Quote Originally Posted by borges
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......
No, it's not seeking to find optimal strategy. It seeks to explain the basic themes behind how to maximize the EV of our range, which doesn't always mean maximizing the EV of each individual hand.

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?
You're talking about two different things here, so I'm going to break it up and comment on each. The first thing is what you've specified a game theory-based unexploitable strategy. The second thing you've mentioned (suggested might be a better word) is that it would be better to maximize the EV of each individual hand instead of the EV of your entire range.

For the first thing: Like I said earlier, the ABCD subranges aren't about finding an unexploitable strategy (which we typically refer to as game theory optimal). I'll be doing a thread soon that explains some of this game theory terminology since there seems to be a lot of confusion. However, you are correct that often game theory optimal isn't the highest scoring strategy against an opponent playing a non-optimal strategy.

Second thing: Let's call our entire range in some spot R. When we maximize the value of R, we have the highest possible winnings for our range. If we maximize the value of each individual hand in R, that's not necessarily the same thing anymore. The ideas behind what Renton has articulated as the A/B/C/D subranges or ABCD theorem show us guidelines on how to maximize the value of R. This is a bit anti-intuitive at first because you would think that maximizing the value of each hand as you play it would lead to the highest possible value, but that's simply not usually the case.

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.
Well I'm [surprisingly] not a moderator but no problem, that's what I'm here for.