Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I see talk about "defining your hand". To me, that means letting your opponent know what you have. It seems like you don't want to do that, although it may sometimes be a necessary side effect of correct play. Is defining your hand ever a good idea?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

This always tilts me...

I mean, everything you do in theory somehow defines your hand. Every action you take in the hand will always somehow alter his perceived range of you, thus everything you do "defines" your hand to some degree.

But in general, when people say they're going to "define" their hand, they do in fact narrow it down pretty tight which is an awful thing to do.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

WRT the other thread, perhaps a better choice of words in my post should have been "protecting our hand."

I obviously agree we're not trying to make it easier for opponents to read us.

I think that by not taking the lead, we can make it easier for villains to suck out on us AND not let us know enough about what THEY have.

E.G. in that other thread suppose Villain hit a kicker to make two pair on the turn while we were cryptically just calling and keeping our range less defined.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I am not talking about the other thread. I was somewhat inspired by the other thread, but this is a general question. If you want to discuss the other thread, please discuss it in the other thread.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

It seems to me that when people talk about defining their hand they really mean defining their opponent's hand.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when people talk about defining their hand they really mean defining their opponent's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a combination. You are making it kind of obvious what you have to your opponent, so that you can figure out what they have and act accordingly.

To betgo's original question, I do think it can sometimes be a good idea. It would clearly need to be against an unsophisticated opponent who won't think any deeper than "looks like he's got an overpair!" I don't personally do this, but before you say it's always a terrible idea, remember that not all opponents are as smart as you and capable of exploiting anything.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

how is it possible to "define ur hand" if you play atleast a somewhat balanced gameplan?

This thread is confusing

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

Simply having a "somewhat balanced gameplan" doesn't mean there aren't certain combinations of flops/turns/rivers along with your betting action that you'd only do with a specific type of hand.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

so are u saying that those flops/turns/rivers u have one specific hand cause that means ur range is not balanced.

if youre saying that certain sequences narrow our hand range soemtimes, thats true, but that still doesnt "define our hand"

I mean I cant think of a single situation that comes up for a competent player besides super rare situations where ur like 1000bbs deep where an opponent can say you have "x" hand, and not "x" range

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I don't believe that defining your hand is a good idea. I think that this only works against weak minded opponents who are not going to be able to lay down hands against you even if you showed them your hand during the middle of play. I believe that maybe defining where you believe you are in the hand can be beneficial to you as a player. Not necessarily defining your hand to your opponent but acting accordingly to see where you stand in the hand in your opinion and see where your opponent is as well. Tough thread, good topic, like to see what everyone else thinks. Whats your opinion betgo?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

even in the rare instance where say like the board has 3 to a straight flush and ur opponent holds the nut flush, and u shove the river on him for like 1000 times the pot, theoretically u should still have a bluff there some % of the time, albeit a extremely extremely small %

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

D2themfi,

I believe that by having a balanced game plan you are trying to say that you want to play in an unexploitable fashion; is that correct? I posit that we do not want to play unexploitably, we want to play optimally and there is a fundemental difference between the two.


Betgo,

I do not believe that we should intentionally ever define our hand (as was suggested in the other thread) but that there is not necessarily something wrong with playing in a transparent manner against 95% of opponents.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

balance does not equal optimal or unexploitable. It is impossible(to the best of my knowledge) to solve holdem and create an unexploitable gameplan or perfectly optimal

What I was trying to point out is that OP is asking whether it is correct to ever "define" our hand. I took that to mean in a hypothetical situation we make a bet or raise where we can only have one specific hand aka the nuts. And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand. He may knw our frequencies and thus be able to make optimal choices. but theoretically our opponents should never be able to say that we will do "x" action with only one hand and one hand only

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

i always say no and try not to do this but im starting to believe that sometimes it just saves chips.
For example:

I flat a button raise with J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] lets say 60bbs deep.


Flop A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

check call 2/3 pot.

