A brief lesson with Spenda

BigSpenda visited the IRC chat room this morning and schooled me on manipulating opponents' ranges. This is a concept I had read about before (in a ISF article I believe), but I don't think I fully digested it, and I certainly hadn't applied it.

[08:57] <spenda> forget my example
[08:57] <spenda> let's look at that A93 flop
[08:57] <spenda> but say it's rainbow
[08:57] <spenda> for now
[08:57] <grnydrowave2> ok
[08:57] <spenda> say we have A5 and they donk
[08:57] <spenda> let's manipulate their range in a way that helps us
[08:57] <spenda> or is +EV for us and -EV for them
[08:58] <spenda> so it's a TAGG
[08:58] <spenda> and they donk like 1/2 pot
[08:58] <spenda> and we have A5
[08:58] <spenda> what's our best play?
[08:59] <grnydrowave2> i can't define his range, much less manipulate it
[08:59] <spenda> hah
[08:59] <spenda> ok
[08:59] <spenda> then we'll make it vauge
[08:59] <spenda> there are a few types of hands in his range
[08:59] <spenda> 1. Hands that are very strong like sets, 2pr, AK/AQ
[09:00] <spenda> 2. Hands that are kinda strong, Ax, K9, JJ/TT discounted
[09:00] <spenda> 3. Hands that are pretty weak, 55-66, 34s, 45o
[09:00] <spenda> 4. hands that have no equity against us KQ, KJ, JT, 56, 78, etc
[09:00] <spenda> so now we have a range
[09:00] <grnydrowave2> okay
[09:01] <grnydrowave2> if we raise, he probably folds groups 3 and 4
[09:01] <spenda> ok
[09:01] <grnydrowave2> maybe calls with group 2 and reraises group 1
[09:01] <spenda> ok
[09:01] <spenda> so is raising good?
[09:01] <grnydrowave2> hmm
[09:01] <grnydrowave2> i think not
[09:01] <spenda> ding ding ding
[09:01] <grnydrowave2> we don't get any value from 3 and 4
[09:01] <spenda> ding ding ding
[09:01] <spenda> so by just calling we "manipulate" his range
[09:01] <spenda> we force him to take a weaker range to the turn
[09:02] <grnydrowave2> because he might double barrel with 3 and 4?
[09:02] <spenda> correct
[09:02] <spenda> or he might improve to a second best hand
[09:02] <spenda> like we call and he has KQ and a queen rolls off
[09:02] <spenda> or we call and now we look weak
[09:02] <spenda> so, by not raising there we manipulated his range

[09:06] <spenda> grny just think about ways to manipulate their range to benefit YOU
[09:07] <spenda> liek if you have K5 there and not A5
[09:07] <spenda> and you think they fold range 3 and 4 and maybe some of 2
[09:07] <grnydrowave2> then raising is better
[09:07] <grnydrowave2> because they have more equity than us
[09:07] <spenda> well certainly better than calling
[09:07] <spenda> it's between raising/folding now
[09:08] <spenda> and when you bluff, and you want to carry FE, bet-sizing becomes important too
[09:08] <spenda> but also think about what if you have AK there
[09:08] <spenda> and you think they won't fold range 1 or 2 but they'll fold 3 and 4
[09:08] <spenda> then raising is probably better than calling
[09:09] <spenda> cuz there is value there

Actually, I don't really get the last bit, as it seems to me that calling is still better with AK. Raising is okay too, I suppose, if we still have more equity against groups 1 and 2. But I digress. This is a concept that I think is discussed quite a bit on this forum, but not explicitly, and I feel that this example simplifies it in a way that is easier to understand. I, for one, felt a little light go on in my head after this discussion. I think I have a new perspective with which to process decisions, and I intend to practice this approach when going over HHs, and then, hopefully, at the tables.

I know this is obvious to many of you, but I'm posting this here with the hope that a light switches on in some of your heads as well.

There was also some talk of bet sizing on the button against different opponents (including min-raises!), the reasoning behind it, and how/why we should adjust our opening range using different types of equity. I can post that as well if anyone is interested.

He is saying we raise with AK because we can get a lot more value out of it than A5 when we are value towning ourselves by betting and getting calls. With value betting we want as many chips as possible in the middle.

Right, but is it really a value bet when half his calling range has us dominated?

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Right, but is it really a value bet when half his calling range has us dominated?

Just because they are in two groups doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

There was also some talk of bet sizing on the button against different opponents (including min-raises!), the reasoning behind it, and how/why we should adjust our opening range using different types of equity. I can post that as well if anyone is interested.

Please do.

Thank you, this is enlightening.

If i can simplify villian to three to four ranges, it helps narrow my choices.

Nice lesson there. Here's what my understanding as of now is. I'm typing this up mainly to see if my way of thinking and my understanding is flawed or not.

I've recently been doing a little bit more reading than usual trying to understand these concepts as well. Of course I read and re-read "Renton's Theorem" as it has alot to do with this.

