"stress testing" our assumptions - split ranges
Posted by Lewis Harkes
Posted by
Lewis Harkes
posted in
Low Stakes
"stress testing" our assumptions - split ranges
Hi guys,
I`m not quite sure how to pose this question/theme, so please bear with me through some general imprecision.
I've read a number of books and a lot of posts where the analysis of a villain's hand turn range is based on starting assumptions and narrowing the range through a logical path by removing hands from street to street based on reasonableness. However, it seems to me that by playing "improperly" in an early spot can lead to some bigger mistakes later down the road. I want to consider how we can exploit this tendency and protect ourselves from getting tricked. The first two parts of this analysis assumes solid reg. vs. solid reg. with some history, third part assumes we know opponent is reg. I decided to put in separate posts to avoid the dreaded wall of text.
Split ranges: For example, if we look at a bb defence vs button of 15% or 20%, there are not going to be many 2s, 3s, or 4s in either of these ranges (pairs, Axs). So if the flop pairs, has 2 of these cards or a wheel (using an A) a thinking player should strongly discount these from our range. Given flop/turn runouts, this seems like an opportunity to collect large implied odds since we "should never have 2pr or wheels, and rarely have sets". For example, on a flop of Ah2s2d, we should have 1 Ah2h and 22 in our range that crushes AK. It might be tough for AK to get off this hand.
Loading 7 Comments...
I dont really understand what you are trying to get at? We cant start calling a bunch of junk 2x type hands because even with the higher implied odds on a A22 board, we still dont make enough back vs all the times we dont hit a great board. Also if we just start playing every hand, then our opponents are aware of this and then give us the appropriate number of combos of 2x on such boards
Sorry, i meant to say we take a normal 20% range and replace the weakest 5% with a bunch of hands including 2s, 3s, 4s. The idea is that we'd get villain to treat our 20% range very differently than a normal 20% range. Especially if we repped the 5% that was removed when favorable.
Generally though, I guess I'm trying to get a discussion going on what the conditions would be to start introducing enough 2xs, 3xs, 4xs hands into our range to get our implied odds up vs. guys who give no credit to flops that hit these hard. 23s, 24s, 34s seem logical, maybe K2s, etc. Generally speaking, it just seems that having a weird range can take advantage of someone overplaying their assumptions especially if we`re more aware of their strategy than they are of ours.
Yes, A22 is the nuts, but also 23K, A34, etc. Running all the numbers seems pretty tough b/c there are so many variables (or at least I'm not sure how to tackle it).
I think he means raising our 'nut' hands whenever our perceived range has very few nut combos. So snap check/raise your 2x hands on A22 including 22 and expect villain not to give you any credit and play back or call down down light often
I actually take this line versus stubborn players quite often. MY flop check/raising range would be unbalanced then but i'm doing it versus a thinking reg who is very call down happy and a non-believer.
exactly.
Daz, is there anything, stats wise, that you look for when deciding on a stubborn player to target? I'd imagine low fold to cbet, high aggression frequency would be in there but I wouldn't trust using my full HUD stats - since we're specifically looking at someone who will attack us on a bad texture.
Ye, i rely on manual note taking for this. Generally i do see wider VPIP/PFR discrepancies ie. villain's whose VPIP/PFR lie further apart. I also use some cold call stats and their general cc stats lie outside 10% - so someone who is getting involved a lot preflop. These would be positions BESIDES wide BB defend, so CO/BTN in positon calling range, SB calling range
Postflop, the most obvious would be the low fold to cbet as mentioned. Aggression is yes and no since some players cbet is too high then fold too oftne and others merge cbet but then call too often so it can go both ways
Be the first to add a comment