Special Bug Pages

Showing posts with label hand ranges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hand ranges. Show all posts

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Love those a-ha moments...


Did a fun online $0.25/$0.50 6max session/lesson with a student today. We were in mid-position and opened with a pair of eights to $1.40. The action folded to an aggressive recreational player on the button who flat called. Blinds folded. Flop came out 9-2-2 rainbow. We c-bet to roughly 60% of the pot. Villain re-raised us 3x.

My student's immediate instinct was to fold, but before we did I asked what was the villain's preflop range? Remember, they just flatted an MP open raise and we're ~100bb deep. Student's answer: small- and mid-pairs and suited connectors.

So the next question was: Good, so what are you afraid the villain has here? Answer: a nine? Maybe a two? Or an over pair?

Name the deuces that are in his range? Answer: Uh, there's only one pair of deuces.

Good. Now name the nines that are in his range? Answer: There are a few combos of pairs of nines. Or he could have T-9.

And what over pairs are in his range? Answer: Uh, tens?

Really? At this aggro 6max table? Answer: No, he'd probably re-raise us with those pre.

And how many other cards in his range missed this flop? Answer: Uh, a bunch.

So what are you afraid of? Answer: Uh... uh... not much.

Based on his stats, is the villain aggressive post-flop? Answer: Uh, yes.

Does he multi-barrel? Answer: Uh, yes.

So do we have the best hand the vast majority of the time here? Answer: Yes. 

Will he bluff a lot in this situation? Answer: Yes.

So, when we have the best hand against a bluffer, what should we do? Answer: let him bluff.

Good. 

So we called. Turn was a three that completed the rainbow.

So, did this improve villains hand? Answer: No!

So has anything changed? Answer: No!

Do we still have the best hand the majority of the time? Answer: Yes!

Are there any draws we should be afraid of? Answer: No!

Is the villain likely to continue bluffing? Answer: Yes!

So what-- Answer: Let's let him keep bluffing us!

We check. Villain fires another barrel. 

So should we call or raise? Answer: If we call, he'll have about a pot size bet left to bluff again with.

Do you think raising here is going to get worse hands to call? Answer: No.

Do you think he'll fold those few better hands in his range if we raise? Answer: No.

So raising accomplishes what? Answer: Nothing good!

So, what should we do? Answer: Call!

River was another blank. 

Should we--  Answer: Nothing has changed! The only way he can win is to bluff us again. We should check!

We checked, villain shoved, my student snap-called, we doubled up.

A-ha, says the student. A-HA!

All-in for now...
-Bug


Sunday, December 15, 2013

R is for Reading. And Reduction.


Long time readers of this blog know that a few years ago I put together a little system called REDi, which I frequently use to analyze what specific actions one should take in a hand of poker. It's basically a method that breaks down the process of hand evaluation into four discrete steps. The letters R, E, D, and I represent the four discrete steps of Read, Estimate, Decide, and Implement, respectively. Not surprisingly, these four steps also line up with the same basic OODA method (Observe, Orient/Evaluate, Decide, Act) that our military uses for battlefield decision making (poker is war, after all):


The REDi process is simple but effective. We Read our opponents and game situation to determine what probable hands they hold. We then Estimate the strength of our own hand against that range, determine how much if any fold equity we have, and calculate our degree of pot commitment. Once we've done these two things, we Decide on the line we should take in the hand (e.g., bet for value or as a bluff, check for pot control, call on a draw, etc.). Finally, we Implement that decision in a manner that maximizes our expected value (e.g., we determine the largest bet we can make and get called by a worse hand when on a value line, or the smallest bet that can get a better hand to fold when we're bluffing).

