Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Oh okay - if you remember which episode that was, let me know. I only ever got like 12 or so in cause I keep forgetting to download them, and I'm making my way through Bart Hanson's Deuce Plays podcast atm.
But yeah, I wouldn't want people to think that there's no uncertainty in ranges they come up with, or that they can't ever be wrong or whatever. More just an encouragement for people to state ranges explicitly, which I think that very few players do.
This is really fantastic work and i am just so happy i read this here, very nice tread i hope you share with us more from your experiance! Thanks again
Thanks for the kind words.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
If that's what you think the point of the post was then I'm sorry. If you realize that wasn't the point (try reading the title of the thread?) then please don't troll the thread.
Cafeman
Legend
Silver Level
lol, no.
Blobweird123
CC's very own Dead Head
Silver Level
I take it youve never used a HUD? It shows their hole cards...
BoddJonar
Visionary
Silver Level
Well, I got PT4 trial, but I cant say that I fully understand it....
VPIP/PFR/AG
I don't know exactly how those numbers help me estimate hand ranges and that other stuff.
All I really know is if the first one is high and the second low, and the third low I'm dealing with a loose-passive, and so on.
Halp plx? ^^
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Don't listen to this bozo. HUD's don't show hole cards
First of all, my example is from a live hand, played in a casino. So I didn't have a HUD. Next, HUD's can help you estimate ranges by giving you numbers that can help you get an approximation of how many hands (of the total possible hands) your opponent plays in certain situations.
But for your larger question about how can I know the ranges so precisely, the answer is: I don't. I use precise ranges here for the purpose of simplicity, but there is always a level of uncertainty. Some may disagree with the range I gave the villain (micromachine was in disagreement with my assessment about villain's leading range on the flop), and only villain can know for sure what his ranges really are. For many live villains, they may not even know themselves, since so many of their actions are made more on gut feelings than on sound thought processes.
BoddJonar
Visionary
Silver Level
Don't listen to this bozo. HUD's don't show hole cards
First of all, my example is from a live hand, played in a casino. So I didn't have a HUD. Next, HUD's can help you estimate ranges by giving you numbers that can help you get an approximation of how many hands (of the total possible hands) your opponent plays in certain situations.
But for your larger question about how can I know the ranges so precisely, the answer is: I don't. I use precise ranges here for the purpose of simplicity, but there is always a level of uncertainty. Some may disagree with the range I gave the villain (micromachine was in disagreement with my assessment about villain's leading range on the flop), and only villain can know for sure what his ranges really are. For many live villains, they may not even know themselves, since so many of their actions are made more on gut feelings than on sound thought processes.
Haha! No I wont listen to him.
Yeah I read it trough, but as I said, I'm confused big time.
It shows a pretty deep thinking of the game, wich I really haven't got to the depth with.
To be able to estimate hand ranges on opponents is a crucial step to learn, and yet I just get confused.
When you estimate hand ranges, are you considering everything like position, player type, if he's running hot etc while you are sitting at the table?
I mean that seems like a ton of information.
Maybe I'm overthinking it all?
Well, if a guy has 25 VPIP and 20 PFR for example, how do I estimate his hand range from that info?
Do you just calculate it, or is there some help to get?
Cheers
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
This question would perhaps be better suited for its own thread, since again, no numbers are involved in my example. Much of postflop hand reading comes from experience - understanding what lines certain player types take with what hands.
Yes, there is a lot of information, and you try to incorporate as much of it as you can, but of course it's nearly impossible to think of EVERYTHING in the moment.
Your question, "if someone has VPIP/PFR = 25/20, how do I estimate his hand range," is a little vague. You can't look at these numbers and no his range perfectly in every situation. You have to look at the actions he takes in the hand, and then start to draw conclusions from that.
For example, if someone with a UTG PFR of 14% (in 6m) raises from UTG, then you can assume he is opening approximately 14% of hands. Typically from UTG people will raise the TOP X% of hands. So we can assume that the 14% is comprised of the top 14% of hands equity-wise. This range will look something like: 66+/A2s+/ATo+/JTs+/KJs+/KJo+
Then when you get to postflop, you can narrow this range based on his actions. If he is taking aggressive actions he will likely have a strong hand, or a strong draw. If he is taking passive actions it's more likely he doesn't have a hand. But again, so much of this comes from experience - trying to teach hand reading is pretty difficult.
Yes, there is a lot of information, and you try to incorporate as much of it as you can, but of course it's nearly impossible to think of EVERYTHING in the moment.
