Polished Poker Vol. I Study Group

[yimyammer2]

You can never develop an "exact" range even given accurate HUD stats. HUD stats represent averages, and we can never accurately account for a villain's play on a given day, at a given time, in his given mood, etc. That being said, not having a HUD makes things more difficult for sure. For live play, you should be watching every hand, and pay special attention to showdown so you can try to understand how a player is playing certain hand types, whether they are passive or aggressive, and what their understanding of relative hand strength is.

I also play on Bovada, and while you can't categorize players by type, even during a long session sometimes, you can take profitable default lines. And sometimes action from within one can give you some important clues on villain tendencies.

For example, it's my first hand at a cash table. I have AK in the BB. It folds to the CO, who open limps. It folds to me and I raise to 5 bb's. The CO calls. The flop comes K87hhx, and we don't have any hearts in our hand. We cbet 2/3 the pot and the CO calls. At this point, based on the play of the population, we think villain can have Kx, flush draws, and straight draws. The turn comes the 2h, and we think that most villains on Bovada (the "average" opponent) will keep calling with worse kings, and maybe straight draws, so we bet about 60% pot. CO raises roughly 2/3 the pot.

Even though I've only played one hand at the table, and I can't put villain on a super specific range combo-wise, I think this will usually be an easy fold. We can generalize how most players on Bovada are playing post flop, and use the fact that villain limp-called the CO preflop to assume that villain is loose, passive, and probably pretty bad. When he just calls the flop and then comes out raising the turn, I suspect he has a flush a lot of the time.

great reply, thx. Your example is much how I think about a hand while playing. The examples in chapter 9 were much deeper imo and I hope to think on that level some day soon.

I feel like the anonymous tables are better practice for live play because I have to really pay attention to the players and take notes which helps me concentrate and focus. Having said that, I'd like to get HEM & play at a site I can use the HUD on for training purposes. I'm in the US and it sounds like my best option aside from Bovada is Carbon?

I was looking at the Ace Poker Drills software as well & think I might buy the bundle so I can practice with the equity trainer, anyone else use this & have thoughts/reviews?

As an aside, having dived back into poker recently & found the depth of resources available, I'm blown away. At first glance one would think all these tools and resources will make the game unbeatable but I don't think so and here's why.

Among my peers I am a freak, a "gambler" obsessed with a silly game called poker, yet I would call myself a fish among people who understand & apply what we're discussing here. My two main poker friends are smart and very successful but when I try to talk deep poker concepts with them, they get irritated and say I'm over-thinking the game. A lot of people don't want to admit this game is more complex than it is and perhaps they should put in some hard work and concentration to improve. They don't want to do that because it would no longer be fun even if they could find the time to try and dive into all the available resources. I suspect there are many people like this, couple that with guys like me who are love the game, love thinking about the game but is still a one dimensional fish and it seems like folks that can grasp and apply the deepest concepts can really separate themselves and create a consistent edge.

That's where I hope to be someday soon

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Quality post ^ thanks for your thoughts.

 

[LD1977]

The problem in microstakes is not so much number of hands (I have lots of hands on quite a few players) but the unpredictability of loose passives... they really play loads of strange stuff sometimes regardless of HUD stats.

Nits/TAGs are much easier to put on a hand.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Loose passives have wider ranges but they aren't really unpredictable.

 

[Aleksei]

In. Not sure if I'll be posting anything but I'm following thread closely.

 

[John A]

When you're playing live or online without a HUD, how do you go about determining an opponents range?

I play @ Bovada and the best you could do is try to estimate a range based on the time you get to play with an opponent. Then that info is useless since everyone is anonymous (which I think may be better for the overall health of the game, but I could be wrong).

I think someone already addressed this, but you should always be building ranges. Someone gave a limped pot example. I'll give a similar. The player in MP limps, the button limps, the SB folds and you check in the BB with A3o. The flop comes: 3c8h9h. You have bottom pair out of position against two limpers range will include a lot of hands that will have a pair, straight and gutshot draws, and flush draws. Without any reads, it's not a pot you're going to want to get too involved in because you'd likely have to fire more than one bullet at the pot, and make a blind check/call against an unknown with bottom pair to pick off a bluff.

