| User | Post |
|
5:16 pm
August 20, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
How should I adjust my hand ranges bases on
a.) number of players that have been dealt into the hand?
b.) my position?
c.) pre-flop activity before me?
|
|
|
7:01 pm
August 20, 2009
|
Matt Flynn
| | |
| Admin
| posts 115 | |
|
|
These are broad questions and tough to answer in the abstract.
A) In $1-$2, with one opponent think about stealing first. This may increase your hand range considerably if you have a good stealing situation. With many opponents think about stealing first. Yes, first again. Is this a good time to squeeze? Also, consider that your implied odds do go up, so a few more hands become playable for make-a-hand value. But a better question to ask for making a hand is "Are some of these players in the pot likely to pay me off if I hit?" That matters more than how many players are in.
Note in many smaller games you cannot steal much preflop, and postflop stealing is difficult. In those games you should play tighter preflop.
B) Play very tight out of position unless you can steal. Play much looser in position IF you can steal.
C) Again, what matters is can you profit from stealing? If yes, play looser. If no, tighten up to raises and reraises as you normally would.
Again your question are a bit too broad to answer in the abstract. Even knowing what stakes we are talking about would help.
|
|
|
7:50 pm
August 20, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Thanks for the reply Matt. I play .02/.04 stakes. Is there some way of mathematically working out answers to my questions in the orginal post? What if I take the number of opponents being dealt in the hand and divide that into 100 and use this number as a reference range? Could I then play hands that can beat this reference range?
For example: 5 opponents: 20% range
4 opponents: 25% range etc
I realize I could very well be way of base here. I'm just trying to take a math based approach and this seems like one way of going about it…
|
|
|
11:30 pm
August 20, 2009
|
karbyn
| | |
| Member | posts 9 | |
|
|
|
6:51 am
August 21, 2009
|
Rocketfingers
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Scott said:
Thanks for the reply Matt. I play .02/.04 stakes. Is there some way of mathematically working out answers to my questions in the orginal post? What if I take the number of opponents being dealt in the hand and divide that into 100 and use this number as a reference range? Could I then play hands that can beat this reference range?
For example: 5 opponents: 20% range
4 opponents: 25% range etc
I realize I could very well be way of base here. I'm just trying to take a math based approach and this seems like one way of going about it…
The biggest question here is not how much of them, but how they play. For examle if you play at a table with 5 nits you can open a lot of hands even under the gun, but if u r on the button and two loose and good players are in the blinds you have to back off a lot. Poker is too situational to give broad answers to any question. If you want some math if there are 3 players behind you you have to win the blinds in 64% of the time to show an instant profit if the players play 20% ranges you will win 50% of the time (0,8*0,8=6,4 |6,4*0,8=5,12) that means you have to win pots post flop, ofcourse the more players behind you the more pots you have to win post flop on average. If your post flop play is superior you can get away with a loose pre-flop strategy if not stick to good hands. One more thing is that you don't have to beat your opponents range, if you play far better than him you can make up for big range differences.
|
|
|
7:25 am
August 21, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Thanks Rocketfingers. I'm leaning more and more towards moving to a site where I can use a HUD.
|
|
|
12:48 pm
August 21, 2009
|
Rocketfingers
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
One more thing came to my mind. You talked about playing a range what beats other ranges, and there are two common mistakes what people make when they compare a range to another
1.) Is that people estimate their opponent play the top 20% of his range for example, the problem here is that a 20% range can differ from another 20% range. Lets say I play PP better and you play SC better so in certain situations my 20% range will contain more PP and yours will contain more SC and it is still 20%-range againt 20% range but different set of hands.
2.) Is that there are people who don't play the top of their 30% range. Like they fold 66 because yesterday they lost 2 stack with it but play 73s because its their favourite hand.
The conclusion from that is you can only know your real edge over a range if you know exactly the set of hands what your opponent plays.
|
|
|
1:53 am
August 22, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Post edited 10:16 am – August 22, 2009 by Scott
|
|
|
7:03 am
August 25, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
karbyn said:
see some further discussion here…
http://www.notedpokerauthority…..od-theorem
This is interesting. I'm curious as to why you chose 7.5% for the position factor F.
|
|
|
8:29 am
August 25, 2009
|
Scott
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
|
12:37 pm
August 26, 2009
|
Hitman
| | |
| Member | posts 62 | |
|
|
Scott said:
Thanks for the reply Matt. I play .02/.04 stakes. Is there some way of mathematically working out answers to my questions in the orginal post? What if I take the number of opponents being dealt in the hand and divide that into 100 and use this number as a reference range? Could I then play hands that can beat this reference range?
For example: 5 opponents: 20% range
4 opponents: 25% range etc
I realize I could very well be way of base here. I'm just trying to take a math based approach and this seems like one way of going about it…
Scott,
Matt gave you a brilliant reply and you didn't really listen. Definining a range % of playable hands based on how many players were dealt in, your position, or the action in front of you in a formulaic manner is a flawed approach that will yield inconsistent at best and disasterous at worst results.
Consider a few things:
- If it's folded around to you on the button, does it matter if there were 4 or 7 other players dealt in? The answer is no, not really. There is a small bunching effect difference but that is vastly overshadowed by considerations like your perceived image, the blind defense tendancies of the remaining 2 players, and how hands are likely to play out after the flop.
- In that same vein, does it make sense to fomulaically say if I'm folded to on the button I will open 40% of starting hands? If the blinds are both nits who as a practice do not defend their blinds, then this % is too tight as you can steal liberally. If the blinds are loose-aggressive players who defend vigorously, then this is too loose because your steal value has gone way, way down and you're much more likely to get re-stolen from in the hand.
In other words, what types of hands and how tight/loose you should get involved depends a lot more on situational considerations, rather than a formulaic approach. Your position and the action in front of you are certainly part of the equation, but you're missing very important considerations like the tendancies and styles of the active opponents, the stack sizes of those still active in the hand, your image at the moment, etc. And Matt's suggesting when you look at the "situation", you keep steal-ability at the forefront of your consideration and build off that.
|
|
|
10:37 am
August 30, 2009
|
pythoneer
| | netherlands | |
| Member | posts 10 | |
|
|
Post edited 5:43 pm – August 30, 2009 by pythoneer
It IS doable do calculate the chance that someone acting behind you has a dominating hand. I did this with the chance being <45% and the results are very much like the recommended starting hand tables you can find everywhere. I didn't find something spectacular. A little more aces, a little less KJ type of hands. QJ is worse than I thought. And for 22 UTG 9-handed there is a chance bigger than 50% someone has a bigger pair. Not for 33. Using this, you can make a default starting hand table for when you join a tables full of unknowns.
However, read the book, and reread it, like I am. For example, if your notes say someone is limp-folding, you can raise with much more. Another valuable note is "laf", for lookup-and-fold. If they do this a lot you can isolate them with a LOT of hands. The book made me try out much more cbetting and aggresiveness, and it seems to work.
|
|
Login
Search 
Home
Print this Post 
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Topic RSS 
