Isoraises

    • JLeitmotiv
      JLeitmotiv
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2009 Posts: 756
      I've been talking with Avataren lately, and we desperately need some help from some who knows about this game!

      We were talking about pf play, and eventually the discussion went to isoraises vs one limper. My point is that, to check how you are isoraising, you should compare your RFI with your PFR if you filter your database to "Facing 1 limper pf". Also the analysis must be made by position or, at least, taking away UTG since you'll never face a limper UTG.

      So, my point is, what are good values here? Mostly, how apart should be one from the other? Can you post your stats in these situations?

      Avataren:


      Pos Iso RFI
      SB 17.2 49.0
      HJ 17.0 21.9
      CO 20.6 28.3
      BU 26.7 38.1


      Mine:


      Pos Iso RFI
      SB 25.7 57.9
      HJ 17.3 21.9
      CO 24.2 26.8
      BU 27.4 38.0
  • 12 replies
    • madorjan
      madorjan
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2009 Posts: 5,561
      Hey there,

      First off let me say that your stats are very nitty. My openraising range (that is somewhat LAGgy) is something like HJ - 25, CO - 35, BU - 55, SB - 75. You could definitely play tighter than this, but I think your numbers are way too low (unless you're absolute beginners).

      About isoraising: I think you generally will isoraise a bit tighter, but not by much really, since limpers usually have a weak ranges, and you're gonna be IP against them. (From the SB things become a bit different, since overlimping is a viable option there.) So I think using ~your openrange against 1 limper is a viable option, maybe you could cut off the real bottom, but not more than '1 layer'.

      And if you don't mind me mentioning, I think you should focus much less on stats and much more on solid fundamental theory-based game, since if you try to "stat-fix" your game, it won't tell you the reasons and therefore will lead to other leaks in your game. Like I could tell you to open or isolate this and that range, but since it won't be backed up by theory, you won't really be able to play profitably postflop with the added hands. So I'd just say that you should try to widen your range step-by-step, and figure out how your range and postflop play should change given the wider range.
    • JLeitmotiv
      JLeitmotiv
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2009 Posts: 756
      I agree. My stats are extremely nitty. I have to change that, for sure.

      What criterion do you use for iso raises usually?
    • madorjan
      madorjan
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2009 Posts: 5,561
      Well, since limping is a highly exploitable, I think having a 'standard range' or some rule of thumb is not the best idea. I myself compare my isorange to the 3betting, openraising and "wide" openraising range. (Wide openraising is the widest possible range I open frequently (against bad blinds, etc).)

      The first thing I look at is usually how wide and capped range someone has when limping. I think the three extremes are the tight-passive 30/5 type - his limping range is quite strong. Since you're getting better odds than for 3betting, you should raise wider, but not necessarily the bottom of your openraising range, since his range will be stronger, and uncapped - therefore he'll put in more raises postflop. Some of them you can still isolate wide, cause they're gonna fold a lot postflop, but that's a different topic.

      The other type is the general loose-passive, who rarely raises pre (like 60/0 players). These limping ranges are similar to blind defense ranges, so in a theoratical situation where everybody behind you'll fold, you can open approximately your openraising range. Now since in this situation the big blind will call really often, you should tend towards isolating with more multiway hands, and cutting off the "SD-equity" hands, like K5o.

      The third and best type is the loose-agressive, or loose-bad kind of player (60/30 type). These guys' limping ranges are full of shit. You could isolate them even wider than your openrange probably, since their range is weak is capped, should rarely hit the flop hard, so against them isolating uber-wide is gonnna be massively profitable.

      The second thing you should look at is his 'breaking-point'. By breaking point I mean the exact street they're most likely to fold. For weak passive players that's mostly gonna be the flop or the turn, therefore with the weaker, semi or pure bluffing hands you have to invest less to make him fold mostly. While if the guy goes to the river blindly, you want to have more SD-value heavy hands that can bet/bet/checkback for value more often.

      And these two are just the two most important, but you can take any postflop read and try to adjust your range a bit.

      I hope you see now, why I think the stats themselves or stat-fixing are mostly worthless or at least less important than theory knowledge.
    • JLeitmotiv
      JLeitmotiv
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2009 Posts: 756
      As always, madorjan, very clear! We were thinking of talking about pf play in our next meeting on saturday, so we will definitely have many more questions afterwards. Thank you very much, it's awesome how ready all of you coaches are to answer questions, no matter how silly they look like.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,148
      Hey guys!