Live or online, with no HUD, you're simple paying attention to how often someone opens the pot, 3-bets, isolates other players, 4-bets, etc... Say you've been playing 5-6 rotations, and you've noticed the player to your right open a decent amount of pots when it's been folded to him. He's probably some kind of regular, or someone who understands basic opening ranges. You've also seen him raise a limper in position as well. Now you're in the SB with K8s, and MP limps, and the player on your right raises on the button. You can assume his ISO raising range is going to be pretty wide based on your observations. He'll probably raise 45%+ of his range, so it's a great spot to re-steal with K8s since he'll be folding such a large portion of his range.

Building a range is just about observation, and assumption based on reason. Someone limps, probably a weak range with a lot of hands that will hit mid boards more often (but it's not limited to that, you need to see if they are limping hands like A3o, etc...). Someone is open raising and 3-betting a lot, then you know there range is going to wider than a common regular at your stakes. And so on...

 

[John A]

John I have some questions, answer please.


1)What winrate is good now (2013.07) and considered normal or bad (in cash game NL 6-max)?

3bb/100 - .........
5bb/100 - .........
10bb/100 - .........


2) How many hands as possible to play to zero due to the variance?

If you play for a long time and do not get any advantage - it is a great burden on the psyche and negatively affect the game.


Tnx and have a nice day!

The stakes you play will heavily effect this. The site you play, the times of day you mainly play all effect this. I honestly don't have a good answer for you, but I think based on what others have said, anytime you have a winrate above 5bb/100 at 100NL+ then you're doing really well. I'm not sure about smaller stakes, but I've seen a good amount of 8bb/100+. Like I've said before though, winrate isn't an exact equivalent to skill level. Just focus on making good decisions, and reviewing your play and the winrate will take care of itself.

 

[John A]

The problem in microstakes is not so much number of hands (I have lots of hands on quite a few players) but the unpredictability of loose passives... they really play loads of strange stuff sometimes regardless of HUD stats.

Nits/TAGs are much easier to put on a hand.

Well, loose passives play more hands, but they usually are some of the most predictable of players by nature. Good TAGs, LAGs, are the players who's ranges you should have more difficulty in assessing, if they are playing well.

With loose passives, you just bet/bet/bet, and if they raise you pretty much insta fold. Every so often you'll have a loose/passive that will call/call/call with a huge hand, but that's fine. Most of them will overplay a lot of second best hands because they are playing poor quality hands in the wrong situation, and not playing them aggressively.

 

[John A]

Question 1;

You talk about balancing our hand ranges and being able to play a variety of hand ranges the same way.

If we can do that, don't we just look like we have a very wide range and it singular? And that might go for how we perceive villains range(s).?

Can you try rephrasing this, I'm not sure I entirely understand.

But one point I'll make based on what I think is your second question. I think a big mistake of most people is they assume people play like they do. I think it's partly in our nature to do so, and people also tend to project how they see things onto others. Now with most TAG's and LAG's in poker, there will be a good amount of similarities because a lot of people are reading the same material and approaching poker in a similar way. However, there are generally a couple of major differences, and I've talked about these for years. People who have taken the Pokerzion courses know this as the believer/ non-believer concept.

Generally most people will tend to believe someone when they are betting and raising, and give them credit to an array or believe most of the time to believe more than half the time. They can fold to pair in a good amount of situations, and they can be pushed off some slightly bigger hands to shoves and really big bets. Non-believers tend to find a reason to call, and usually tend to bluff more, so they assume others bluff a good amount as well. They won't tend to believe quite as often and are always justifying a reason to call a bet or raise.

That tends to be a divergent point, even for regulars in your games. It's something you want to pay attention to and it happens at all skill levels. I've played high stakes games with some good players that I would heavily categorize non-believers. It was just how they approached the game, and when you realized it, it was easily exploitable. Large over bets with big hands, shoves, etc...

 

[John A]

So first example on pages 92-93. Does everyone understand this, and are there any questions about how range effects equity in a spot like this? We go from 55% all the way down to 34% based on someone's range, and how effective they are at playing their ranges.

