Can someone explain to me how to analysis ranges of opponents?

[DanielNeg]

I am stuck on this thing I don’t usually have the habit of thinking opponents card, I just play straightforward just focusing on my hands.
Because of this I am loosing heavily if I have two pair I go allin and loose to three of a kind since he slow plays it but what should I do to develop the habit of card reading?

 

[Andyreas]

Not sure if I understand correctly but I've also noticed this "going all-in" with a good hand on a tiny flop/turn/river:
For example, if you go All-in with 1.000 chips on a 100 flop, you fail to do what the intention of betting actually is (for the most part):

• Making worse hands call (no one will call such a bet with a medium strength hand)
• Making better hands fold, except if you went All-in as a bluff. (no one will fold the best hand to such a bet)

So, first of all, it only makes sense to go All-in if you have a stack left behind which is close to the size of the pot. (For example if you have 500 chips left and the pot is 450).

And to the other part of your question:
It's essential to try to get an idea of with which hands your opponent might be calling. Either he already connected to the board in any way or he is chasing a draw.

 

[DanielNeg]

Not sure if I understand correctly but I've also noticed this "going all-in" with a good hand on a tiny flop/turn/river:
For example, if you go All-in with 1.000 chips on a 100 flop, you fail to do what the intention of betting actually is (for the most part):

• Making worse hands call (no one will call such a bet with a medium strength hand)
• Making better hands fold, except if you went All-in as a bluff. (no one will fold the best hand to such a bet)

So, first of all, it only makes sense to go All-in if you have a stack left behind which is close to the size of the pot. (For example if you have 500 chips left and the pot is 450).

And to the other part of your question:
It's essential to try to get an idea of with which hands your opponent might be calling. Either he already connected to the board in any way or he is chasing a draw.

I am getting it little little from the Cardschat 30days course I am so grateful that I stumbled upon that.
I am already on Day4 will definitely watch full videos since I find it much more useful and I am able to learn much more things❤️

 

[ninocabral]

I think that all of this is a question of knowing the opponent, for you to do a good reading you have to already know the villain and already know how he plays, because if you don't know your opponent it will be very difficult to do a good reading, for example if you don't know the villain and he opens from utg 8 and 5 off it will be impossible to read that hand

 

[BetterThanAvgButNotByMuch]

How would you put someone that doesn't know starting hands on a range? Think about it. lol.

 

[dannystanks]

Take the 30 day course and learn how ranges work.

 

[fundiver199]

To be honest a lot of it boils down to experience, and nobody is sitting in real time and thinking "my opponents range is 77+, AJ, AQ etc", while they are playing 4+ tables. Its more about developing a feel for the situation and classify your hand as either a value hand, showdown value or bluffing candidate. Starting with the latter, if you have 5 high, you have no chance of winning at showdown, so you should at least consider bluffing, but you can also just give up.

If you hand is likely best, and a lot of worse hands will call, then you should bet for value. However it is important to understand the idea of "how many bets" meaning, how many times you can bet and still get worse hands to call. If for instance you have top pair bad kicker, and go bet, bet, bet, then you were probably ahead of the opponents range on the flop, but when he still call you on the river, you are usually beat. And therefore you should have done some pot control by checking at least one street.

Finally if your hand might be best, but its to difficult to get worse hands to call, then you have showdown value, and you should typically check and maybe look to catch some bluffs. But again you dont always have to bluff catch. If you have a read, a certain opponent is rarely bluffing, or maybe the opponent choose an unusual bet size like full pot, then you can just give up and fold. The CC 30 day course does a pretty good job at explaining these fundamental concepts with many illustrative hand examples.

 

[georgi krastev]

Your opponent's call (OTF) can mean one of the following:
1. He has a better hand than yours, but he calls, not raises, to trap you later in the hand;
2. He has a pair weaker than yours, but isn't sure if you have anything at all;
3. As there are (for example) two hearts on the board, he may have a draw of hearts;
4. He has nothing but decides to float: planning to steal the pot with a bluff later.

It's pretty nasty to being traped; it happens to me very often; Sometimes I see that I have missed the flop very badly and at the same time my opponent calls my bluffs, if I am in good shape I realize that I am beat and stop bluffing brutally.

When my opponent thinks I'm bluffing, then poker looks very easy, easy chips. He continues to call with the weaker hand and I push full throttle…

When there is a draw on the board and my opponent is connected to that draw, I make it not very easy for him to continue; sometimes he misses; sometimes he gives up; sometimes it hits.

And when he floats & later (if) i decide to make a value bet on the river, I often ask myself; if he jams the river, whether i will be able to call that jam…

(So, for the development of these maneuvers is also relevant; opponent, type of game, etc.)

 

[thedarkman]

The bottom line is that you can never be sure what your opponent(s) hold, especially at low limit and Omaha. Having said that, if you think you have the best hand and are up against a draw, you should make the draw pay. Except at Omaha where a draw may be odds-on against a set.

 

[martDdart]

my advice is to focus on how a player acts .What is the players actions telling you ? big bet =fold small bet= call. In my experience things usually are what they look like.