range.

Similarly, if you have a draw 90% of the time you lead into the pre-flop raiser, but you have a set this time and he pushes, he still hasn't made a mistake. You need to make a guess as to what range he will put you on if you are unknown to him, and then you need to deviate from that range.

3. Some say you should mix up your play situationally, not randomly. Lead out on the 30% of flops that you think were most likely to hit a pre-flop raiser, check-raise otherwise. I don't think this is actually a separate alternative, since flopping a set on an AQ5 flop is a different situation from flopping a set on a T65 flop. Against a player who can make a reasonable estimation of your range and play correctly against it, you need to mix it up in both circumstances. If you know or have reason to think Villain will make a particular mistake, such as folding any flop he missed or jamming whenever he has top pair, then you can choose the play that best exploits that mistake.