fixed limit extended charts question

Originally posted by kavboj84
You dont seem to have a slight clue about whats the problem with your reasoning. You make the conclusion that the charts are bad, because you assume that everyone who uses them plays bad postflop. Like it was impossible to play good postflop with these ranges, while you play the same ranges just from a position earlier.

I just say that imagine Phil Ivey playing these charts, now you cant say that there is an incompetent player behind the same ranges, and following your logic the charts have become supergood now.

dont be hostile. relax dude.

i dont make a conclusion that the charts are bad. I KNOW they are bad for todays games and i dont care about phil ivey.. I know for a fact that these charts are bad, then obviously any competent player knows they are bad because they are c ompetent players. hence only those who dont know they are bad are using them. Thats why i say that only bad players use them. and know that bad players are bad at postflop.

theres nothing wrong with my reasoning. You want models you want charts. This is common sense. So please watch your language and debate on a clear and well spoken polite level.

I'll try to come up with a better answer tomorrow. But just to be clear, I don't loosen up my 3-bets versus the nits. But I might be able to read the board better than them when I so 3-bet since I know what hits them, and what don't hit them. It might mean an extra successful bluff with a holding I normally don't bluff 3 streets with, or an extra value raise versus his dead certain overpair.

The effect of super-tight unbalanced ranges is clearest in deep-stack NL, but I think it is still there in FL.

@ Avataren :

Im sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didnt want to be rude or something, im totally chilled its just the way that I see what you said, and I still think the same way, and its not because I dont like you or Im in love with the charts (I do play a lot looser as well but for a very different reason) but because I find your reasoning simply invalid. You just claim something without backing it up with a real argument, you cant just hit the table and say that I have right because common sense dictates that. "Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat"

@YohanN7 :

Unbalance is a different thing than tightness and a looser range can be also unbalanced. Our original hypothesis was that the charts are bad because of their tightness and this tightness is what you exploit.
And for that I said that take your own opening range from FR UTG which you play from that position well, and raise that from the SB or every other position you like and tell me that what is the difference which made that previously unexploitable range exploitable and why isnt the same range exploitable this way from the very first position.

Originally posted by kavboj84
@ Avataren :

Im sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didnt want to be rude or something, im totally chilled its just the way that I see what you said, and I still think the same way, and its not because I dont like you or Im in love with the charts (I do play a lot looser as well but for a very different reason) but because I find your reasoning simply invalid. You just claim something without backing it up with a real argument, you cant just hit the table and say that I have right because common sense dictates that. "Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat"

@YohanN7 :

Unbalance is a different thing than tightness and a looser range can be also unbalanced. Our original hypothesis was that the charts are bad because of their tightness and this tightness is what you exploit.
And for that I said that take your own opening range from FR UTG which you play from that position well, and raise that from the SB or every other position you like and tell me that what is the difference which made that previously unexploitable range exploitable and why isnt the same range exploitable this way from the very first position.

Theres only 2 things in this world that would make me hurt and if somebody finds those 2 things I'm gonna murder them So don't worry Im not hurt. Though i am a bit annoyed over that you consider what i say invalid just because i dont have any mathmatical evidence to prove what i say is right. (im not a math geek and I never will be , I hate math and i consider that whole subject weak and invalid for my own reasons, those who rely too much on math in my opinion will never be a truly great poker player) besides I never claimed anything related to poker other than the PS LHE charts are bad, Which Boomer was saying

"My guess is Ava has Super-Fun-Happy Ranges smile

That being said he is correct, the PS LHE Charts are way out-dated for today's games. They were designed for a "tight is right" era which doesn't exist anymore outside of the smallest of micro stakes."

so if you consider my words invalid you are also questioning what Boomer says. I'm not really concerned if you believe me or not. But i do take offense in somebody who is less knowledgeable than Boomer claims what he says is wrong.

to me out dated = bad..

@kavboj84

A range that is too tight is automatically imbalanced. It contains only very solid value and no small cards.

