10-21-2011

My try:

Kinda hard to tell as I'm not exactly sure what "your best range" means. Does it mean the range that is best created with available information at that point of time?

Also not sure what results oriented means here. I assume if we see a top 20% hand in a spot where we assumed villains range to be top 15% (easy example), we just widen his range for 5%, which might be too vague given his habit about his plays with the other 5% (e.g. 3betting 22 from SB vs steals but not 77). Imo, the theorem lacks flexibility regarding variables in villains range. It seems useless/misleading in case of misclicks or other randomness factors (I think villain balancing is maybe the biggest aspect here?) that could lead to a forged perception of villains range.

It also seems odd to not be results oriented if we see a hand at showdown that was in our assumed range, as it should solidify our assumption about his range and playing habits.

10-21-2011

Nice blog post. Time to engage!

The word hand is used a few times in a way that probably confuses some readers in that they may think of an example like QT on K9356 instead of 67 on AT3J2 being shown after having been called on the river. In the latter case of the 67 example "hand" has an incredible amount of information about an opponent's range in certain spots and their understanding of the game; whereas with QT the word "hand" better describes the way I see most players reading your post and part of a more "standard" hand.

In other words, your "best range possible" is going to have to account for variance. Given a limited and often small sample of any specific spot, the variance of a decision can fall several standard deviations away from a range you might estimate. The 67 example is a solid example for this point. Over a sample of fantastic players, some will bluff slightly more often than a randomization by equity on a board like AT3J2 and some will bluff 100% of their air range that has no connection with the board. This variance has to be accounted for in the estimation of a "best possible range", which makes the assignment of a range sound more like an exact science, rather than an extremely volatile science. The turn call has to be reconciled with the possibility of facing a river three-barrel and the likelihood of calling that as well to win the pot. Variance in spots like these can sky rocket and "your best possible range" becomes something else entirely.

10-21-2011

More specifically, you should be results oriented in that your adjustment to this information at showdown should also account for your opponent's adjustment to how he perceives you as adjusting (plus however many levels). Seeing your opponent's hand given history or lack of history is a piece of information in itself that should affect your (and his) future ranges and so on as metagame develops. A decent amount of the time at showdown, one player's mistaken perception of another's range will be brought to light; however, this new information does not necessarily warrant an adjustment, depending on the level of thought of your opponent(s). At the end of your blurb you say "otherwise you shouldn't be" but just because a hand is inside of the range you assume has nothing to do with your opponent's, and therefore your own, adjustments in future play. Always be results oriented at showdown to the extent you're able to do so.

10-21-2011

Well we can infer from Bayes theorem that given the showdown his range was more likely to be weighted one way than another.

-R

10-21-2011

Also the final decision point is where you put your opponent on a range that is a subset of all previous ranges down the streets. So it obviously isn't just the final decision point you need to consider but every decision prior to that, including previous hands.

-R

10-21-2011

"you should be putting your opponent on your best range possible, and from that range determining the best action for your range" in other words you should put your opponent on a few likely average hands and then proceed?

10-21-2011

I'm not going to reiterate what so many people have said, but it's awfully interesting to me that some of the best poker players I know are some of the most results oriented. I also don't think it's a coincidence.

10-21-2011

If Im faced with a tough decision with a bluff catcher, and I feel its close between a call and a fold but I choose to call and villain shows me a bluff with a hand that is far out of his perceived bluffing range. Are you asking if its wrong to assume our play was good with this new information because we forget to account for the margin of error in calculating his perceived range on the other end of his hand range spectrum?

10-21-2011

When you assign a range you must realize there's a chance any hand can be shown given how villain's actions are entirely independent. Likewise, there's that same chance villain shows a hand you perceived him to hold and yet you made incorrect assumptions when assigning that range.

10-22-2011

you should be trying to figure out the best possible action for you hand vs their range, not your range vs their range while in game as it would be excessive to think so far into a hand while its playing out with no real immediate benefit.

wrt being results oriented after a showdown occurs, this should normally be the case as poker is a game where you are just guessing most of the time so any solid information you gain should be used to influence your thoughts about a given situation and potential future similar ones. if you get shown a hand you did expect to see this should influence your thoughts about the situation by confirming you are 'doing it right' so to speak imo, it just happens to be that when you are wrong it sticks in your mind longer and has more of an impact than the knowledge of being correct(losses hurt more than wins feel good etc). basically i feel like being results oriented is a necessity to an extent if nothing else than for allowing your mind to detect patterns(every time he checks the turn and bets the river hes bluffing, type of thing), where as without the knowledge of being right or wrong it is harder to determine future actions as confidently.

10-22-2011

being results orientated is part of human nature. if we didnt learn from our experiences we'd still be sticking our hands into flames or onto hot objects wondering what it would feel like. Being able to know when to be results orientated in poker is probably one of the most complex things for people to truly grasp

10-22-2011

luckychewy
"you should be trying to figure out the best possible action for you hand vs their range, not your range vs their range while in game as it would be excessive to think so far into a hand while its playing out with no real immediate benefit."

but don't you have to consider your range or perceived range, so you don't make plays that are exploitable?

Ex: unknown opens utg, you flat with QQ in the bb. I flat here because unknown doesn't expect me to have a decent 3bet % in that spot, so i'm flatting because I expect him to think I have a narrow 3bet range in that spot and I don't expect to get called by worse a decent amount of the time.

10-22-2011

paulman
"but don't you have to consider your range or perceived range, so you don't make plays that are exploitable?

Ex: unknown opens utg, you flat with QQ in the bb. I flat here because unknown doesn't expect me to have a decent 3bet % in that spot, so i'm flatting because I expect him to think I have a narrow 3bet range in that spot and I don't expect to get called by worse a decent amount of the time."

Against players who are thinking about your range, yes you want to figure out what your perceived range is. That is necessary in playing your hand against their range, you need to predict their frequencies and how they play their hands, which is based on how they think you're playing often.

10-24-2011

i think what is too vague is that although you may have discounted a certain hand from showing up, you don't entirely dismiss it and therefore it is still theoretically in his range. in that sense you might have a primary range that you expect his showdown hand to fall into most of the time and then further discounted ranges which might include most of the deck to varying degrees.

Being results oriented here could mean that seeing a severely discounted hand at showdown now makes you adjust major assumptions about his game correctly or incorrectly depending on the villains actual thought process in the hand. If villain does somehow randomize his play to show up with that discounted range 20% of the time or WE then you initial asumption was still correct and you would be wrong to be results oriented.

10-27-2011

just wait til you have to make decisions in domains where their are even more unknowns, and the advice you receive all ´make sense´ but contradicts with each other

10-27-2011

also, people are unaware of many instances in which they are actuallz results oriented

10-27-2011

Jungleman, examples of both?

10-27-2011

I think it's almost the opposite. If the opponent flips up a hand that IS in the range, then be more results oriented. You knew where they were, and therefore should have known the best course of action (calling/raising/shoving/folding) to make the most money.

11-03-2011

Nothing unclear... if villain shows up with a hand that doesn't fit with my analysis, I better adjust my assumptions and range analysis accordingly.

Sometimes the adjustment isn't even big... but not adjusting at all in the face of clear evidence is retarded.

12-12-2011

Last sentence seems wrong to me..If he finally has a hand that you had in his range you should be a little bit results oriented and be more sure than in the senario his hand wasnt in your range that you constructed his range good