Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
OK for example
you put your opponent on a range of 10%
roughly speaking that translates to pairs 66+ any suited ace, AK AQ, KQs QJs + a few other hands.
The flop comes.
You count all the possible hands which could have hit it and assign them the following values
Non suited non pair = 12 } These two may combine to = 16
Suited non pair = 4 }
pair = 6
There are 1326 possible statring hands so the to 10% translates to 132 hands.
There will be some overlap so allow 150 hands for ease.
If the sum of the weighted hands is 75 then you are in the middle of his range.
If the sum = 50 then you beat 2/3 of his range.
Is this, in essence, what people do when figuring out if the beat someones range? admitedly the probably dont do the maths but experience would get you to roughly the same decision.
When beating someones range is a factor on wether or not to continue, would you look to beat 2/3 of his range or would you look for a different figure (roughly speaking)
you put your opponent on a range of 10%
roughly speaking that translates to pairs 66+ any suited ace, AK AQ, KQs QJs + a few other hands.
The flop comes.
You count all the possible hands which could have hit it and assign them the following values
Non suited non pair = 12 } These two may combine to = 16
Suited non pair = 4 }
pair = 6
There are 1326 possible statring hands so the to 10% translates to 132 hands.
There will be some overlap so allow 150 hands for ease.
If the sum of the weighted hands is 75 then you are in the middle of his range.
If the sum = 50 then you beat 2/3 of his range.
Is this, in essence, what people do when figuring out if the beat someones range? admitedly the probably dont do the maths but experience would get you to roughly the same decision.
When beating someones range is a factor on wether or not to continue, would you look to beat 2/3 of his range or would you look for a different figure (roughly speaking)