Your question, "if someone has VPIP/PFR = 25/20, how do I estimate his hand range," is a little vague. You can't look at these numbers and no his range perfectly in every situation. You have to look at the actions he takes in the hand, and then start to draw conclusions from that.
For example, if someone with a UTG PFR of 14% (in 6m) raises from UTG, then you can assume he is opening approximately 14% of hands. Typically from UTG people will raise the TOP X% of hands. So we can assume that the 14% is comprised of the top 14% of hands equity-wise. This range will look something like: 66+/A2s+/ATo+/JTs+/KJs+/KJo+
Then when you get to postflop, you can narrow this range based on his actions. If he is taking aggressive actions he will likely have a strong hand, or a strong draw. If he is taking passive actions it's more likely he doesn't have a hand. But again, so much of this comes from experience - trying to teach hand reading is pretty difficult.
pocketehs
Legend
Silver Level
Just a small point to add is that ppl base their ranges differently. one persons 14% utg rfi is going to be different than anothers. some ppl prefer suited boardways vs small pps vs all AXs hands.
How do you get better at understanding ranges? i would start by defining your own preflop ranges. then you would know that if you open 15% UTG and someone else opens only 10% you could have a better idea of what that 10% openign range would look like
How do you get better at understanding ranges? i would start by defining your own preflop ranges. then you would know that if you open 15% UTG and someone else opens only 10% you could have a better idea of what that 10% openign range would look like
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
That's also part of why I mentioned that there's always uncertainty. Not just because there is uncertainty in the numbers themselves, but in what part of a range a given hand falls into. Great point
AlfieAA
Legend
Silver Level
Excellent post...
Quote - There are actually a number of ways you can analyze a hand. Some of them less detailed, and some of them downright tedious. But today we use one of my favorites:
Could you tell us the other ways to analyze a hand please?
Quote - There are actually a number of ways you can analyze a hand. Some of them less detailed, and some of them downright tedious. But today we use one of my favorites:
Could you tell us the other ways to analyze a hand please?
W
Weisssound
Rock Star
Silver Level
I try not to think in percentages when I'm doing hand analysis. Most people aren't playing that way in the moment. It's an emotional reaction. By the time we got to the action on the turn my thought was "Kc 10c, and trying to control the pot poorly".
Here's my reasoning. The bet on the flop seemed like he was putting a feeler out - where is my opponent at? Let's do a small bet, because I'm crushed by AK, AA, KK, QQ, but I'm well ahead of AQ, Q10, and most pocket pairs. I'm kind of in the middle of the range here.
When you check raise him and he calls - we know he either has top pair and/or a flush draw. The call would be lose for a flush draw, but some people are river chasers.
The blank on the turn. This is just a bad play from the villain. The villain doesn't know if he should be pumping the pot, playing defensively, he's fairly sure there's a good chance he's behind, but he may be way ahead by the river. Because he's confused he makes a mistake with the small lead. When he calls your re-raise that says "I want to see a river." To me, all of this line of play says "top pair, not so great kicker, but the river could be great for me."
Blank on the river. I understand your bet on the river. All the draws missed, so you don't want to scare the guy out of the pot. However, he's called off two check raises so far. Clearly he feels he's strong enough to show down. $70 into $250 almost looks too inviting - there's sort of a psychological effect of putting up a red flag when the bet is too easy to call. I've managed to bluff people off of hands by UNDER betting because of this.
This bet ultimately has two problems: If the player reads it as strength you're getting at best a call but possibly a fold. If the player reads it as weakness, you're getting at best a call, but you might also be looking at a shove - depending on where the player is at and how he thinks. His playing was so weird leading up to the river, a shove would look very very scary.
$135 would probably be my bet on the river. To me, this communicates "I have a hand that can show down so just call." I think you're likely to see a call with that number and get the most value. I think it's also a lot less likely to get a bluff re-raise.
Here's my reasoning. The bet on the flop seemed like he was putting a feeler out - where is my opponent at? Let's do a small bet, because I'm crushed by AK, AA, KK, QQ, but I'm well ahead of AQ, Q10, and most pocket pairs. I'm kind of in the middle of the range here.
When you check raise him and he calls - we know he either has top pair and/or a flush draw. The call would be lose for a flush draw, but some people are river chasers.