 

[LD1977]

---
With loose passives, you just bet/bet/bet, and if they raise you pretty much insta fold. ---

This is fine if I have a TPTK+ hand, but what if I raised with lets say AJs in MP and Ace falls while LAP is behind me? I absolutely hate these situations since I can't know if I am out kicked or not. They mostly don't 3bet AK/AQ from the BTN.

I have lost a bunch in these situations (either they outdraw me or I was outkicked from the get go) Both bet/bet/bet and bet/check/bet lines are equally uncomfortable, especially since some of these guys LOVE betting after every check (nevermind that they have anything from TPTK+ to MPMK).

 

[dj11]

Question 1;

You talk about balancing our hand ranges and being able to play a variety of hand ranges the same way.

If we can do that, don't we just look like we have a very wide range and it (our range) is a singular range as far as our villain is concerned? And that might go for how we perceive villains range(s).?

{I wanted to make that clearer but ran into the time limit for editing problem when I realized it was close to gibberish.}

More q's;

You then talk about adding another range or two. Which brings up the question, what are these mini ranges that we can add? And when do we add them?

In the past I would be thinking about villains range (and my own) as a total opening range, so this sort of confuses me.

Can you try rephrasing this, I'm not sure I entirely understand.

 

[John A]

This is fine if I have a TPTK+ hand, but what if I raised with lets say AJs in MP and Ace falls while LAP is behind me? I absolutely hate these situations since I can't know if I am out kicked or not. They mostly don't 3bet AK/AQ from the BTN.

I have lost a bunch in these situations (either they outdraw me or I was outkicked from the get go) Both bet/bet/bet and bet/check/bet lines are equally uncomfortable, especially since some of these guys LOVE betting after every check (nevermind that they have anything from TPTK+ to MPMK).

Like I said, they will just call/call/call in situations, but they will also call/call/call with weaker hands more often than they will have stronger hands. Me thinks you's are having de case of selective memory my friend.

 

[John A]

{I wanted to make that clearer but ran into the time limit for editing problem when I realized it was close to gibberish.}

Gotcha... so basically you've been saying X player opens 25% of his range from Y position. And from that 25% you're trying to fit that to how it hits the flop, is that correct?

If so, more or less X% of hands in relation to the flop isn't a static process. You kind of throw out most of what you would consider a normal opening range at say 25% from Y position. It's something you use as a guide to begin constructing a range, but the issue always is, you don't know what 25% that actually is, and you don't know when and if your opponent has deviated from his standard opening range.

So you'd take a certain percentage of hands you know someone would open as a base, such as:
Ace Poker Drills Poker Equity Calculator
Board: [ 22+(100), AJo+(100), ATs+(100), KJo+(100), KJs+(100), QJo(100), QJs(100) ]

Then you're adding and removing some of the other hands, like 78o, 65s, etc... based on the flop texture and how they are playing the hand. So if someone is opening 25% of hands and we see a flop of:

5h7c9h

We start with the above range and a common 25% opening, but once they c-bet (lets say they are OOP), assuming they are competent we'd eliminate some of the Ax hands from their range. Once you get to the turn, if they bet again, then you're narrowing the range that much further and shifting what might have been your original 25% opening range to have included more 79o, 57s, and 57o hands, draws, etc... which wouldn't be in a typical 25% opening range.

The opening range is primarily only helpful in determining if you should be flatting or 3-betting and so on. Once you get to the flop and turn, even someone who is tight, say 16% opening, can have the same range in the above example as someone who is opening 25 or 30%. It will help to some degree with postflop range construction, but the problem always is that you don't know when someone is deviating from an "acceptable" X% of hands as an opening range to include hands you wouldn't normally include in that initial range.

Hopefully my assumption on your question was correct.

 

[Aleksei]

Like I said, they will just call/call/call in situations, but they will also call/call/call with weaker hands more often than they will have stronger hands. Me thinks you's are having de case of selective memory my friend.

Nah he seems to just run like shit, based on hands and tracker data he's posted.

 

[John A]

Nah he seems to just run like shit, based on hands and tracker data he's posted.

