One of the things that stuck with me from ISF's article posts is that a beginner wanting to learn poker is much better off taking the time to learn some fundamental concepts rather than memorising a million scenarios, as the fundamental concepts will show him what to do in those scenarios, and take him far beyond where rote learning and mimicry ever could.
I'd always stayed away from thinking about hero's range, reasoning that villains at my stakes weren't thinking about my holdings, so my range didn't really exist. That is, of course, ridiculous as every time I mash a button with two cards there are a bunch of different cards with which I'd mash the same button. So I've been thinking lately about my own range and how it might be beneficial to, when analysing a hand history, rather than look at the possible decisions for hero's specific holdings, look at how each possible decision affects villain's range, and then identify all the holdings with which hero should take each action (ie. hero's range for each action).Quote:
Originally Posted by ISF
What better place than the micros to start looking at how your range interacts with villain's range, when villain isn't even trying to make counter-adjustments, and one can get into the habit of thinking about one's own range before facing villain's who are actively thinking about what you are representing and making their decisions accordingly.
So starting today I'm going to try doing some Range versus Range analysis (this might not be the correct term for it, but it seems kinda fitting). I was originally just going to post this in my blog, but since I'm very unsure on most of this I thought I'd post it in the BC too to get more coverage, and to hopefully encourage other people to join in if they think it'll benefit them. I dunno how practical this'll be, but it should be interesting at the very least. I'll kick it off in the post below, and I invite everyone to try it out themselves or to point out problems with either this post or my analysis below.