The blank on the turn. This is just a bad play from the villain. The villain doesn't know if he should be pumping the pot, playing defensively, he's fairly sure there's a good chance he's behind, but he may be way ahead by the river. Because he's confused he makes a mistake with the small lead. When he calls your re-raise that says "I want to see a river." To me, all of this line of play says "top pair, not so great kicker, but the river could be great for me."
Blank on the river. I understand your bet on the river. All the draws missed, so you don't want to scare the guy out of the pot. However, he's called off two check raises so far. Clearly he feels he's strong enough to show down. $70 into $250 almost looks too inviting - there's sort of a psychological effect of putting up a red flag when the bet is too easy to call. I've managed to bluff people off of hands by UNDER betting because of this.
This bet ultimately has two problems: If the player reads it as strength you're getting at best a call but possibly a fold. If the player reads it as weakness, you're getting at best a call, but you might also be looking at a shove - depending on where the player is at and how he thinks. His playing was so weird leading up to the river, a shove would look very very scary.
$135 would probably be my bet on the river. To me, this communicates "I have a hand that can show down so just call." I think you're likely to see a call with that number and get the most value. I think it's also a lot less likely to get a bluff re-raise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Well, first off, my example is relatively detailed. Most times I do hand analysis I'm only thinking about the villain's range, and less about my own, because I play against fairly weak opponents. So thinking about my range is less important than thinking about theirs. But you can think about your own range, and if you are playing against stronger opponents, start to incorporate deeper levels, like what your perceived range is, for example. Comparing your true range to your perceived range vs certain villain types can be pretty helpful.
Another way you can analyze a hand would be to focus on the fact that the board isn't going to run out that way every time - so consider what lines you might take on different flops, or different specific turn or river cards. In the hand example above, I should probably at least have some thought in mind about how I can proceed when scare cards like clubs hit the board.
A third way, and another I really enjoy is to look at the hand through a reciprocal lens. I don't know if anyone else has ever talked about this, but I learned about it from reading Tommy Angelo's stuff. Essentially you look at what would have happened if the villain and you switched places. Ie, if you get into a cooler preflop with KK < AA, you can ask - would villain have lost the same amount? More? Less?
In truth you can also combine them, though this would become so time-consuming as to become unreasonable. Like looking at my own ranges, what I think of villain ranges, and then applying them to different flop textures and board runouts. Then think about what would happen differently from different table positions... That's starting to get into the realm of trying to "solve" the entire game of poker though, and I don't recommend it
For what it's worth, I wasn't literally thinking about percentages while at the table. The point of the post is not to present what would happen at the table, in-game, but rather suggest a jumping off point for doing structured, off-table analysis. A few holes to poke in your analysis though:
First, I am in position, and therefore don't check-raise any street. But that's sort of a minor point since to this villain a check-raise and raise probably aren't differentiated much in his mind.
Next, I don't want to presume that you saw the results before writing your analysis, but it sure seems like it. For one thing, you basically got his exact two cards, when I don't think we can narrow his range even nearly that much. I agree his turn bet is a little bit of a blocker and an "I don't know where I'm at" bet, but this doesn't necessarily narrow his range so extremely.
Last, you give villain's thought process too much credit. He doesn't look at a small bet and worry that it means I'm milking him - and if he does, he pays it off anyway. Additionally, he's just not good enough to turn a top pair bad kicker or a missed draw type hand into a bluff check-raise on the river after bet/calling two streets. I don't know if you play $1-$2 live or not, but the % of players capable of taking a tricky line on the flop and turn and then bluff check-raising the river is well under 1% imo. This player was certainly not one of them.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Thanks ram <3
Edit: Btw, if a mod could remove the quotations of my entire OP, that'd be nice. The thread is way huger than it needs to be, and scrolling through my novel more than once isn't ideal
Edit: Btw, if a mod could remove the quotations of my entire OP, that'd be nice. The thread is way huger than it needs to be, and scrolling through my novel more than once isn't ideal
stately7
Rock Star
Silver Level
Preflop: 2 limpers, Hero is in MP with
- Hero's isolating range is: 99+/AT+/KJ+ (6.3% of hands)
- Hero's over-limping range is: 88-/87s+/T8s+/Q9s+/A2s+ excluding the isolating range (8.9% of hands)
- Hero's folding range = everything else (84.8% of hands)
- Villain's over-limp/calling range = 22-TT/54s+/75s+/ T7s+/Q8s+/T9o+/QTo+/KTo+/Axs/A8o+ (23.7% of hands)
- Villain's isolating limper range = AK/AQ/JJ+ (4.2% of hands)
Hey Scourrge - so I wanted to ask you a general question about this section above. I've been trying to work on my preflop actions and analysis at live 1-2 and I found this especially helpful.
