Poker.ie Forums - View Single Post

PEter Gibney · 01-02-2007, 01:20

A range is the only thing you can put villain on. If you start thinking “Well what if villain has x, y or z'” or “Villian raised preflop, so he must have x, y or z'”, slap yourself now. And move on to the rest of the article. If you knew 100% what cards villain has, then you would not need this article. You would be a psychic super-reader of either people or pixels.

I'm afraid I must refute your words with your words - when playing (correctly) to a range, I do indeed think, 'Villain did this, so he must have x, y or z'... where 'x' is a flush draw, 'y' is TP high kicker, and 'z' is, say, a baby set. (See what I did there? Clever huh?) Now, being that even the almighty Pete is wrong from time to time (no no... I assure you), the range of hands I assign to Villain evolves as the hand progresses.

Y'see, my big problem with this article is that 'I will bet to know where I stand' does not mean to me what it appears to mean to you. I bet to 'know where I stand' in the sense of, does Villain like his hand? Does he think I don't like mine? If he likes it, does he like it in a smooth-call, drawing-hand type way (or slowplayed monster - aaagh!) or more in a re-raising, squeeze-the-value-out kind of way? It's these pieces of information that I use to construct the range of hands I will put Villain on, which in turn determines my own actions in the hand. Betting in this sense is almost literally buying information. Depending on my hand, I may fold to a re-raise, as Villain has informed me that he has me beat and knows it, I may call, depending on my own holdings/outs, I may fire again on the turn, (card dependent) as Villain has told me he's drawing... you get the idea.

And this way of using bets to gain information does not, as you suggest, involve a sense of 100% certainty. You just have to be right often enough to make it work. Whenever you begin to feel lost, whenever the doubting voices murmur too loud... cards, meet the muck, muck, cards. A massive part of winning poker is about minimising risk, while, I think, recognising that it simply can't be eliminated completely. 'Knowing where I stand' for me is simply, am I (probably) ahead here? If not, is Villain (probably) vulnerable to a bluff? Trusting my own judgement is essential, and I'm prepared to spend a few bets getting what I need to judge these things more accurately more often.
If you need cod-philosophy, how about 'In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King' or to Pokerise it, 'In a game of incomplete information, the player with the most information stands to make the fewest errors.'

What I particularly don't see is what you are proposing as an alternative - check-folding? In every such situation? I can't bring myself to believe that, but if it is the case you lost me at hello. Sometimes a bet will give you some information. A check can only ever tell you that you checked.

§ If villain folds - He is probably doing the right thing. He has nothing.

And you take down a small pot and move on. You can't break them in every pot, particularly where they 'have nothing'. Winning a large number of small pots is a surer road to long-term profitability than stabbing at a small number of large pots, IMO. I recognise that the ultimate art of poker is to induce a mistake on your opponent's part, but, since you don't know where you stand, can it really be said that Villain does the right thing to fold here? I mean, you fold if Villain comes over the top, right? I almost definitely do.

PS - Beware the free card! Even if villain has nothing (and 'nothing' can be pocket 4s on a K, Q, 7 rainbow flop), who knows what the turn could bring - a 4?).

§ If villain Flat Calls – Our little statement of; “I will bet to know where I stand” goes out the window.

I disagree as outlined above. I mean at the start of my reply, not immediately above.

Re-evaluation on the turn is tricky depending on position. The fold equity you thought you had on the flop was a misread.

But you have the information you paid for. Villain likes his hand -DANGER, Will Robinson!. But all may not be lost, depending on whether the rest of the hand leads you to put Villain on x, y, or z.

§ If villain Min-Raises – There possibly is nothing more annoying than min-raising bastards.

Loud applause. Time it was said. God I love min-raising people who are irritated by it.

(I don't do it often).

Basicly Hero’s “I will bet to know where I stand” does not stand up.
§ If villain Raises (properly) - Your little statement of “I will bet to know…” goes out the window. You have just cost yourself the price of a decent flop bet.

Again I disagree. You have the information you paid for - cards, meet the muck, etc...

By Calling (If applicable)
- Hero is minimising losses.

I rank calling in this situation along with checking - it can't give you any new information. It is ONLY worthwhile dependent on outs and odds, both express and implied, (though in fairness when was the last time you got express odds on an open straight at a no-limit table?)

This is important as we can easily be behind. This is fighting the “I will raise to know where I stand” demon.

Mmmm. He is a bastard that demon. He's only useful in extremis.

- In essence, you want to play to a range. You don’t need to know what villain has.

Until the cards are flipped over, you can't. Minor point but as elucidated at the start of my reply, the aim is to minimise risk, as it can't be eliminated entirely.

By Checking
Also by not raising we are allowing ourselves to draw to the winning hand cheaply.

