I guess I just assumed that we were giving each group of the range equal weight because it was a super simplified example.Originally Posted by kmind
Right.Just because they are in two groups doesn't mean that they are equally likely.
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.
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)?
Reply With Quote