As discussed on another thread w/ Sand, i've been eliminating limping and happily it's become a pretty rare event unless the situation is ideal. (There's so much limping at live 200NL!) The stuff about your iso range is really cool as it compares to a typical villain's isolating range. But it's the over-limping ranges I'm a tiny bit puzzled about.
In Sydney's casino, I see villain's over-limp / call with far far worse than your rather generous range of 23.7% of hands (atc suited like J4s, even stuff like 52o at times). Clearly this is dumb, but QUESTION 1 - do you not see this? When it happens, it's mostly terrible players, but v. occasionally it's a decent LAG, tricky to read w/ good post-flop skills.
Also, QUESTION 2 - your overlimping range - are you folding hands like 76s, 97s, and QJo? Realise they're just under your above O-L /calling range, which is why I mention it. I know every situation is different, but in any case I admire that you fold about 85% of hands pre. I find it takes focus for me to do this live given it's such a limp-fest! Thanks.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
First off, every casino is different. Also keep in mind that we're talking about average unknowns for the most part here, since I didn't have much info on the villain. Are there villains over-limp/calling J4s at my casino? Of course! But is the average villain doing this? No. His standards are just slightly higher. That being said, there is of course uncertainty in the ranges I assigned. As for this occasionally being done by "decent LAG's," I would say a couple things. I think that your definition of "decent" changes as you improve. I know that players I thought were solid a few months ago strike me as reg-fish now. But also, there are a few really good LAG's out there, so just be aware of what players are doing post flop and you should be able to identify them quickly.
It's also useful to note that most of those absolute junk hands won't connect with many flops, and will get out facing flop bets (though not always). But this is part of why you can sometimes (rarely) "add" hands to a range that weren't there originally. Ie, passive-fish villain takes a passive line to the river then x/r jams where the only hand he reps is 73 for a straight (kind of hard to imagine, but bear with me). According to our range we gave him preflop, he can't have 73. But what is more likely: a weak, passive villain making a powerful bluff, or us having made a slight mistake in our earlier range assignment? Probably we just didn't give him a wide enough range before, or he's spewing a bit (there's always a spew or tilt factor).
What's really happening here is that there's uncertainty in the range we assign. When we say he CAN'T have 73, what we're really saying is that we discount it extremely heavily. Maybe we weight it at 1% or less. But sometimes villains take lines where we can narrow their range to an exact 2 cards. Then suddenly the fact that it's weighted only 1% doesn't matter - it's still his entire range.
As for my own over-limping range here, you're right there's some uncertainty based on the table. I have certainly called with 65s and 97s in spots like this before, but I'm less apt to call with the 97s now than the 65s. The reason being that while flush outs are helpful and make semibluffing easier, the real implied odds come from making straights, which are more disguised, and it's harder to make straights with gappers. And the lower we go, the more reverse implied odds there are with making worse straights. (We're not super deep so reverse implied odds can never get TOO bad, but it's still at least a little relevant.)
As for hands like QJo, I'd say over-limping a hand like that in this spot is likely spew unless you have a table that's going to roll over and submit a ton post flop. This can change a little if I'm on the button, since I know I get to see what everyone's done on each street before deciding what to do. But in MP, over-limping offsuit connectors is usually going to be spew. QJo is close because we can make TP that will dominate worse hands, but not many. JTo starts getting more into the realm of we hit top or second pair and have to worry a lot about whether our kicker is good. And it only gets worse as you go down in numeric rank, because the odds of say, a 8-high flop or lower coming are pretty low. The chance of a 8-high flop or lower coming is something like 15%.
As for my discipline in folding these hands, it's something I've come a really long way with. If you go into my old thread, you'll see one of the first hands I ever posted was one where I over-called with J7s on the button and got into a marginal spot postflop with top pair and a flush draw against an overpair to the board. Not exactly transferable, but I'm now a firm believer that saving a few dollars preflop over a wide range of spots is +EV, simply because we keep more of our decisions easier, and we don't push edges with an unknown expectation. Theoretically we want to push every +EV edge, so our worst edge we push should be 0EV, but in reality it's tough to know the expectation of many spots. So when we don't have a pretty good idea of how we're going to make money with a hand postflop, it's probably a decent spot to just muck pre.
Cafeman
Legend
Silver Level