\n| IPOTESI IN BASE AI READS<\/b> <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table> \ner mettere l'avversario su una range di mani dobbiamo fare alcune ipotesi mentre teniamo queste variabili in mente. Ciò significa: come l'avversario gioca certe mani in certe situazioni?\n<\/p> \nDelle eccezioni possono essere fatte se abbiamo particolari reads sull'avversario. Le ipotesi che definiamo dai reads sono basate molto sui concetti teorici che abbiamo imparato studiando e lavorando su tutti i nostri articoli.\n<\/p> \nSe non abbiamo alcuna informazione sull'avversario, dovremmo immaginare di giocare contro noi stessi e pensare quali giochi avrebbero senso in certe situazione sulla base dei concetti teorici di base.\n<\/p> \nTuttavia è più facile se abbiamo un read sull'avversario che ci pù indicare le sue tendenze. Possiamo fare ipotesi più certe se stiamo giocando contro un TAG perchè per esempio noi generalmente non facciamo un bluff al river contro 2 avversari. E' molto utile essere in grado di mettere noi stessi nella posizione dell'aversario per creare read su di lui.\n<\/p> \nExample<\/b>\n<\/p> \n5.00\/10.00 Fixed-Limit Hold'em (6 handed)<\/font><\/b><\/p>Preflop:<\/b> Hero is SB with A<\/b>![](\"https:\/\/cdn-origin.pokerstrategy.com\/smileys\/spade.png\") , J<\/b>
\nMP2 raises<\/font>, 3 folds<\/font><\/i>, Hero 3-bets<\/font>, BB folds<\/font><\/i>, MP2 calls.<\/p>Flop:<\/b> (7.00 SB) 3<\/b>![](\"https:\/\/cdn-origin.pokerstrategy.com\/smileys\/club.png\") , 3<\/b>![](\"https:\/\/cdn-origin.pokerstrategy.com\/smileys\/diamond.png\") , 2<\/b>![](\"https:\/\/cdn-origin.pokerstrategy.com\/smileys\/heart.png\") (2 players)<\/font>
\nHero bets<\/font>, MP2 raises<\/font>.<\/p>Final Pot:<\/b> 5.00 BB\n<\/p> \nThe opponent is a reasonable TAG with (22\/18\/2.4\/36) stats. He raises from UTG and raises the 332 flop in position after he raised our 3-bet from the small blind before the flop. By the process of elimination and on the basis of the variables 4) and 8) we can definitely say that he can't be holding a 3, because there are no plausible hand combinations that he raises from UTG which include a 3. The same applies for the 2. We follow the same line of though in every hand.\n<\/p> \nIt is our goal to put our opponent on a hand range. We have already eliminated the 3 and the 2. Using plausible assumptions, we have to define his hand range now.\n<\/p> \nHe will practically never bluff raise the flop because we three bet his UTG-open raise, which usually is pretty strong, and often have a pocket pair and also see a showdown with ace high on such a board => He has very little fold equity making a bluff unprofitable. We can therefore exclude all unpaired hands.\n<\/p> \nThe opponent would have capped a pocket pair like JJ++. However he only called the 3bet. He most likely only has a pocket pair like TT at max. This suggests that our outs for the J and A are usually clean outs.\n<\/p> \nThe synthesis from these assumptions is that he probably has a pocket pair like 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, TT.\n<\/p> \nWe don't have to evaluate our equity in this situation because we cannot see a showdown unimproved because the opponent has a better hand. The question in this hand is whether we can see the river keeping the concept of odds & outs in mind.\n<\/p> \nFlop:<\/b> (7.00 SB) 3<\/b>, 3<\/b>, 2<\/b> (2 players)<\/font>
\nHero bets<\/font>, MP2 raises<\/font>, Hero calls.<\/p>Turn:<\/b> (5.50 BB) 8<\/b> (2 players)<\/font>
\nHero checks, MP2 Bets<\/font>, Hero?\n<\/p>\nWe only called the flop raise. The pot is at 6.5 BB including the bet from MP2 on the turn. As we have 6 outs against all pocket pairs, we can assume to have implied odds of at least 1BB (probably even more in the case of a check\/raise\/call).\n<\/p> \nWe get 6.5 + 1 = 1:7.5 for another call. We only need 1:7 with 6 outs. We can therefore call the turn. We should donk if an ace hits and check raise if a jack hits.\n<\/p> \nThe opponent could have made a set with pocket 88 and in the case of improving our hand we have reverse implied odds of at least -1BB, but the likelihood of him making a set is very low. The probability is 3\/39 = 1:13. There are tree possibilities to make a set and 39 card combinations 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, TT. If we are unimproved until the river, we would obviously fold.\n<\/p> \nAssuming we were to change one variable. We are not playing against a reasonable TAG, but against a LAG (34\/23,2.8\/40). The chain of cause and effect obviously changes now.\n<\/p> \nDifferent opponents => different assumptions => different hand range => changed equity => different decision\n<\/p> \nFlop:<\/b> (7.00 SB) 3<\/b>, 3<\/b>, 2<\/b> (2 players)<\/font>