      You forget something important. The players behind you are yet to act. If you have calling station behind, then your raise is no longer for isolation, it is for value, or (, rarely), deception, or to buy the button (if the button is tight, but the blinds loose). You aren't isolating because you can't.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • Avataren
      Avataren
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.04.2010 Posts: 1,621
      madorjan you do know these stats are for 10/20c and 25/50c right ?
    • madorjan
      madorjan
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2009 Posts: 5,561
      Hey guys,

      @Yohan: I think if you want to make a differentiation like that, in LHE the term isolation doesn't make sense at all, given that in most situations the BB (should/)will overcall 60-90% of the time (depending on position), so your "isolation" attempt will fail more than half the time, therefore the term doesn't make sense. However, I think that's a bit too detailed, and we should just use the term isolation as raising after a limper (or multiple limpers maybe? - depends on definition). You'll never succeed so much that you could actually raise for exclusively isolation purposes.

      @Avataren: yes, I'm completely aware of it. This is a good time to clear up a general misconception in most people's thought process. If we want to think in terms of limits (and not tables or players, that is much better IMO, will get back to that later), with the same skill level, you should play somewhat looser at the microstakes (maybe rake makes it ~the same range, but definitely not tighter), since you will exploit the tighter-than-should-be regulars this way, and of course the recreational players. There are really few opponent types that you should be opening a tighter range than against a competent regular. And given that on the microstakes there are mostly incompetent players, you should loosen up.

      The misconception is based around the fact that microstakes regulars are usually beginner players, that have horrible postflop skills, therefore playing marginal hands for them doesn't make sense, since even though the hands are profitable for a more experienced players, not for them because of their huge postflop leaks. However if you're an aspiring and good enough player (like JLeitmotiv or you from my experience with you guys), you should definitely start to work on this area of your game, and start to push these marginal edges, since at higher stakes that will be a substantial part of your profit.

      That's why I didn't suggest you playing as loose as I do, or even close to that, I just said that these are way too tight for someone who's not a total beginner, and has some postflop experience/knowledge.

      And why shouldn't we think in terms of limits (and also why shouldn't we stat-fix at all)? I have a good example for that. Quite some time ago I looked at my positional openraising stats, and it looked like I'm much less positionally aware than most regulars in the early positions. My UTG openraise was nearly as much as my MP (that is considered ~the standard). At first, I was scared that maybe that's a leak in my game, but after a while I realised, that it just comes from the fact that my seat selection is awesome, and I always have a fish on my immediate right - therefore when I'm UTG I have a fish in the BB, therefore I can play looser. If someone just looked at my stats, he could assume I was positionally unaware in earlier positions, while that isn't the case. You could generalise the thought behind this example to think in terms of limits: you don't necessarily have to play x/y on z limit, you have to play the table - and stats or overall gameplay could be really different depending on your table - meaning that two regs with the same skill, but different table/seat selection criteria should and will produce different stats.

      I hope this is clear now, and you could understand why playing tight/er at the micros is a really huge misconception.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,148
      The tendencies of the players behind can (and sometimes should) make the difference between a raise or a fold. It is obvious that those tendencies can't be ignored. You know that madorjan. I just think you just want to argue a bit. Then what we call the raise doesn't matter. Best is perhaps to call it "raising a limper". Thats unambiguous.



      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • madorjan
      madorjan
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2009 Posts: 5,561
      I absolutely agree with you, that players behind you matter. It wasn't the question or I didn't react to that in the first place.

      I wanted to make a comment about using terms, even though sometimes they don't cover strategical meaning. Terms sometimes (like isoraising) refer to a situation rather than a strategic move.

      Valueraising, buying the button, or deception are reason-describing terms, while openraising, isoraising, cbetting or donking are situation-describing terms. Or wouldn't you call betting a 432r flop as the button raisier vs BB caller a cbet? I imagine you would, while if you're looking it strategically, it's actually a donkbet against most people. Still, much easier to call it cbet, because it refers to that you were the preflop agressor, and they checked to you, and you bet.

      Also, I'd like to make it clear that I don't do this for the sake of argument, I do it so you (and anybody else who reads this) would have a better understanding of poker. If you disagree, or don't want to internalise it, it's your choice, however accusing me of wanting to argue and therefore spread bad/not useful information is very unfair IMO.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,148
      No, I don't accuse you of spreading bad/not useful information. I value your posts more than you might think. My apologies. I didn't want to give the impression that I thought that your posts were wrong in any sense.