Ha... Well, even if that is the case, I'm sure there's something we're missing about the whole picture here. Either that, or the players are not really LAP's.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

This is fine if I have a TPTK+ hand, but what if I raised with lets say AJs in MP and Ace falls while LAP is behind me? I absolutely hate these situations since I can't know if I am out kicked or not. They mostly don't 3bet AK/AQ from the BTN.

I have lost a bunch in these situations (either they outdraw me or I was outkicked from the get go) Both bet/bet/bet and bet/check/bet lines are equally uncomfortable, especially since some of these guys LOVE betting after every check (nevermind that they have anything from TPTK+ to MPMK).

They're not going to bet betting every time you check if they are loose passive, no??

 

[LD1977]

So first example on pages 92-93. Does everyone understand this, and are there any questions about how range effects equity in a spot like this? We go from 55% all the way down to 34% based on someone's range, and how effective they are at playing their ranges.

I am pretty sure I understand this as far as balancing our own ranges goes. For example I chkraise such boards with sets, all FDs and monster draws and usually but not always with OESDs since OESD is not drawing to the nuts (neither is non-nut FD but flush over flush is rare).

Not sure how can I apply this if I am on the other side and get chkraised, except against player I have a huge sample on? It is very tricky to guess, which is of course the point here - so what would be the default "most correct" reaction?

As for the other thing, yeah, I am actually losing money in showdowns with TPTK (not just TPGK) with these lines... but lets stick to the book and ranges.

Scourrge - Someone who never ever bets unless with absolute nuts and heads up in position after a check is pretty passive but both of these are highly profitable betting situations and they are not all total idiots who can't recognize opportunities. Yes this is ideal for checkraise trapping but how often do I have a powerhouse hand to trap with?

 

[yimyammer2]

Nits/TAGs are much easier to put on a hand.

That's me & my problem, I cant ever seem to find a way to build a big stack in MTTs, every time I get reckless I pay for it. Hoping to learn something here I can bring to my tourneys

In cash games, I am pretty aware of my image and start bluffing/stealing. I don't think I do it enough cuz I don't get caught much

 

[eBuddy]

On page 93, example 2 where villain check-raises with 2-pair 50% of the time, why did his equity increase to only 54.47% (from 44.92% in example 1)? With the range of T9 (2-pair), I calculated villain's equity to be 87.58% vs. our 88.
50% * (87.58% with 2-pair + 44.92% with OESD/FD) = 66.25%, not 54.47%.

Did I make a wrong calculation somewhere? Thanks.

So first example on pages 92-93. Does everyone understand this, and are there any questions about how range effects equity in a spot like this? We go from 55% all the way down to 34% based on someone's range, and how effective they are at playing their ranges.

 

[yimyammer2]

I think someone already addressed this, but you should always be building ranges. Someone gave a limped pot example. I'll give a similar. The player in MP limps, the button limps, the SB folds and you check in the BB with A3o. The flop comes: 3c8h9h. You have bottom pair out of position against two limpers range will include a lot of hands that will have a pair, straight and gutshot draws, and flush draws. Without any reads, it's not a pot you're going to want to get too involved in because you'd likely have to fire more than one bullet at the pot, and make a blind check/call against an unknown with bottom pair to pick off a bluff.

Live or online, with no HUD, you're simple paying attention to how often someone opens the pot, 3-bets, isolates other players, 4-bets, etc... Say you've been playing 5-6 rotations, and you've noticed the player to your right open a decent amount of pots when it's been folded to him. He's probably some kind of regular, or someone who understands basic opening ranges. You've also seen him raise a limper in position as well. Now you're in the SB with K8s, and MP limps, and the player on your right raises on the button. You can assume his ISO raising range is going to be pretty wide based on your observations. He'll probably raise 45%+ of his range, so it's a great spot to re-steal with K8s since he'll be folding such a large portion of his range.

Building a range is just about observation, and assumption based on reason. Someone limps, probably a weak range with a lot of hands that will hit mid boards more often (but it's not limited to that, you need to see if they are limping hands like A3o, etc...). Someone is open raising and 3-betting a lot, then you know there range is going to wider than a common regular at your stakes. And so on...