Turn: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Leading the turn or flop, even though its not really for value or as a bluff makes the hand so much easier to play that im starting to believe maybe its okay.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I was reading an older thread in HSNL that mentioned its OK if your opponent knows what you have as long as you play correctly knowing that they know what you have. Thread is here.

I usually try to undefine my hand as much as possible while still extracting value: making my weak hands look stronger and my strong hands look weaker. When I have a great hand and feel my opponent has a strong second best hand, or when I think he is pot committed, I will "define" my hand with a big bet that I expect to be called the large majority of the time.

Defining your hand seems like a more valuable concept in limit HE since raising with one pair is so much more common to lower odds for chasers, even though they often come along anyway. In NL pot odds are so easily manipulated that there's less need to do this.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

well it depends are we defining our hand at the top of our range or the bottom of the range. And how does that effect the given context.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to explain why?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I don't think the OP asked a very good question. What do you mean by defining our hand?

If you mean, turn it over so the Villain knows what we have?

And since you don't mean that, then what do you mean?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

There are definitely times where it's good to define your hand. These usually occur in satellites or in some situation where due to the prize structure you would like everyone to fold, and it's also in their best interests to fold. In cash games, where its more of a zero-sum game, it probably never makes sense for you to simply announce to your opponent what your hand is.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are definitely but rare times where it's good to define your hand. These usually occur in satellites or in some situation where due to the prize structure you would like everyone to fold, and it's also in their best interests to fold. In cash games, where its more of a zero-sum game, it probably never makes sense for you to simply announce to your opponent what your hand is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to explain why?

[/ QUOTE ]

note: if the villain knows me from twoplustwo or by reputation then all bets are off. My post is for situations where either we are unknown or the villain is unknown.

I would rather play optimally than unexploitably. I would rather play each hand in a manner that maximizes my EV

You are discussing randomizing your play. That means taking a line that is not maximizing your EV some % of the time for the sake of what? table image? I contend that the long run value of someone seeing you play a hand in a manner that is not optimal, and a similar situation coming up (before a table change), and that player remembering how you played the last hand, and whatever else needs to go right for you to play a hand poorly X% of the time is not worth the short run price you pay for it.

Are there exceptions to this? Of course. Against an observant but nonthinking player we might play a big hand the same way that we played a bluff (that showed down) 10 minutes ago but most players do not have an attention span longer than that so there is no reason for us to randomize our play. Obviously I am not talking about playing against good players here, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough good players out there for me to change my overall strategy.

---

Curtains - satellites are a good example of when defining your hand could make sense... but then again you should also be folding AA X% of the times in satellites so...

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

We aren't talking sats here.

Also I agree completely with maximizing EV and not worrying about playing exploitable (in general vs unknowns)

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

Making a play for the purpose of defining your hand sucks, but it can be an unintended consequence of vbetting. There are certain people who will call three bets with like any pair, sc's, etc, but will only 4bet QQ+ AK so three betting hands like JJ vs. them and folding to a 4bet is fine, your bet is designed for value, but you end up defining your hand in the process.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

cornell fiji- I get what ur saying about when to play exploitably, vs when to try to balance but Im having a hard time with a few things

One thing Im a lil fuzzy on, is that you seem to distinguish between short term and long term EV. Im a lil confused here, isnt EV, just EV, we are always looking at the longterm, and therefore balancing is a primary concern because if we become predictable/exploitable, our EV decreases therefore making the balanced frequencies better anyways.

Idk If i made sense with that question or not, Im having a hard time wrapping my mind around all this. I mean someone was an online hsmtt reg, presumably there are quite a few players that you see everyday twice a day in tourneys like the 100r, where balance has got to become pretty important.

Idk I mean I feel like this should be for a separate thread almost cause were kinda drifting away from the OP

One thing im still confused about is if Op was asking if we are defining our hand vs villains range, or if we are defining our hand in a way that makes what we have transparent. Im beginning to think i misinterpreted the original question and have shot off into a completely different tangent