How To Analyze A Hand

[AlfieAA]

thanks scourrge for your reply....very interesting stuff indeed

if you keep doing what you're doing then i wouldn't bet against you solving the entire game of poker

great thread btw.....golden archive material deffo

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Thanks Alfie, I appreciate that

 

[stately7]

Thanks for your great reply here Scourrge. OK …

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.

Understood.

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.

Lol, this strikes a chord for sure. Read recently that truly good LAGs – a generalization – but they can call very loosely pre and on the flop (mostly in position) when bets are cheaper and they’re deep, but if the big money is going in OTT and OTR, you’re in trouble. If you see LAGs make 1 or 2 big mistakes post-flop, you can more safely assume they are not so um, “decent”.

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.

Isn’t there a name for some law or theorem here? Which states that once you logically put the pieces together, it is his entire range. I think the super basic example I came across with it is preflop with AA. Your example w/ the weak-passive villain is more subtle / arguably more critical around a big bet otr. We must analyze the line to determine bluff / spew / or nuts!

Thanks for your thoughts around 76s and QJo. All makes a lot of sense. I’ve been able to throw J10o away as I improve, QJo still calls to me like a siren. But I’m itching to get back for another live 200NL grind and set some new session goals in line with this discussion. Re discipline around folding – yeah cool nice work, I’m also learning to love the zen fold. Fold, fold, fold – there’s something quite beautiful about patience (haha) / & meaningful observation.

Good points re pushing our edges, what I’m learning is that the edges can be small and yet produce pretty huge outcomes. Cool, will check out your old thread for kicks. And agree with Alfie – cheers for starting thread, gii the archive

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Well as for archives, I know nothing of the process, and don't have a vested interest in it getting there, though I guess that's where it would get the most viewing and whatnot.

As for whether there's a "law or theorem" in play, I'd say not so much. There's a lot in poker that isn't stated explicitly. But also I think the key here is not so much narrowing to a single combination, but rather the issue that arises when we narrow a range to ZERO combos. Because at this point we know we've made a mistake in our range assignment. I think that 99% of the time, this mistake occurs in preflop range assignment. If I were asked to state this thought in a theory though, I'd say this:

The Scourrge Theorem:
If you narrow a villain's range logically and on any street that range is made up of 0 combos, then the villain's line is said to "not make sense." When the villain's line does not make sense, there must have occurred some error during range narrowing. The most likely location of this error is preflop.

The implications of this are that if you give a villain a 100% preflop starting range and THEN apply postflop narrowing to that range, you will usually get a range of > 0 combos, which allows you a better chance at making the right move. The more practical application is that when an extremely passive villain makes a big bet and you can't figure out any combos that fit into it, it's more likely it's a strong hand; when an extremely aggro villain makes a big bet and you can't figure out any combos that fit into it, it's more likely it's a weak hand.

 

[JOEBOB69]

Hi jack thread to add to it I hope.
Ranges
Everyone wants to be a better hand reader. How do we get better? Thinking about ranges off of the table. For my following examples I’ll be using both our(Hero’s) cards and villain’s cards as unknowns. So hero’s and villains hole cards will be seen as xx. I’ll be using online as my examples because it’s easier to judge a player’s tendencies with vp$ip/pfr/ etc . Rather than old tight man across the table.

25nl 6max table
Hero on the BTN $27.50 (24/19/3) 3bet 7.5%
Villain in CO $31.00 (29/26/5) 3bet 9%
SB post .10,BB post .25,fold,fold,CO raises to .75, Hero raises to $2.50,CO calls.
Ok lets break down Hero’s 3bet range. My over all 3bet is 7.5%. Given I’m on the BTN this number should increase. Maybe some where to 12%. If we look at villain who is raising 26% of hands this should increase our value hands that we 3bet even more. I would say I should be 3betting ~15% of all my value hands. That would look like. 77+, A7s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QJo. Though I would change some cards out. Like flat with KJs,JTs,QTs,AJo, and 3bet some mid suited connectors 78s,89s, etc. sometimes.

Let’s look at Villains range. He raises 26% of hands preflop, that looks like 55+, A2s+, K6s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T8s+, A7o+, K9o+, Q9o+, JTo. I would probably would take away some of 8Ts,Q8s etc. away and add all pp’s, and all Axo’s.
Now how to we come up with a range for flating my 3bet? First since I believe the villain would 4 bet JJ+,AKs,AKo villains range is caped at TT,AQs. I also think villain would fold/4bet 22-55. That leaves us with a range for villains flat. 66-TT,ATs-AQs,AJo-AQo,KJs-KQs,KQo. Lets look at his range vs ours.
http://www.pokerstrategy.com
equity Win Tie
CO 50.85% 48.60% 2.25% { TT-66, AQs-ATs, KJs+, AQo-AJo, KQo }
BU 49.15% 46.90% 2.25% { 77+, A7s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, ATo+, KTo+, QJo }
Having his range caped is what helps us out a lot. That plus position is pretty sweet.
Flop (pot $ $5.35)
Ah 7s 2h
Villain checks ( not uncommon I expect villain to check all of his range), Hero bets $3.25,Villain calls.
What should heros check behind range look like? I would say pp’s 8’s-KK, lower Aces A7-AT to get one street of value(on the turn). So my betting range looks like. AA,77, AJs+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KTo+, QJo 9.8%.
Villains x/c range. AA,77,, AT+,88,99,TT. I’ll discount all broadway cards. Since most villains would x/r a flush draw here, an fit or fold all missed broadway cards oop. So after the flop ranges look like.
http://www.pokerstrategy.com
Board: Ah7s2h
Equity Win Tie
CO 69.09% 67.40% 1.69% { TT-77, ATs+, ATo+ }
BU 30.91% 29.23% 1.69% { AA, 77, AJs+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KTo+, QJo }

Turn (pot $11.85)
Ks
Villain checks, Hero bets $7.00,Villain ? What is Hero’s range here? What’s villains range needed to c/c,c/r ?
My ranges might be off but this is a example of my off table work so to speak.