M
mottotom27
Rock Star
Silver Level
I've read articles and books that suggest calculating combinations in poker is a good way of evaluating hand ranges. Let's say you have AA and the board is 10-J-2-3-2, and you narrow down a particular villain's range to JJ, 1010 and QK when he fires a third barrel for pot on the river. The book or article will then suggest that there are 6 combinations of JJ, 6 of 1010, and 16 of QK. Add up these and you win just 16/28 when he has QK and lose 12/28 when he fills up and since you only have to win 1/3 times it's an easy call etc.
However this all seems impractical to me, since the combinations in reality will not be equally distributed. For example here your opponent may only bluff occasionally with the QK and usually have the boat, in which case the call will be -EV. So why calculate combinations when in reality ranges are so weighted? Isn't it more practical to just think of the villain's history and say: well i remember he shows up with a full house in this spot around 4/5 times so I should fold.
So why do books on poker strategy put so much emphasis on combinations in poker, when you can effectively figure out villain's likely (weighted) range by their showdown history? I feel like I'm missing something here...
However this all seems impractical to me, since the combinations in reality will not be equally distributed. For example here your opponent may only bluff occasionally with the QK and usually have the boat, in which case the call will be -EV. So why calculate combinations when in reality ranges are so weighted? Isn't it more practical to just think of the villain's history and say: well i remember he shows up with a full house in this spot around 4/5 times so I should fold.
So why do books on poker strategy put so much emphasis on combinations in poker, when you can effectively figure out villain's likely (weighted) range by their showdown history? I feel like I'm missing something here...