GTO will win big by default versus too tight ranges because it always wins.

Too tight ranges simply don't play enough profitable hands to overcome the cost of the blinds. (This is provided the opponents don't play worse ranges.) The hands they do play don't get paid off in full.

They are also exploitable since they are easy to read. Most of this exploitation probably comes from making good folds versus them. These are profitable folds that the GTO player doesn't make = EXPLOITATION.

The definite answer to the question whether the PS ranges are too tight for good poker might have to wait until the GTO bots play more than HU, but most good players today play looser.

@Avataren :

I dont say that what you statement is incorrect ,I only questioned it , I said that your inference is invalid, because it lacks any form of syllogism.

And yes I questioned boomer, I do that a lot of times, for me it is not enough when someone just claims something, he has to prove it, because I can only understand things if I see the reason why it is so. No one is unerring, it took a half year for him to realize what I had been saying constantly that if you have a flat 100%+0% donk strategy from the BB it can be exploited by x-ing back. Even Einstein made a mistake in the original deduction of the special relativity theory, the one for which he won a Noble prize, and it was corrected by Planck years later. Why should I assume then that he is correct, when no one could come up with something that at least suggests that you have to play X% more from a specific position rather then Y%. Thats it we are humans, and we make mistakes, and I think its better to find out where we are wrong instead of just claiming that one side has right and the other is wrong.

The only reasoning I saw regarding preflop ranges was the one that resulted the silver charts,which based on average potsize + pot equity. And I have never seen anything like that,which would prove a different statement. The only thing Ive been looking for years is just an answer that shows how do people get to that conclusion that the right play is to be a lot looser. I have my reasons, but its based on empirical data rather than some kind of calculus.
As to the math side, I also tried to solve the problem on my own,providing that I play against opponents who make no mistakes postflop so their game is at least 0EV from then, and I was trying to estimate the chance that they get a worse/better hand then the dealt one (depending if it was on the bottom or top of the range) and guess what: it resulted an even tighter orc. The difference was a few % like 10% instead of 13% from MP2, which could be because it should contain more bluffs than I estimated, but this method based on my own logic provided a solution very near to the PS charts.
I dont claim that these are correct because there is no evidence for that, but these are the only ones I found so far that provided at least some kind of model that showed a direction where the solution can be.

YohanN7:

A range that is too tight is automatically imbalanced.

That is not true for sure. Balance has a different meaning it means that a range has an optimal combination of value and bluffs regarding the profitabilitiy of bluffcatching. Say a range contains only AA and 32o in a ratio that makes you indifferent to bluffcatch it is a balanced range despite that it contains less than 2% of all combos.

And this is why I said that take a FR UTG range which you consider a good and balanced range and open that from the small blind and tell me what do you do otherwise vs such a SB compared to the FR UTG. Which hands do you play differently, which ones are that you can exploit the small blind with but the UTG not. That would prove what you say.

But in case you cant the only mistake that such a tight open raiser makes is that he gives up value, because he could steal the blinds more often profitably, and we get to that point again which I asked you in the very beginning, that is there a % that you should raise from a position. And you said no one has a clue not even for a BU range %, and this concludes in a contradiction, because on one side you say that no one knows how much you should open, and on the other you say that 37% is tight for a BU open. How can you claim that its tight if you cant prove what % is the threshold between tight and loose ?

@kavboj84

I like your example with taking a FR UTG range and have somebody playing it in the SB. I'd love to be in the BB because you give up your small blind practically every hand (see below for post-flop as well).

What I have mainly said about exploiting a tight range is that you exploit it by folding preflop when they have entered (folds you wouldn't make otherwise) and open up when they have not entered, particularly when they are in the blinds or on the button and you are the CO.

Then add some gravy when the ranges are too predictable = too small - like in your AA-23o range. I'm not going to bluff-catch ever when the board is 223-7-9 but will do so on a AA9-6-4 board (or hold an A myself). A balanced range is exploitable if it is too small and predictable. A balanced range is exploitable when it is too wide - because it's too weak. Balance is not the same thing as GTO. Only GTO is unexploitable. (Corollary: Balanced ranges may be "imbalanced" with respect to the board. This is what I meant the last post.)

