Evolution of Poker - Range Construction

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
(15 Votes) 9949

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

W34z3l continues his excellent Evolution of Poker series with a look at Range Building based on GTO principles

Tags

balance GTO series The Evolution of Poker Theory Video

Comments (17)

newest first
  • pleno1

    #1

    Enjoy w34z3l and his video on range construction. Yes he rocks, but feel free to give him some constructive critical feedback too so that he can continue to make awesome videos.
  • ugoo60

    #2

    potete tradurre anche questo in italiano per favore?..
  • isssean

    #3

    The videos are just awesome, can`t give any critical feedback, just praises. Keep up the good work!
  • czak2

    #4

    Awesome as always
  • Shakaflaka

    #5

    Very good series! Congratz!
    I would like to see how you construct balanced betting ranges. For example, when we cbet or when the pfr checks to us. For me, it's harder constructing betting ranges than calling ranges, so that would help a lot!
    Another interesting thing would be to link balanced play and exploitative play. For example, once we know our balanced flop defending range, how it would change against an aggressive 3 barreler? How it would change against a very honest player that gives up a ton of air on the flop? That would be awesome!
    Thank you again!
  • w34z3l

    #6

    Thanks everyone =) Appreciate the feedback =)

    @shakaflaka Thanks for the constructive feedback! Principles for balanced aggression and constructing ranges as the aggressor are coming up in part 8!
  • kisgatyas

    #7

    Great video!
    Just one note/question: Why 2:1 bluff-value ratio? If our opponent makes a 1/2 pot 3bet or so we should defend around 50% of our rasing range. That implies a 1-1 bluff-value ratio.
    Thanks.
  • w34z3l

    #8

    Hey kisgatyas,

    Thanks for the questions.

    The reasoning used here is ok for preflop situations where it's very difficult to solve for all combinations of events that might happen by the river. So it's ok to look out how frequently we need to defend vs an average re-raise size and make that percentage of our range value hands. (But then again, there is no rule that says we can only play back with value hands! We can use some hands to rebluff of course.)

    The 2:1 bluff ratio is based on our river bet sizing and hence what our bluff/value ratio needs to be on the river. We can then work back from this and see what our flop bluff/value ratio needs to be in order for us to be able to fire the river with the correct frequency and correct value/bluff ratio.
  • kisgatyas

    #9

    Thanks for the answer. I understand your point.

    I just analyzed the situation when villain makes a 3bet on the flop.
    F.e. pot = 6.5bb V c-bets 4bb, hero raises 15bb, v raises 35bb

    Now villain needs : 31 / (31 + 15 + 4) = 31 / 50 ~ 62% fe to make an auto profit. So we should defend
    at least 38% to prevent him to making an auto-profit by 3betting us with ATC but we have only 33% value hands. That means we open up ourself for a potential exploitation, but I'm convincible that people usually doesn't 3bet that much or at least they doesn't look for this kind of opportunity to exploit someone.

    Cheers,
  • kisgatyas

    #10

    Sorry, I miscalculated the odds. The correct one is 31/52.5 = 59% ( even worse )
  • w34z3l

    #11

    This would be again working under the assumption that we only can play back if we have a value hand. It would be incorrect to do this.

    In practice we may not even play back with our entire value range, but make up the difference with bluffs. Some of our bluffs may have better playability on turn and river than our value hands.

    I.e our weakest value hands may just suffer from a ton of reverse implieds with little shot to improve, while our bluffs can make the nuts by the river with a higher frequency while also allow us to bluff effectively.

    It's also important to understand that while your model is very useful it's also pretty limited. The 2:1 bluff ratio on the flop is dependant on a number of factors including effective stack size. With shallow stacks we'd have less bluffs in our range. With deeper stacks we can get away with more bluffs - we are still gonna have a decent shot at getting our opponent to fold even after he 3bets.

    Exploitatively, a 3bet on any given street from an unknown is generally very strong and we should likely be underdefending anyhow.
  • 2Good2Fold

    #12

    Thanks a lot. It's really nice from you to share and explain us the logic behind ranges construction.
    Does it make sense to calculate which ranges we should have in any given situations? (Or should we reduce our scope by looking at specific types of flops like "YYXr " or "Axxr" ones) I do understand the benefit we get from working on our ranges but aren't there to many external random factors to take in account (Opponent tendencies, previous hands dynamics, stack sizes etc. ? ) I mean a single read on our opponent could affect or entire range and during the game we won't be able to reconstruct our ranges (Bluff raising/Value raising/ Cold Calling etc ..). My English is far from being good, so I hope you will understand what I am trying to say. Once again, thank you very much for the whole "Evolution of poker" series.
  • w34z3l

    #13

    #12

    Basically we can look directly at the board texture to estimate what our default ranges should be against an unknown.

    From here we can make an educated guess at how far we should deviate from our default ranges during play depending on the read we have.

    We can't sit down any work out ranges for every situation, nor even every board texture. We can certainly work out ranges for common types of board texture and from there we can hopefully begin to estimate what our ranges should look like on other similar board textures without having to a do a calculation.
  • 2Good2Fold

    #14

    Thanks for the answer that makes sense.
  • BotiaKiraly

    #15

    Awesome series!

    I was wondering, I have AQ and KQ in my cold call BU vs CO. and less small suited connectors.

    This way isn't my defending range better than some others'. This and the fact that by calling villain doesn't fold a lot of worse Ax or Qx hands VS 3beting KQs AQ for calue.

    Isn't the two pretty close?
  • Laci24

    #16

    Thank you for the video!
  • kloe888

    #17

    Great video !!!
    Can I use those concepts and ranges in Full Ring, CO-BU-SB-BB (NL2-NL25) ?