Constructing a flop raising range.

I have been trying to think about the sort of hands I should be raising flops with, particularly the most common sort of situation where we are two-hand to flop and facing a c-bet. But I don't seem to be getting anywhere.

I can see from my stats that a typical villain c-bets about 70% and folds his c-bet to a raise about 45%. This would suggest that when raised villain is continuing with about 38% of his range. This seems exploitable to me, but I don't see how to do it.

My first difficulty is that I'm not even sure what the top 38% of villains range looks like. Is it overpairs and sets on a low flop, TPGK and better on A-high and K-high dry flops, and 2-pair and combi-draws on wet flops? I really don't know. And even if I did know then I'm still not sure what I should be value-raising with. I suspect that I should be raising the top-half of villains continuing range but I cant be sure because when my hand is that strong then I think I'd prefer to just call behind and let villain continue his aggression on the turn. But if I do just call behind then that leaves me with no value-raising range at all.

Currently I tend to raise my strong draws as semi-bluffs and also sets on wet boards with the aim of giving villain the wrong odds to draw. My hand histories suggest that most of the regs I face also have this sort of raising range. Maybe this sort of range is perfectly fine but I feel sure that there must be a +ev way to widen it considerably.

Any thoughts/ideas at all would be much appreciated.

If he folds his c-bet to a raise 45%, then he's continuing with 55% of his c-betting range, no?

That's probably a better way of looking at it. I was thinking of it as:
30% no c-bet
32% fold c-bet to raise
38% c-bet and not fold to raise

Either way I still think this fairly typical continuing range is far too wide and should therefore be susceptible to being exploited by a raising range that is wider than my current one.

It's going to be different on different types of boards. Trying to lump it all together will get you nowhere fast.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

It's going to be different on different types of boards. Trying to lump it all together will get you nowhere fast.

I appreciate that. That's why I mentioned a few broad board types in my OP.

I like the way you are thinking, but this subject is huge and depends on a multitude of factors including board texture, our range, villain's range and tendencies, etc, etc. If you're prepared to do a lot of work though, the results are really informative.

Originally Posted by HarryHatless

My first difficulty is that I'm not even sure what the top 38% of villains range looks like.

For starters, I'd recommend downloading Equilab, reading up on combinatorics and cracking open some spreadsheets to help calculate how often a typical x% range connects with a particular flop.

How about you kick off with a 10% opening range (choose anything sensible) and calculate how often villains flops:
- a set
- 2pr
- overpr and other weak made hands
- zip

on a flop of K73 rainbow? Then you can begin to think about the best response to facing a cbet in or out of position.

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

...this subject is huge and depends on a multitude of factors including ... our range, villain's range and tendencies, etc, etc.

I don't think villains' ranges and tendencies are particularly useful to me just now. I have no more than 600 hundred hands on any given player and I have no more than 4 HHs on any player where they have faced their c-bet being raised.

mmm. Having said that, I think villains tendency to continue aggression on later streets might be relevant.

Re Equilab: I have that software and have found it useful but haven't used it recently. Think I'll have to take a look at it again.

Originally Posted by HarryHatless

I don't think villains' ranges and tendencies are particularly useful to me just now. I have no more than 600 hundred hands on any given player and I have no more than 4 HHs on any player where they have faced their c-bet being raised.

mmm. Having said that, I think villains tendency to continue aggression on later streets might be relevant.

Re Equilab: I have that software and have found it useful but haven't used it recently. Think I'll have to take a look at it again.

The bold is pretty misguided. What you are trying to do will be completely based on how you expect typical opponents to play.

Sorry I meant specific villain as opposed to typical opponent.

Every decision in poker is guided by your notions of how each villain, specifically, plays his hands.

There is simply no reason at all to disregard ranges and tendencies. There is no "typical" villain, just as there is no "normal" person.

So the real questions are: How do I put a range on a villain about whom I know very little? How can I make an educated approximation about this villain's tendencies?

Assigning some vacuum reads is great at that. As a beginner, you can assign a single range to all villains, but that will quickly get you into trouble. Even if all the villains are "bad", they're bad in different ways.

So you take your vacuum read and you start to notice what's causing the troubles. One thing is starting stack size. You might be amazed how much of a read you can get from stack size. Villains with very short stacks are usually sitting on scared money, and they're ironically already predisposed to lose it. So add that to your vacuum read about those villains. Then you might notice the villains who limp almost every hand, so add that to the vacuum read as well. Take note of villain's who open min-raise pre-flop, they are defining their range if they also open with a bigger raise sometimes. Before long, your vacuum read is replaced with actual information. Your read has evolved into a "real" read.