Playing Correctly to a Range

[Sordini]

Have you ever thought to yourself.... humm

"I will bet so I know where I stand"

This thought is a waste of money: You don’t need to know what villain has if you play correctly to a range.

What makes this myth of poker wrong? - This Article


What in the hell are you talking about.
No limit Texas Hold Em. All stakes. The context of this article deals with play on the flop.

Lets Talk
This is important so listen: You can’t see villains hole cards, therefore you need to play to a range. This is also important so keep listening: You can’t see villains hole cards therefore you need to play correctly to a range. Good. Moving on.
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.

Enough talk
Often when you get to see the flop you might have a mediocre holding. But, it MIGHT still be the best hand. So you need to make a decision. Lets discuss hero’s options:
Raising an un-raised pot / Re-Raising
Hero is allowing villain to make the perfect decision no matter what he has. Now hand on my heart I believe this statement, but how can I explain this loose statement to the reader? Well…
§ If villain folds - He is probably doing the right thing. He has nothing.
§ If villain Flat Calls – Our little statement of; “I will bet to know where I stand” goes out the window. Re-evaluation on the turn is tricky depending on position. The fold equity you thought you had on the flop was a misread. Shaking him off the pot now will cost you a hefty 2nd barrel. You will be back to square one on the turn.
§ If villain Min-Raises – There possibly is nothing more annoying than min-raising bastards. This includes airports. I will eventually write an article about min-raising, but I fear that people who know me will use it against me. I have said too much. 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. Does hero plan for flop aggression.
§ If villain Flips Out and goes All-in …. Well you get my point by now.
These little bullet points back up my original statement on raising… allowing him to make the perfect decision (call if he has you, fold if he doesn't).
By Calling (If applicable)
- Hero is minimising losses. This is important as we can easily be behind. This is fighting the “I will raise to know where I stand” demon.
- In essence, you want to play to a range. You don’t need to know what villain has. You don’t WANT to know what villain has. We are opening up value in accordance to his range. Usually when you make a flat call on the flop, you have a good reason to do so. For example a decent flush/straight draw, some nice outs that are more deceptive than the latter, you have some really nice implied odds warranting a looser call then perfect poker… etc… If you insist on flat calling you need to believe in your ability to flat call with cause. A fundamental grasp of Pot-Odds is essential and you need to be bending the rules of Pot-Odds for a damn good reason. A great quote I heard recently was
“In order to break the rules, one must understand them fully in order to break them properly”
This guy did not know anything about poker. Some monk guy, but he knew his shit.
By Checking
Also by not raising we are allowing ourselves to draw to the winning hand cheaply. This in turn is allowing villain to draw to the better hand should he have it, but this is compensated by the fact that his outs are usually going to be low , and that we are not allowing him to play perfectly. To unbalance this poker ying-yang it will cost you a flop bet. This flop bet would be the “I will raise to know where I stand” demon plaguing you again.

- - - - - - - - - - S T O P - - - - - - - - - -

In essence this article will now repeat a few points because the content of this article is deep. I suggest you clear your mind and read the following scenarios like you would read a converstation with two mates down the pub:

- - - - - - - - - - OK, Go - - - - - - - - - -

Scenario – Villain appears to have thrown in a Continuation bet on the flop after raising preflop. Heads up. Position not considered. Hero has a hand that MIGHT be the winning hand. Hero is unsure. Hero thinks to himself; I know "I will raise so I know where I stand”

After hero raises villains continuation bet... to know where he stands villains choices are now:
Fold
Hero Re-Raises the Continuation bet = “I will raise so I know where I stand. I reckon you missed the flop? That kind of looked like you missed your flop”
Villain Folds = “…Yep… you got me”
Summary: This has just allowed a weaker hand to fold. That’s no good at all!
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.
Side point 2: Lets say Heroes hand has drawing power too, give your self a cheap draw also.
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.
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”
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.

Article Summary
Since hero has no idea if he has the best hand. Why raise? This article will assit in the understanding of why you should respect calling a little more” If hero gives the villan the chance to Flat Call or Fold too often, the villian has much more room to play perfect poker against the hero.

All of the above points is -EV
And finally, since it IS -EV the Poker goods have spoken.

Footnotes
Poker Gods – A philosophical concept devised by the author to help ease the burden of accepting that something is right or wrong. If something is –EV, you must accept that Poker Gods know what they are doing, and it is you that have to change. Not them. The Poker Gods have spoken, so get on with it.