Poker is the battle of the blinds, and when you don't fight for the blinds often enough you can't win ever - no matter how balanced or good you are post-flop.

Right, no one has a clue about what the exact opening range for GTO is on the button. No one ever will in our lifetime because computers (and programmers) are too crappy. But we do know from the past 10 years of experience (particularly from GTO bot development and tendencies of winning players) that 37% is, in all likelihood, too small.

Originally posted by kavboj84
... Even Einstein made a mistake in the original deduction of the special relativity theory, the one for which he won a Noble prize, and it was corrected by Planck years later...

Where can I read about this?

You cannot exploit a tight range preflop in a hyper effective way just one 1 street, certainly not preflop (aside from some small adjustments in your ranges)

Where you exploit tight ranges is post-flop because their ranges are far more bound to the board texture. Wider ranges are more fluid and therefore tend to be a lot more difficult to hand read.

If you've attended my coachings/watched videos you'll have often seen me be pretty much spot on calling people's hands out, even sometimes down to the exact 2 cards and that's the issue when you are too tight/too predictable. It's not that you're playing a mathematically incorrect range, because you're not, you're playing a range which preflop has an equity advantage, however poker isn't a 1 street game and you do damage to your future ranges on certain board textures by being too tight.

A-High and K-High boards are going to favour you heavily resulting in your opponent being able to overfold and other board textures are going to favour your opponent to an insane degree allowing either overbluffs or, even worse, over-value ranges you just get your ass value bet constantly becasue your calling range, while weak, is still too strong to fold.

Also you're easier to value bet against because your range is tighter and thus will often miss "balancing" hands in the range you play slowly

It's a ton of different factors which overly tight play causes which lead to it's exploitation. Basically tight ranges are very readable and thus exploitable unless you are super balanced postflop (which can only save you so much, if you only play AA and play balanced post, you're still losing money), and if you're that good postflop why are you missing opportunities by playing super tight?

YohanN7 :

My AA-32o range was just a raw example to show what balance means, and its rather a jam/fold example if we want to be realistic as far it is possible in a situation like that, but even if we consider playing postflop against such a range(which would not be profitable exept an all-in situation) I dont think you can have an Ax (except if you hold an AA yourself) because it has such poor equity.
You can guess what your opponent holds on like 5-10% of the board textures which is not enough to pay1 bet to see a flop, otherwise the range is bluffheavy. You can have 89s 87s (as a bluffcatcher which sounds weird but put that into Equilove if you are interested) and such hands but not an Ax .

To be fair I think you need to open a 5% range at least from any position, and this is also interesting because after a certain number of opponents in front of you this becomes too much as well. The more people you have in front of you the tighter you have to raise because the chance that someone gets a better hand than yours becomes too high, and hands that were 0+ EV to play earlier become -EV. So after a while (dont ask me if its 15 or 20 max) even 5% becomes too much, and this leads to one of my conjecture that I mentioned long ago, that GTO strategy may collapse into a leveling war in narrow range situations.

Regarding your question about Einstein, you could have googled it but since its a quick task I did that for you:

link

Just scroll down to the till you see a headline that says 'Einsteins mistakes'.

Boomer2k10 :

I think Johann has right because I cant imagine how else you could 'exploit' (I wouldnt call this exploitation)someone raising tighter from the SB than he should but playing that range good postflop than defending according to the tightness of that range. I.e. if someone raises from the SB as much as he should from the BU then I defend against him like the raise came from the button, and if its a CO range then I defend like it was the CO and so on. There is no way you can outplay him like Avataren said that you can expolit him with 3betting because if you play looser than you would play against the BU CO etc... you simply wont have enough equity against that range and you will be the one who will be exploited, because your opponent wont make mistakes postflop. Otherwise if you find a hand that is not in your defending range vs the BU and its profitable to play against someone who plays a BU range from the SB then you are not defending enough against the BU because there is no difference between the two situations when you face a raise from the BU and the SB folded and when you face the same range vs the SB.