      This thread is (was) about raising a limper. I thought that after the first few posts something was missing, namely, the guys yet to speak. Therefore I mentioned this in my first post. I stand by this.

      You then switched to discussing terminology, somehow making my original post seem quite off topic. It isn't. And, it isn't about terminology at all, it just happens to use terminology.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • cjheigl
      cjheigl
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 09.04.2006 Posts: 24,516
      Frankly, I never looked at my stats when it comes to isoraising. I look at the stats of the limper and at my position to determine which hands I want to raise. The advice of madorjan concerning limper types is excellent. You need to look at the range those players raise. This is the range you are not playing against. The less the limper raises the more you should avoid potentially dominated hands. You can raise good speculative hands quite freely (suited connectors and the like) because your equity will be acceptable no matter what and you won't suffer much from other players calling. An offsuit high card with low kicker could be more difficult, even if it has better equity.

      Your position also plays a role. This is reflected by the range you would open raise as your isorange leans very heavily towards your open range if you are not in the SB. The BU is special because you are always in position. Nobody can 3-bet you and have position on you. The same argument holds for an overlimp as nobody can raise you and have position on you. So on the button overlimping some hands could be a viable strategy while on other positions I would like to raise when I play. Overlimping has the advantage that you need less equity and are less in danger of a limp-reraise. The disadvantage of overlimping is that you will be in a multiway pot on the flop and you'll have very little chance of dead money being in the pot. Still, having position in a multiway pot is also worth something. When considering an overlimp look at the blinds. Do they defend weakly? Then a raise is your best play. If they defend a lot overlimping may be better.
    • Avataren
      Avataren
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.04.2010 Posts: 1,621
      Originally posted by madorjan
      Hey guys,

      @Yohan: I think if you want to make a differentiation like that, in LHE the term isolation doesn't make sense at all, given that in most situations the BB (should/)will overcall 60-90% of the time (depending on position), so your "isolation" attempt will fail more than half the time, therefore the term doesn't make sense. However, I think that's a bit too detailed, and we should just use the term isolation as raising after a limper (or multiple limpers maybe? - depends on definition). You'll never succeed so much that you could actually raise for exclusively isolation purposes.

      @Avataren: yes, I'm completely aware of it. This is a good time to clear up a general misconception in most people's thought process. If we want to think in terms of limits (and not tables or players, that is much better IMO, will get back to that later), with the same skill level, you should play somewhat looser at the microstakes (maybe rake makes it ~the same range, but definitely not tighter), since you will exploit the tighter-than-should-be regulars this way, and of course the recreational players. There are really few opponent types that you should be opening a tighter range than against a competent regular. And given that on the microstakes there are mostly incompetent players, you should loosen up.

      The misconception is based around the fact that microstakes regulars are usually beginner players, that have horrible postflop skills, therefore playing marginal hands for them doesn't make sense, since even though the hands are profitable for a more experienced players, not for them because of their huge postflop leaks. However if you're an aspiring and good enough player (like JLeitmotiv or you from my experience with you guys), you should definitely start to work on this area of your game, and start to push these marginal edges, since at higher stakes that will be a substantial part of your profit.

      That's why I didn't suggest you playing as loose as I do, or even close to that, I just said that these are way too tight for someone who's not a total beginner, and has some postflop experience/knowledge.

      And why shouldn't we think in terms of limits (and also why shouldn't we stat-fix at all)? I have a good example for that. Quite some time ago I looked at my positional openraising stats, and it looked like I'm much less positionally aware than most regulars in the early positions. My UTG openraise was nearly as much as my MP (that is considered ~the standard). At first, I was scared that maybe that's a leak in my game, but after a while I realised, that it just comes from the fact that my seat selection is awesome, and I always have a fish on my immediate right - therefore when I'm UTG I have a fish in the BB, therefore I can play looser. If someone just looked at my stats, he could assume I was positionally unaware in earlier positions, while that isn't the case. You could generalise the thought behind this example to think in terms of limits: you don't necessarily have to play x/y on z limit, you have to play the table - and stats or overall gameplay could be really different depending on your table - meaning that two regs with the same skill, but different table/seat selection criteria should and will produce different stats.

      I hope this is clear now, and you could understand why playing tight/er at the micros is a really huge misconception.
      Thanks for all that writing completely understood it and thanks for saying we are at least aspiring and a bit better players :D warmed my heart and gave me a smile :D