[SomeGuy]

4 Questions Mr. Sordini:

1) Can you say some more about range?
2) What about when the Hero is bluffing/semi-bluffing? People will often fold TP bad kicker/middle pair etc.
3) Not technically a question, but I don't get the picture...
4) emmmm.........have i forgotten the last question?

[Sordini]

1) Think back. Back to a time when you thought your villian has a, b or c beacause he did x, y & z, your brain is attempting to narrow the 'range' of cards that your villian has. This article is dedicated not to the narrowing process but to "Playing correctly against a range". The fundementals. The narrowing process is fine tuning your basic foundation of "Playing correctly against a range"
2) I am all for agression. However the theme of the artilce is and in depth look at the thought: "I will raise so I know where I stand" and the fact of the matter is that when in doubt of your own skill, this little side thought can be very costly.
3) You will have to google that one
4) I am sure you will remember... eventually.

Take it easy.

[PEter Gibney]

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.

[jimmii]

You have been up 36 hours and you read it all! Impressive! Interestingly I read all your reply but only got half way through the original article.

[izod]

great thread but more importantly it's cured my all night poker induced insomnia

[jimmii]

Then don't go to Pokerlistings.com and read the final table "live" coverage from yesterday like I did.

[Sordini]

For example your first sentence of "I do indeed think...villian did this so he must have x,y or z" you are narrowing the range! So pete my friend you have missed the point.

All of your points are nit picking, because you are flexing your poker brain, by NARROWING the range. This article is not about Narrowing the range.

On every one of your points. You have missed my points.

[PEter Gibney]

I'll try to clarify what I mean, having now slept:

§ 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.

Adopting your 'pub conversation' method:

Hero: Ah, the old continuation bet, huh? I'll raise.
Villain: Gotcha! Re-raise!
Hero: Oh, so you're holding. Fold.

Hero has bet, has acquired his information and acted accordingly. I don't see where you've shown that this is, in fact 'a waste of money' as your article states. Please do clarify, I honestly don't see where you're coming from on this.

[Cian]

Originally Posted by PEter Gibney

Hero has bet, has acquired his information and acted accordingly. I don't see where you've shown that this is, in fact 'a waste of money' as your article states. Please do clarify, I honestly don't see where you're coming from on this.

Betting for information is a waste of money when you dont need the information in the first place.

In paying for the information, you get the luxury of acting accordingly...ie, with the information you just so kindly paid for, you get to make the correct decision based on the current scenario.

This is all well and good...you get to fold when you are behind, and win the pot when you are ahead. But where's the value in that?

What if instead of us paying for information, we make informed decisions. In accepting the fact that villains hand (until showdown) can only ever be a range, and rather than playing against a specific hand we (usually wrongly) convince ourselves he has, we are always giving villain the benefit of the doubt. What then becomes more valuable? A judgement that will usually be wrong (a specific hand), or a range that can never be wrong? With which approach can you play better poker?

So, in not betting for information, we have to take a leap of faith. You may be against a monster, you may be against air. But this is fine! Poker is and always will be a game of incomplete information...a poker hand is always going to be a game of incomplete information. The value does not come from the 'finding out'.

[Philo]

Just wondering what you think of this, from another forum?



**** The €1k Ticket Winner ****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the entrants were asked to submit a 1000 word essay on the following point:

''The continuation bet has to be the most overused, poorly thought out bet in poker. Discuss''

The following entry was deemed the winner:


Quote:
One of the most important aspects of poker is being the aggressor. By betting and raising, you are creating decisions for your opponent, rather than making the decisions yourself. By forcing them to make decisions, you are essentially forcing them to make mistakes. And the more mistakes our opponents make, the more money we expect to make.

The continuation bet is a fundamental means of inducing mistakes from our opponents.

An example of how a continuation bet works is best looked at in a vacuum. Assume the following: the villain in the hand is a standard tight aggressive player. His range for calling a raise from the big blind is strong suited connectors such as JTs, low to mid range pocket pairs and two broadway cards such as AQo. If he hits, he will continue with the hand, but if he misses he will simply check fold.

An unpaired hand will hit a pair or better on the flop 32.4% of the time. A pocket pair will hit a set 11.8% of the time. Suited hole cards will flop a flush draw 11% of the time. The odds of flopping a straight, a flush, a full house or better are all less than 1%.

So in our example, the villain will hit the flop approximately 27% of the time with his given range. Thus, in a vacuum a bet will win the pot 73% of the time, resulting in instant profit.