And also, it must be granted, severely cutting those wonderful wonderful implied odds we love so dearly.

After hero raises villains continuation bet... to know where he stands...
Side point 1: Lets say Heroes hand is ahead of over-cards. If the villain has over-cards, he has 6 outs. Heroes re-raise to villains fairly respectable CB will scare Villain away.

But which high cards? If the turn peels off a King, does he have that? What if it's a Jack? Or maybe a Queen? Why force yourself to make those difficult decisions that can be so easily wrong, why allow Villain to press you that way? He could figure you for top pair and simply bet out/raise when any overcard hits the turn - now who's back to square one?

Side point 2: Lets say Heroes hand has drawing power too, give your self a cheap draw also.

Cheap draws are relatively useless to me in a heads-up pot. Which may be beside the point, but nonetheless...

Side point 3: Also, if you want to take down the pot early, note that this kind of play is very aggressive. This play can be very costly in the long run.

Only if... (wait for it)... only if you... (wait for it)... only if you fail to play correctly to a range! Ahawhawhaw!

Side point 4: Don’t let the pot size get out of control on the flop. Espically if Hero is OOP.
Flat Call
Hero raises villains continuation bet = “I will raise so I know where I stand. I reckon you missed the flop?”
Villain Flat Calls = “…meh”
Summary: Without discussing position, you won’t know where you stand on the turn. Villain could have ANYTHING. This pretty much fucks up your ”I will bet so I know where I stand”

I disagree, as explained above.

Re-Raise
Hero Raises = “I will bet so I know where I stand. I reckon you missed the flop? That kind of looked like a continuation bet ”
Villan Re-Raises = “I’m holding”
So you know where you stand now, but you've just cost yourself a lot of money...and your probably in an 'all in or fold' situation with a mediocre hand.

Well here I know where you're coming from. Countless times I've had to fold when some fucker decides he wants all the money in on the flop. The best thing (IMO) to do there is lay on the ropes, Ali-Frasier style, and wait for a nice enough flop to go with it.

Everyone should bear in mind that I haven't slept in 36 hours so if I've said something absolutely indefensibly stupid or flat-out gang-war offensive, please be kind.

And I was kind of serious about wanting to change my screen name here. I really did think that was the field for your real name.

And, as an aside to whoever 'didn't get the picture', it's a picture of a 'cooking range', and is therefore a Visual Pune or Play on Words.