Well, if you Google "Einstein's mistakes", then you will find more crankery than you ever wished for in your whole life

Yes, Einstein made some mistakes. Just like all brilliant physicists. And they all had an astonishing ability to acknowledge their mistakes when they were pointed out to them by their peers.

The rest of your post I just can't understand. Maybe I'm just tired.

I'll give it a try on this point: You say your range would be bluff heavy if I ever could see a flop? Well, then, by definition it isn't balanced. If you maintain it's balanced, then you have made me indifferent to see a flop. (Else it's value heavy in which case I fold 100% right?) Then I call plenty just because of these 5-10% of flops where I can guess what you hold.

Thus, those rare times you do open I exploit you because your range is too narrow.

The rest of your post I just can't understand. Maybe I'm just tired.

I'll give it a try on this point: You say your range would be bluff heavy if I ever could see a flop? Well, then, by definition it isn't balanced. If you maintain it's balanced, then you have made me indifferent to see a flop.

Nope, that refers to Ax only, because it has less equity vs that range than 98s. If you have Ax vs AA(vast majority of the time) you play ~90-10 ( just think on that there is only 1 ace left in the deck) but with a 98s you play ~80-20. And when he has 32 you are a ~65-35 favorite with both (Ax or 98s) hands. So you cant have Ax in your range and cant exploit that range postflop on Axx boards.If you have it you pay too much to see an Axx board, because you will miss the board and play x/f like 85-90% of the time. Against a tight range like that you have to plan to see all streets to realize your equity, but this equity is just simply not enough to call even one street not to mention three. Thats why one has to raise at least 5% (ofc with an appropriate value:bluff mix) otherwise you cant do anything but fold except AA (unless your opponent is all-in).

And they all had an astonishing ability to acknowledge their mistakes when they were pointed out to them by their peers

Just a sidenote : There is always one thing in which someone makes a mistake (not a single one of us is 100% perfect). Einstein for ex could never believe in the undeterministic nature of quantum physics, which has been proved to be correct over time, unfortunately he could not make it to see it. God knows what would have happened then.

If I have an A (or there is one on the board) there are 3 combos of AA which my opponent can have. If I have an A and there is one on the board (or 2 on the board) there is just a single combo of AA my opponent can have.

If I have 98s and there are no A showing on the board there are 6 combos of AA my opponent can have.

The things I don't want to see, neither in my hand or on the board are deuces and treys.

It is called the blocker effect.

On the side track: Quantum physics (in the form of Quantum Field Theory) is nowadays not widely believed to be the final story. Read for instance The Quantum Theory of Fields Vol I-III by Steven Weinberg before you lecture me on this subject too.

If I have an A (or there is one on the board) there are 3 combos of AA which my opponent can have. If I have an A and there is one on the board (or 2 on the board) there is just a single combo of AA my opponent can have.

Yes this is true but its still not enough for you to make the call preflop. Look at the situation from the raisers perspective

1. you cant have Ax too often when he has AA
2. it happens even more rarely that you have Ax, the raiser has AA and the flop comes Axx.

Guess what happens then plus in every other situation that differs from this.

Also I know that QFT is not a final solution but it is also widely known (as far as Im concerned ) that it is very near to it, because it describes most of the phenomena precisely. (Altough I dont know the book you metnioned, also it is 100% that Im not going to read it in the near future, cause Im too much engaged in FLHE)

And its not that I want to lecture you on it, I am not an expert at all ( I only learned modern physics at the uni + watched some QED courses over the internet for personal interest) , I just brought up that theme to show you that even the greatest minds can make mistakes.

Originally posted by kavboj84

If I have an A (or there is one on the board) there are 3 combos of AA which my opponent can have. If I have an A and there is one on the board (or 2 on the board) there is just a single combo of AA my opponent can have.