Unfortunately, poker in reality is completely different. There are numerous factors that need to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to make a continuation bet. Player types, history and table conditions are all of paramount importance when deciding on the most appropriate action.

Four of the most common player types we encounter at the tables are the following:

1.The bad, passive player who calls down too much
2.The bad chip spewing LAG
3.The good LAG with good hand reading skills
4.The good TAG

If we continue to make continuation bets on 100% of flops, the following will happen:

The calling station will call too often and we'll need to shut down too early when they may have folded to a bet on the turn. We may also get too much action when he's calling us down with middle pair on all streets.

The bad LAG will notice our c-betting frequencies and adjust, playing back extremely light and with any two cards.

The good LAG will do a range of things. Sometimes calling and leading the turn, sometimes check raising and sometimes calling and check raising the turn, knowing that you'll be firing more 2nd barrels.

The TAG will let you hang yourself, check calling a lot and trying to get to showdown, forcing you to play poorly, understanding that when you bet the flop and shut down on the turn you usually have nothing or that when you double barrel, you usually have big hand. Essentially, this enables him to play perfect poker even though he is out of position.



That is the biggest problem with the continuation bet. Most people have no idea why they are doing it. They bet blindly and without thought on every flop. This one dimensional implementation of the continuation bet is extremely poor. A byproduct of this is that hand reading becomes more difficult as opponents stop playing their hands and start playing back against our aggression.

This is why the delayed continuation bet is crucial. This is when we make a continuation bet on the turn, rather than the flop. When we do this with both our made hands and air, our hand becomes almost unreadable. Varying our betting frequencies like this on each street is imperative in order to keep our opponents guessing. This deception serves a number of purpose; firstly, it induces bets from our opponents with weaker holdings who think their hand is ahead due to our passive line on the flop and secondly, our hand is more likely to be a bluff when we bet the turn or the river.

Our c-betting frequency should also correlate directly with the number of players in the hand. The greater the number of players that see the flop, the lesser our c-betting frequency should be as it stands to reason that the more players we're facing, the more likely it is that we'll be called.

Other significant factors that need to be considered are stack sizes, position and board textures, all of which are overlooked by weaker players.

When used correctly, the continuation bet is one of the most powerful weapons in a poker players arsenal and is a vital means of picking up pots on different streets.

Many players ignore the plethora of information they have before them at a poker table. Keeping a note on player types, their tendencies and our previous history with them, gives us a wealth of data to work with. It is of utmost necessity to scrutinise these particular elements when selecting the most appropriate action to take postflop.

When these things are disregarded, the continuation bet becomes extremely weak. It is too predictable and good players will adjust easily. It becomes a case of blind aggression which results in regular spewing. All of a sudden, we are facing decisions. Our play becomes readable and our range easily defined. Thus, the initial purpose of the c-bet has been reversed. It's purpose is to help define the villains range and to take down the pot uncontested. If it's not doing this, it becomes an almost worthless move.

It is for these reasons, the continuation bet is the most overused, poorly thought out bet in poker.

[jimmii]

Do you know the name of the player who wrote that? Its hardly gound breaking but it does bring together everything you need to think about while playing post flop.

[Philo]

Sorry on the late reply Jimmi, I've been away from the PC for a few days.

Yeah the guy posts as IANMC38, I didn't find anything inlightning about it too other than he won a $1000 for this efforts.

The winner is IANMC38, Best of luck Ian.
Great article Ian. Impressive. lol Donkaments. Eh??!!!
Guessed it was you before I got to the end. Well done Ian.
excellent essay Ian. A+ for effort. congratulations.
Very nice Ian, well deserved.

[jimmii]

Pick up any poker book and it says the exact same thing almost word for word it was probably just the only submition that covered everything. I guess your not going to get anything ground breaking from any poker article these days as almost everything has been covered from every angle.

[maccermaccer]

Originally Posted by Philo

Sorry on the late reply Jimmi, I've been away from the PC for a few days.

Yeah the guy posts as IANMC38, I didn't find anything inlightning about it too other than he won a $1000 for this efforts.

The winner is IANMC38, Best of luck Ian.
Great article Ian. Impressive. lol Donkaments. Eh??!!!
Guessed it was you before I got to the end. Well done Ian.
excellent essay Ian. A+ for effort. congratulations.
Very nice Ian, well deserved.

I think to be fair the essay is pretty good and very well constructed.
Sure it might not be the most ground-breaking or innovative thing ive ever read but it is this clear and concise presentation of a topic that make Harringtons book so good.