For a simple example, let's say we were seated at a full-ring NL game, and a tight break-even ABC player in early position opens for a 3x raise. Effective stacks are 100bb deep. The action folds to us on the button. We have a pair of threes. The blinds to our left don't look interested in the hand and are probably going to fold. What do we do? Answer: employ REDi:
  1. Read. Our opponent is normally tight. He's also a straightforward player, and probably understands position. He's in early position and opening at a full ring table where stacks are fairly deep. Our read is that he has a relatively strong hand. Call it AQ+ and 88+. 
  2. Estimate. Against a strong range like this, our pot equity with a pair of treys is pretty low-- probably around 30%. Similarly, our fold equity is pretty tiny; in fact, he's probably only folding out the bottom of his range if raised. If we call, the stack-to-pot ratio is going to be around 13, so we're not going to be pot committed. With these stacks, we also theoretically have a maximum of ~100/3 = 33:1 implied odds.
  3. Decide. With IOs like this and this type of opponent, this looks like a good situation to set mine. We'll fold on the flop if we don't hit and get bet into. Our line is therefore a one-street draw to a set.
  4. Act. Call.
  5. Repeat 1-4 on Flop, Turn, and River as required.
Got it? Good. Because in today's post, I want to delve a little more deeply into the first and most important of these four REDi steps: Read. Why? Because you cannot win long-term at poker if you're not accurately reading the hand ranges of your opponents, that's why. Let me rephrase for clarity:

Question: How can you possibly decide whether you're ahead (and therefore should take a value line) or behind (and therefore consider taking a bluff or draw line) unless you have accurately read your opponent?
Answer: You can't.

That's right, you can't. You can't estimate your pot or fold equity. You can't make any kind of reasonable line decision. You can't choose an appropriate bet size. In other words, reading, so to speak, is fundamental to making good poker decisions.

As you move up into higher stakes (and therefore play against better opponents) you also need to accurately predict not only the hand range of your opponents, but also what lines they are trying to take. Do they think they have the best hand and are trying to extract value from us, or do they think they're behind and are they trying to bluff us, or are they on a draw, and so on…

So how do we make these kinds of reads? To a beginner, it almost seems like magic when a professional like Negreanu calls out what their opponent has before he or she turns their cards over. I still remember when I was just starting out in poker, watching my own poker coach tell me that a villain he was playing online probably had AQ...and then being amazed when that villain turned over exactly the predicted hand. I was in awe.

Now that I'm a relatively advanced player, this type of hand reading doesn't seem like such mystical magic anymore. In fact, I now know that there is a logical and systematic process to hand reading that can be learned by pretty much anyone willing to do the work. Is this process accurate 100% of the time? No, of course not. But it's nevertheless a pretty damn good approach, and by using it correctly, the majority of time you will be able to put your opponent on a fairly narrow range of hands.

So how does this process work? To answer, the first thing we have to recognize is that hand reading is a reductive process. We start with gross, big picture assumptions, and then as we gather and analyze information, we reduce, or narrow the possible hands our opponent can hold.

I discussed this a little in a previous post via the graphic that showed how we refine our reads by adding in successively more detail and information. This technique is known in engineering and management circles as "progressive elaboration", and it's perfectly applicable to poker, too:


Uh, okay Bug. You showed us this before in a previous post. What's the big deal? Well, for starters, we can take the chart and divide it into two parts that helps further simplify the reading process:


The left side of the chart is where we do basic "typecasting" of the villains we face. This includes gross stereotyping (which I wrote about here), followed by pegging the villain on a "PATL," or Passive-Aggressive vs. Tight-Loose chart, followed by determining the villain's level of thought (i.e., how deeply they think about a poker hand, and how deceptive they are in nature). Said another way, this is a basic categorization of the opponents we face, and it will actually get us a long way toward assigning an eventual hand range to the opp. We aren't actually trying to put our opponent on a very specific range of hands at this stage, but instead are mostly thinking in broader terms about the types of hands he or she plays, as well as a general assessment of the style of play they employ when playing poker.

This first typecasting step is crucial for two reasons: a) it helps us determine basic strategies to employ immediately against the opponent (such as whether we should try stealing their blinds or not if it folds to us on the button, or whether continuation betting will be effective or not on a disconnected board); and b) it helps us perform the second step to hand reading, where we will really start narrowing down the range of possible hands....

...which brings us to the second, right-hand side of the chart, which is known as "range reduction." This is the time in which we put our opponent on a specific hand range and line, and then narrow it as the hand progresses and we learn more. We start with the typecasting information we've gathered on our opponent, and then we factor in specific things such as our board texture, the opponent's statistics, combinatorics and dead cards, bet sizing, villain second order stats, tells, meta-game factors like tilt and wins, leveling, and so on...

...and by the time we're at the river we can often narrow the possible hands our opponent holds to just a few cards. We can, in effect, predict that proverbial AQ and amaze our friends and family.