Yes this is true but its still not enough for you to make the call preflop. Look at the situation from the raisers perspective

1. you cant have Ax too often when he has AA
2. it happens even more rarely that you have Ax, the raiser has AA and the flop comes Axx.

Guess what happens then plus in every other situation that differs from this.
...

Both the points you list are working in the favor of the caller. But let us not argue more about this. There are articles in the NL section on the blocker effect that you can read or you can check it out in Equilab (but do it right this time ♦). The blocker effect works in the extreme against super-tight ranges like here.

I'm not going to reply any more (on this subject) because you don't listen to me. I'm itching to reply, but my answers risk sounding more and more cranky. I hope someone else chips in here.

Beeee crankyyyy,

You must obey because I have a Headset Avatar now!!

Edit:Too poor crankery to keep.

LOL unfortunately I read before daybreak what you wrote yesterday night , I was only too mad tired to reply and the crankyness was the least issue with it.

The problem is that you dont look at the game as a whole. This thing is not about cards and combinations, it is about equities and frequencies, the cards are only the representation of those and the fact that you can indeed exploit someone playing so as you wrote is rather the result of an imperfect implementation of a balanced strategy (i.e. not a balanced strategy) than of your original assumption of being overly tight.

Im gonna show you that you can be still balanced even if you are tight as the tightest of pinholes.

You need only two combinations,one for bluff and one for value. It will use one AA, let it be A :spade:A :heart:, every other AA combination is folded preflop so you cant take an advantage on the blocker effect, because so you will never be able to block an A that your opponent can hold. And of course you need one combo of 32o.

The goal of the SB is to make a balanced betdown range of this, and for that he needs to show bluffs on the river in 0,42857142857142857142857142857143 % of the time because
BB has to put 6 into 8 and thats 1:1,333..
We dont need a magical device as we can use bots for the test BB calls down with whatever range you like and SB raises and bets down with the below method.
To achieve to proper ratio of value: bluffs BB montiors the boards as the following:

It takes a note on how many times he bets a particular board for value or bluff, and he keeps looking at the notes constantly to maintain the proper ratio. Let AT5 be an example board, say if this comes up, it the bets the board 4 times in a row with AA and then 3 times in a row 32o ( 3/7=0,428...). Everytime it should bet for value and it has a 32o it simply checks and vice versa.

Ofc if you want to be precise it has to measure the chance that sometimes it does not have a value or bluffing range what I tried to allude to in point 1.&2. previously (for ex on a board of 777 you may have 7x in some%) so he needs to check there also in some frequency accordingly. Plus if there is some form of intelligence in the BB he can recognize that SB bets the 4:3 patterns in a row, so this needs to be scrambled and aimed to be achieved on a long term average but if we let us a bit of a simplification we dont make BB that intelligent and spare some LoC-s and a shitload of work.

So this way, you dont rely on card combos as an anchor point, hence you can eliminate undesirable game states and avoid being exploited in the way you described.

let me advice you to actually not care about 0.00001 % of what you were talking about ( i cant be bothered to read everything) and focus more on whats really going on at the FL tables we all play. try to keep it more simple kavboj84. I think it will do you a lot of good.

I removed my crankery because it was unfinished. Not because it was wrong. Let's break your new post down into small pieces. Otherwise we will both spend the rest of the week doing this.

Piece one:

Originally posted by kavboj84
...
You need only two combinations,one for bluff and one for value. It will use one AA, let it be A :spade:A :heart:, every other AA combination is folded preflop so you cant take an advantage on the blocker effect, because so you will never be able to block an A that your opponent can hold. And of course you need one combo of 32o.
...

What do you mean "never be able to block an A that your opponent can hold"?

The blocker effect is now total. When the BB holds either of A or A and there is a bet from the SB - merry Christmas to you BB. The SB is now bluffing, not just probably bluffing, but bluffing with 100% certainty, and has 32o. Call down except if the board becomes XYZ23 or the like.

The sensmoral is that the blocker effect becomes stronger the tighter your range gets.