\nHero bets<\/font>, MP2 raises<\/font>, Hero calls.<\/p>Turn:<\/b> (5.50 BB) 8<\/b> (2 players)<\/font>
\nHero checks, MP2 Bets<\/font>, Hero?\n<\/p>\nWe are faced with the same situation. We have to put the LAG player on a range and see whether we can see a showdown.\n<\/p> \nIn the example above we assumed that a reasonable TAG would practically never bluff here. This is different if you are playing against a LAG player. It is much more likely that he is going to bluff to try to take the pot down with for example QTs because he is unreasonable and thinks that we don't have anything here as well and fold on the turn or the river. We now have to determine how often he has to 3barrel his bluff so that we can see a showdown.\n<\/p> \nWith a 23% PFR he has *0.75 (UTG-multiplier) from UTG roughly 17% PFR\n<\/p> \n99-33,AJs-A6s,K9s+,Q9s+,JTs,AJo-ATo,KTo+,QTo+ <- 213 combinations\n<\/p> \nHis raise\/call range could look like this\n<\/p> \nWe take the range against which we are behind at first and add as many pure bluffs as needed so that we can call down profitably. At first we assess how much equity we need from the turn onwards:\n<\/p> \nEV(Call down) > 0, if EQ > Losses \/ (Profit + Losses)
\nLosses = Investment up to the showdown 2BB
\nProfit = Pot on the turn
\nEV(Call down) > 0, if EQ > 2 \/ 6.5 + 1BB + 2 = 21% <\/i>\n<\/p> \nIn the worst case we would need 21% equity to be able to call down.\n<\/p> \nWe now add some hands which he could bluff with, because he might think that we would fold a better high card like a king.\n<\/p> \nBoard: 3c 3d 2h 8d Ks
\nDead: <\/p> equity win tie pots won pots tied
\nHand 0: 77.500% 77.50% 00.00% 31 0.00 { 99-33, QcTd, QcTh, QcTs, QdTc, QdTh, QdTs, QhTc, QhTd, QhTs }
\nHand 1: 22.500% 22.50% 00.00% 9 0.00 { AsJs }\n<\/p> \nWe have added 75% of his QTo holdings. Even if he only bluffs 3 out of 4 times all the way to the river, we can see a showdown. 12 combinations of QTo are only 6% of 213 combinations. The likelyhood of him bluffing doesn't have to be very large to call the river unimproved.\n<\/p> \nConclusion<\/b>: Only small changes in the assumptions can have a large implication on our decision. We only added 3\/4 of a hand and already have enough equity to call the river instead of folding. As you can see here, a very important part of hand reading is to learn how to estimate probabilities correctly!\n<\/p> \nWhat exactly are reads and how do I make assumptions on the basis of reads? Reads are nothing more than a characteristic of the opponent. The sum of these characteristics of an opponent can be summaries in an opponent profile.\n<\/p> \n\n\n| HOW DO I CREATE AN OPPONENT PROFILE?<\/b> <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table> \nWe make use of categories when creating an opponent profile. We categorize the opponent in general categories and create sub categories in each general category. In the model below, we ask some questions for each category that are essential to be able to create a read and to determine your further proceedings.\n<\/p> \nCategories<\/b>\n<\/p>\n- Preflop play<\/li>\n
- Flop play<\/li>\n
- Turn play<\/li>\n
- River play<\/li>\n<\/ul>
\nSubcategory preflop play<\/b>\n<\/p>\n- Does his play deviate from his stats at all?<\/li>\n
- Does he cap for deception?<\/li>\n
- Does he call 3bets in position for deception with hands like AA?<\/li>\n<\/ul>
\nSub <\/b>category<\/b> flop play<\/b>\n<\/p>\n- Does he make any loose flop calls?<\/li>\n
- Does he raise as a pure bluff a lot on the flop?<\/li>\n
- Does he make any bluff calls?<\/li>\n
- Does he play passively in position for bluff induce or rather aggressive?<\/li>\n
- Which kinds of made hands does he raise on the flop?<\/li>\n<\/ul>
\nSub<\/b> category<\/b> turn play<\/b>\n<\/p>\n- Should you bet again unimproved?<\/li>\n
- Does he raise on the turn as a pure bluff?<\/li>\n
- How do I react to a raise?<\/li>\n
- Does he raise a lot on the turn for a free showdown?<\/li>\n
- Does he only raise strong made hands on the turn or does he raise weaker ones too?<\/li>\n
- Does he semi bluff a lot on the turn or does he play his draws passively?<\/li>\n
- Can he fold a better hand on the turn for another bet?<\/li>\n<\/ul>
\nSub category River<\/b>\n<\/p> | |
![](\"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg\")
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n