As far as I can understand we also have to look at our range, as compared to theirs. Range A hands are strong hands that we are okay getting it all in with, so we want to play it aggressive and get chips in the middle (sets, 2pr, AK/AQ, as spenda states our opponents range is). And Range D hands are our air that has no showdown value, so we certainly wouldn't be calling his donk on the flop. Our choice would be either folding or raising. The reason raising can be correct for either or Strong Range A hands or our Weak Range D hands is because when betting/raising we want to accomplish at least 2 things:

1) Get better hands to fold, or
2) Get weaker hands to call

So.. With a strong hand like AK we raise because there are alot of weaker hands he may call with, such as weaker Ax, etc. And why a raise could be the best play with hands like K5 is because we get alot of his Range C, and Range D hands to fold, which while they are not good hands at all they have more equity than our flopped air.

From my understanding hands like A5, K9, etc are marginal hands and benefit much more from passive play. Hands like this would make up our Range B and Range C hands, which may have some equity vs. his weaker Range hands. So by playing it a little more passive than normal and just calling his donk bet on the flop we can get added value out of his Range C, D, and weaker Range B hands that we wouldn't get if we were to raise and blow him off the hand on the flop.

Originally Posted by badgers

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Right, but is it really a value bet when half his calling range has us dominated?

Just because they are in two groups doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

Right.

This is why it's always so player dependent on our actions. I don't think I really have to elaborate on that but it obv. means that aggros./bluffers have far more hands in their "3" and "4" ranges. Vs. most microstakers they usually don't have a "4" hand and will likely call all their "3" hands. This is why value betting is sweet at microstakes, because more of their range calls as they aren't too astute with hand reading.

Ya I've also talked with spenda quite a bit about this concept at grinderschool. One thing he emphasized is to remember that you are also going to induce a lot of bluffs by manipulating their range so it takes some time and practice to really narrow down their range with the info that comes on the turn and river. Be prepared to be put in some much tougher post flop spots by doing this. Hint - nits almost never bluff, make hero calls w/3rd pair against the lagtards not people who are tighter than yourself.

Originally Posted by kmind

Originally Posted by badgers

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Right, but is it really a value bet when half his calling range has us dominated?

Just because they are in two groups doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

Right.

This is why it's always so player dependent on our actions. I don't think I really have to elaborate on that but it obv. means that aggros./bluffers have far more hands in their "3" and "4" ranges. Vs. most microstakers they usually don't have a "4" hand and will likely call all their "3" hands. This is why value betting is sweet at microstakes, because more of their range calls as they aren't too astute with hand reading.

I guess I just assumed that we were giving each group of the range equal weight because it was a super simplified example.

Obviously it's important to define your opponent's range as accurately as possible, but the point of this exercise is to learn what to do with this information. This reminds me of what ISF said about backwards learning theory, because I'd been working on putting my opponents on ranges, but I didn't really know how I was going to use it to my advantage.

Kmind, would I be correct in saying that we should be calling more against said aggros with more group 3 and 4 hands in their range (but they'll only call with groups 1-2 if we raise), and raising more against said microstakers who rarely have group 4 in their range (but will call a raise with their entire range)?

I guess I kind of use this concept without even knowing it.

When I have a marginal hand like A5 in the BB for example and the scenario happens just like Spenda laid out, I sort of "slowplay" my tpwk and this accomplishes two things.
1. It keeps the pot small just in case he has a group 1 or 2 hand
2. It gives him a chance to bluff the river if he hits a card that gives him a worse hand than ours

This seems to be a really sweet scenario.. and if your hand improves on the river you can raise his little value bet (he thinks it is) and get even more money. I use this same concept in floating an under pair to pretty good effect.

Inducing bluffs is an awesome way to add value and mix up your game. Lets say you have 99 and the flop comes jj3 two of one suit. Villain has a jack and bets out (as he should).. you could reraise to define your hand, but I like to float. This gives you a lot of options.

1. You can bluff a scare card for him.
2. If you turn a 9 you have a great chance of stacking him.
3. If you don't improve, you get away from the hand while the pots still small.

My last point is.. learn the patterns in the game, figure out what the robot regs look for and manipulate them/trick them into making mistakes. Proper bet sizing+manipulating ranges+inducing bluffs+mixing up your game=lotsa money for me and you. Remember to remember the last pot you played with a reg and use it against him. Use a "rope-a-dope" so you can rip him a new one in a future pot because he thinks he has a read on you.

O

I think when he fires again on the turn you have to take the middle of his range out. He either has group one or group four most of the time. There are players who will continue firing the middle of their range, but those are only the worst players and the best players.

Calling keeps the middle of his range in, but the middle of his range isn't interested in building the pot and is looking for a showdown. So his range becomes polarized.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Right, but is it really a value bet when half his calling range has us dominated?

We don't always raise AK here. What spenda means (i think) is we get more value out of his group 1 hands that we beat when we raise than we lose from folding out the rest of his range.

You aren't getting much value most of the time from most of the villains range. When you have A5 you aren't holding the top of your range and you aren't beating much of his. You play the hand more passively because the hands you get value out of aren't playing a big pot with you. If you are getting the same value out A5 as you are with AK then you are playing AK too passively.