And make a lot of money, too. :-)

To repeat, hand reading is a reductive process; we start wide, and then take away from, or reduce, the range of cards our opponent could have as we add in information we collect. Our method is to reduce and simplify, reduce and simplify, reduce and....

In my next post on this subject, I'll discuss a bit more about the typecasting process.

All-in for now...
-Bug

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Inside the Villain's Head, Part 1: Initial Stereotyping


In poker, the ability to read what cards your opponent holds--and what he thinks about the strength of those cards--is so fundamental to winning that I've included it in two separate building blocks in my (ever evolving) poker skills pyramid:


The upper yellow skill block, Reading, is the actual ability to 1) put our opponent on a specific hand range; 2) determine what, if anything, they think our hand range and line is; and 3) figure out what their ultimate line, or course of action is (i.e., what they're trying to achieve in this hand, such as bluff us, get value from us, try to get to a showdown cheaply, etc.).

The lower skill block, Basic Villain Types and Tendencies, can best be thought of as a preamble, or foundational skill, to the upper Reading block. It's also a key component necessary to mastering other beginning/intermediate skills such as blind stealing and continuation betting. This identification of villain type and tendencies is what I want to talk about here, and that process begins with stereotyping.

When we first sit down at a table against new, unknown opponents that we've never before played against, we have little knowledge of what type of players they are, and, more importantly, what types of hands they play in different situations. We're dealt Jacks in middle position and see them open in early position. What the heck do we do? We don't know how tricky they are, what level of thought they're capable of, whether they understand basic concepts such as position and c-betting, if they play fit-or-fold poker, if they're calling stations, and so on. In other words, we know essentially nothing. But to beat them, we need to start accumulating information, and to do this, we have to begin somewhere really basic. Enter stereotyping.

Stereotyping, while being a (correctly) frowned upon practice in everyday life, is actually an accepted and beneficial skill to employ at the poker table. I've posted about this before (e.g., here). Stereotyping is the first step to figuring out what is going on inside the mind of a villain. It's far from being the full story about our opponent, and it's not necessarily even very accurate, but it is better than nothing. We begin with a basic stereotype and then work from there to narrow and refine our thoughts about said villain as we observe more of his or her play.

For instance, a new player joins our game. Are they an older conservative curmudgeon or a young flashy hot-shot? Are they female or male? Both age and sex are (very) rough indicators of how aggressive an average player is going to be. Same with how they dress, what jewelry if any they're wearing, and even how they stack their chips. Hell, even their posture matters.

Similarly, we can guess how loose or tight a player is going to be by things like their nationality. European players are generally looser than Americans, for instance. Asians are said to be more "gambly" than others. Rich amateur businessmen tend to be calling stations and surburban housewives tend to be nittier. And so on. No, this is not racist, or sexist, or whatever-else-ist. This is just the reality of poker, folks. We're in a battle when we sit down at the felt, and it's foolish to ignore any information because it's not politically correct in everyday life.

Other initial factors can affect our stereotyping. Is the player loud and talkative, or quiet and reserved? How much did they buy in for? How do they handle their chips? Are they drinking? Smoking? Checking out the drink girl? Playing keno? Etcetera, etcetera. Without seeing a villain play a single hand of poker, we are already beginning the process of figuring out what kind of player they are. And without anything else to go on, this means we can only start with what we see.

We're all taught that you can't accurately judge the content of a book by looking solely at its cover, but you can get a rough indication of what's inside by reading its title. This is what poker stereotyping is about-- creating an initial idea of the probable type of player the villain is, and then refining that type as we observe them actually play.

Again, our initial impressions could be far from the actual mark, but at a minimum this process of stereotyping gets us thinking about our opponents. Categorizing our opponents starts the process of getting inside their head, and that is truly what poker is all about: playing the player.

I'm out of time for today, but in the next installment I'll delve a little more deeply about the process of refining our initial stereotype of the villains we meet at the poker table.

Now it's off to the dinner table for me. Turkey and stuffing, oh boy! Happy Thanksgiving to all, regardless of your nationality, sex, age, or stereotype!

