Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: la biblioteca de Babel
Posts: 21
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Ax would be my check/calling range though?
though i do need some clarity. My original response was assuming we had sweet, sweet position. Was I mistaken?
|
If we're talking about the OP then we're OOP since Hero is in EP/MP and Villain is in LP.
The lower AJ, or certain combinations of suits could also serve as a check/call or check/raising range. The general theme here is that we typically shouldn't be check/calling anything that has more equity than some hand we would value bet, etc. |
I read the thread with the ABCD Theorem and from what I'm understanding here, the idea is that we are basically trying to optimize a game theoretic equilibrium point, right? We have a range; our opponent has a range and we select a mix of strong and weak hands to carry out strategies of bet, 3-bet, check/fold, etc etc......
This theory is really assuming that our opponent is a thinking opponent and is also trying to maximize a similar strategy. At the micro-limits that I'm playing, I wonder if we can't simply back ourselves down to a simpler level. I.e. we put our opponent on a range and then try to optimize winnings from that ONE hand since there really isn't much of a metagame/memory of how previous hands were played type of thinking from our opponents. A game-theoretic unexploitable play is not the optimal play against those who aren't themselves trying to follow such a strategy. ?no?
Thank you so much to the moderators for leading such a (for me at least) a "poker-life changing" discussion. I've read tons of poker books but for some reason......absolute essentials just seem to go in one ear and out the other.
|