Good stuff, I'm trying to think in these terms but my mind tends to freeze up and go blank in the pressure of the moment. I seem to think in terms of a few hands vs a range so this is something I need to work on and think about.

I screwed up in a tourney last night when I was in the BB with KJ suited (17 BBs). All folded to one off the cutoff but the cutoff was disconnected so he was effectively the cutoff and raised 3x (with 22 BBs), everyone folded to me and I decided to push thinking he was stealing. He called instantly with AQ, flopped two queens and I was out.

I'm trying to decide if I made a good play that just didn't work out or if I spewed. In retrospect it feels like a spew but perhaps I'm being results oriented.

 

[yimyammer2]

So first example on pages 92-93. Does everyone understand this, and are there any questions about how range effects equity in a spot like this? We go from 55% all the way down to 34% based on someone's range, and how effective they are at playing their ranges.

I think I understand the concept but feel a little fuzzy on how to apply it at the tables. Against straight forward, tight players, I have an easy fold with all but my premium hands, against others, I'm not so sure.

 

[Fuffufnick]

Originally Posted by LD1977
This is fine if I have a TPTK+ hand, but what if I raised with lets say AJs in MP and Ace falls while LAP is behind me? I absolutely hate these situations since I can't know if I am out kicked or not. They mostly don't 3bet AK/AQ from the BTN.

I have lost a bunch in these situations (either they outdraw me or I was outkicked from the get go) Both bet/bet/bet and bet/check/bet lines are equally uncomfortable, especially since some of these guys LOVE betting after every check (nevermind that they have anything from TPTK+ to MPMK).

Like I said, they will just call/call/call in situations, but they will also call/call/call with weaker hands more often than they will have stronger hands. Me thinks you's are having de case of selective memory my friend.

If you feel ambiguous about the hand could you not throw a check into the mix to see how the villain reacts rather than go for 3 full streets of value?

 

[SofaKingCrazy]

So first example on pages 92-93. Does everyone understand this, and are there any questions about how range effects equity in a spot like this? We go from 55% all the way down to 34% based on someone's range, and how effective they are at playing their ranges.

The example is referring to check/raises and I think I understand the part of the more hands they will play the less equity we have against them. Since we don't specifically know what hands they are playing in a particular hand a HUDless player as myself would have to judge this by what range of hands the opponent is willing to call open raises with pre-flop vs what they would re-raise over us with and what they would just fold vs a 3x raise pre.

Luckily I'm at the micro stakes currently but from what I've read in this chapter if I intend to continue up in stakes I will need a HUD or face a continuous battle that I can't win.

 

[John A]

I am pretty sure I understand this as far as balancing our own ranges goes. For example I chkraise such boards with sets, all FDs and monster draws and usually but not always with OESDs since OESD is not drawing to the nuts (neither is non-nut FD but flush over flush is rare).

Not sure how can I apply this if I am on the other side and get chkraised, except against player I have a huge sample on? It is very tricky to guess, which is of course the point here - so what would be the default "most correct" reaction?

A good sample size will help, if their checkraise%'s are high, then you know they are adding more air, gutshots, etc... into their range. That of course will take a while to normalize. But through observing and taking notes you can get an idea of what someone is adding to their range. If you see someone c/c with sets on not overly coordinated boards, but some connectedness, then they are likely doing this on dry boards, so if they do CR you can narrow their range a bit more. Basic example, but you can start getting a sense of how someone is playing most of their ranges if you pay attention - I know, that's a bad word.

As for the other thing, yeah, I am actually losing money in showdowns with TPTK (not just TPGK) with these lines... but lets stick to the book and ranges.

Scourrge - Someone who never ever bets unless with absolute nuts and heads up in position after a check is pretty passive but both of these are highly profitable betting situations and they are not all total idiots who can't recognize opportunities. Yes this is ideal for checkraise trapping but how often do I have a powerhouse hand to trap with?

They probably aren't LAP's then, they are more like rocks and you're not categorizing them correctly. True loose passives mean they are loose and will be playing too many hands pre-flop which = having dominated hands a lot, and then playing them passive post flop. Either you aren't reading them correctly, or you're playing too lose yourself if you are being out kicked.