All-in for now...
-Bug

Saturday, August 31, 2013

A Trio of Olio

A trio of miscellanea today:
--------
#1. It's the little things that are big. Success at poker is all about the range you put your opponents on, and the range or hand that you think they're putting you on. Here's a hand from a small tourney I played the other day. Simple and seemingly trivial, but it illustrates the whole L2 and L3 thought process thing, and how you can nickel and dime your way up the pay ladder if you're paying attention to ranges.

Setup:
  • 45-man SnG, 17 players left
  • Nine handed table
  • Blinds: 500/1000
  • Hero in big blind has T37,800 (~38 big blinds)
  • Villain #1 is UTG+2 with T45,300 (~45 big blinds). Read is that he is playing very ABC and non-creatively.
  • Villain #2 is SB with T20,500 (~20 big blinds). Just moved to my table.
Play:
  • Hero dealt Kh2c (i.e., squadoosh)
  • V#1 open limps for T1000.
  • Acton folds to V#2 who completes.
  • Hero checks BB option
  • Pot is T3000. Effective SPR is 7+
  • Flop dealt: Ac-6s-6d
  • SB checks
  • Hero bets T2200
  • V#1 Folds
  • V#2 Folds
  • Hero takes down pot.
Analysis:
  • Reads:
    • V#1 is playing standard ABC poker. His open limp in EP screams small to medium pairs and maybe some biggish suited connectors. He does not have an Ace, nor does he have a big pair.
    • V#2 completes. From an average player, this generally means anything from small pairs to suited connectors to non-suited big cards.
    • Board texture is very dry and almost certainly didn't hit V#1's range.
    • Check from SB means he also didn't probably hit any part of this board.
    • I checked preflop, so I could have virtually anything, though the villains probably don't think I have a big hand, or I would have reraised pre. It's very possible that I could have an offsuit small Ace or a six in my hand.
  • Estimates:
    • I've got zero pot equity with my air.
    • I probably have quite a bit of fold equity against both players. Even if they think I'm full of it, they're going to be hard pressed to play back multi-way.
    • An SPR of seven means no one is going broke on one pair or under pair hands.
    • We're still a long way from money, but now that we're down to two tables, people are generally feeling like they've invested a lot of time and effort. This furthers the fold equity I have on this dry flop.
  • Decide:
    • My line is a one-and-done bluff, pure and simple. I'll shut it down against any (re)action.
  • Implement:
    • A bet of 2/3's pot looks big/significant to the opp, but won't commit me to anything more if I get played back at.
Like I said, not a big hand, but it's a big concept nonetheless.
--------

#2. Position, position, position. I saw a cool blog post the other day by supernova123 about the power of position. Most of my hand history for the past few years on Hold'em Manager got lost when I had a computer crash, so the following is just for some older $10NL data I had sitting on my backup drive. This data set is for hands that I saw a flop and had position on my opponent. Nothing more, nothing less. Pretty impressive demonstration on the power of position, eh?


--------

#3. Show me the money. Full Tilt is now allowing US players to log in and view their old accounts. Here are the PPA instructions that I used to check my balance:

To find your current Full Tilt Poker balance, you will have to download your account history. I downloaded mine and it was pretty straightforward. Here's how to do it: 
  • Go to FullTiltPoker.com and download the client.
  • Open the client and log in. Your old login credentials should still work.
  • Go to "Requests" in the menu bar and select "Account History...(Web)." A web page will open where you can initiate a request for your history.
  • Select the date range for your request. I chose an end date a couple of weeks after Black Friday (choose something like 5/1/2011) and a start date a few months prior. Once done, click "submit."
  • You will receive an email when the file is ready for download.
  • Once you receive the email, select "Account History...(Web)" in the "Requests" menu of the FTP client, download the ZIP file from the web page that opens, and simply open the Excel-compatible spreadsheet.
  • If you don't have Excel (or a compatible spreadsheet program), you have some free options. One is to use Google Docs. Another is to download MS Excel Viewer. I downloaded it myself to verify I could open this spreadsheet. It works fine. Another is to download LibreOffice.
For your FTP point balance, open the cashier in the client. While our cash balances are not there, our point balances are. 

My FTP balance was exactly what I was expecting to see, so I feel pretty good that their overall records are accurate. It's also nice to know that I have enough sitting in the account to buy into a WSOP event next year... if they ever reimburse me, that is. I'm hopeful, but I'm not quite holding my breath yet.

All-in for now...
-Bug