01-02-2007, 01:20	#4 (permalink)
PEter Gibney Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5 vCash: 500	Re: Playing Correctly to a Range A range is the only thing you can put villain on. If you start thinking “Well what if villain has x, y or z'” or “Villian raised preflop, so he must have x, y or z'”, slap yourself now. And move on to the rest of the article. If you knew 100% what cards villain has, then you would not need this article. You would be a psychic super-reader of either people or pixels. I'm afraid I must refute your words with your words - when playing (correctly) to a range, I do indeed think, 'Villain did this, so he must have x, y or z'... where 'x' is a flush draw, 'y' is TP high kicker, and 'z' is, say, a baby set. (See what I did there? Clever huh?) Now, being that even the almighty Pete is wrong from time to time (no no... I assure you), the range of hands I assign to Villain evolves as the hand progresses. Y'see, my big problem with this article is that 'I will bet to know where I stand' does not mean to me what it appears to mean to you. I bet to 'know where I stand' in the sense of, does Villain like his hand? Does he think I don't like mine? If he likes it, does he like it in a smooth-call, drawing-hand type way (or slowplayed monster - aaagh!) or more in a re-raising, squeeze-the-value-out kind of way? It's these pieces of information that I use to construct the range of hands I will put Villain on, which in turn determines my own actions in the hand. Betting in this sense is almost literally buying information. Depending on my hand, I may fold to a re-raise, as Villain has informed me that he has me beat and knows it, I may call, depending on my own holdings/outs, I may fire again on the turn, (card dependent) as Villain has told me he's drawing... you get the idea. And this way of using bets to gain information does not, as you suggest, involve a sense of 100% certainty. You just have to be right often enough to make it work. Whenever you begin to feel lost, whenever the doubting voices murmur too loud... cards, meet the muck, muck, cards. A massive part of winning poker is about minimising risk, while, I think, recognising that it simply can't be eliminated completely. 'Knowing where I stand' for me is simply, am I (probably) ahead here? If not, is Villain (probably) vulnerable to a bluff? Trusting my own judgement is essential, and I'm prepared to spend a few bets getting what I need to judge these things more accurately more often. If you need cod-philosophy, how about 'In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King' or to Pokerise it, 'In a game of incomplete information, the player with the most information stands to make the fewest errors.' What I particularly don't see is what you are proposing as an alternative - check-folding? In every such situation? I can't bring myself to believe that, but if it is the case you lost me at hello. Sometimes a bet will give you some information. A check can only ever tell you that you checked. § If villain folds - He is probably doing the right thing. He has nothing. And you take down a small pot and move on. You can't break them in every pot, particularly where they 'have nothing'. Winning a large number of small pots is a surer road to long-term profitability than stabbing at a small number of large pots, IMO. I recognise that the ultimate art of poker is to induce a mistake on your opponent's part, but, since you don't know where you stand, can it really be said that Villain does the right thing to fold here? I mean, you fold if Villain comes over the top, right? I almost definitely do. PS - *Beware the free card!* Even if villain has nothing (and 'nothing' can be pocket 4s on a K, Q, 7 rainbow flop), who knows what the turn could bring - a 4?). § If villain Flat Calls – Our little statement of; “I will bet to know where I stand” goes out the window. I disagree as outlined above. I mean at the start of my reply, not immediately above. Re-evaluation on the turn is tricky depending on position. The fold equity you thought you had on the flop was a misread. But you have the information you paid for. Villain likes his hand -DANGER, Will Robinson!. But all may not be lost, depending on whether the rest of the hand leads you to put Villain on x, y, or z. § If villain Min-Raises – There possibly is nothing more annoying than min-raising bastards. Loud applause. Time it was said. God I love min-raising people who are irritated by it. (I don't do it often). Basicly Hero’s “I will bet to know where I stand” does not stand up. § If villain Raises (properly) - Your little statement of “I will bet to know…” goes out the window. You have just cost yourself the price of a decent flop bet. Again I disagree. You have the information you paid for - cards, meet the muck, etc... By Calling (If applicable) - Hero is minimising losses. I rank calling in this situation along with checking - it can't give you any new information. It is ONLY worthwhile dependent on outs and odds, both express and implied, (though in fairness when was the last time you got express odds on an open straight at a no-limit table?) This is important as we can easily be behind. This is fighting the “I will raise to know where I stand” demon. Mmmm. He is a bastard that demon. He's only useful in extremis. - In essence, you want to play to a range. You don’t need to know what villain has. Until the cards are flipped over, you can't. Minor point but as elucidated at the start of my reply, the aim is to minimise risk, as it can't be eliminated entirely. By Checking Also by not raising we are allowing ourselves to draw to the winning hand cheaply. And also, it must be granted, severely cutting those wonderful wonderful implied odds we love so dearly. After hero raises villains continuation bet... to know where he stands... Side point 1: Lets say Heroes hand is ahead of over-cards. If the villain has over-cards, he has 6 outs. Heroes re-raise to villains fairly respectable CB will scare Villain away. But which high cards? If the turn peels off a King, does he have that? What if it's a Jack? Or maybe a Queen? Why force yourself to make those difficult decisions that can be so easily wrong, why allow Villain to press you that way? He could figure you for top pair and simply bet out/raise when any overcard hits the turn - now who's back to square one? Side point 2: Lets say Heroes hand has drawing power too, give your self a cheap draw also. Cheap draws are relatively useless to me in a heads-up pot. Which may be beside the point, but nonetheless... Side point 3: Also, if you want to take down the pot early, note that this kind of play is very aggressive. This play can be very costly in the long run. Only if... (wait for it)... only if you... (wait for it)... only if you fail to play correctly to a range! Ahawhawhaw! Side point 4: Don’t let the pot size get out of control on the flop. Espically if Hero is OOP. Flat Call Hero raises villains continuation bet = “I will raise so I know where I stand. I reckon you missed the flop?” Villain Flat Calls = “…meh” Summary: Without discussing position, you won’t know where you stand on the turn. Villain could have ANYTHING. This pretty much fucks up your ”I will bet so I know where I stand” I disagree, as explained above. Re-Raise Hero Raises = “I will bet so I know where I stand. I reckon you missed the flop? That kind of looked like a continuation bet ” Villan Re-Raises = “I’m holding” So you know where you stand now, but you've just cost yourself a lot of money...and your probably in an 'all in or fold' situation with a mediocre hand. Well here I know where you're coming from. Countless times I've had to fold when some fucker decides he wants all the money in on the flop. The best thing (IMO) to do there is lay on the ropes, Ali-Frasier style, and wait for a nice enough flop to go with it. Everyone should bear in mind that I haven't slept in 36 hours so if I've said something absolutely indefensibly stupid or flat-out gang-war offensive, please be kind. And I was kind of serious about wanting to change my screen name here. I really did think that was the field for your real name. And, as an aside to whoever 'didn't get the picture', it's a picture of a 'cooking range', and is therefore a Visual Pune or Play on Words.