Fix Your Pre-flop LEAKS with These CHARTS!!
In order to look properly at defense strategy, we need to consider both the position of hero in defense and the position of villain who opened RFI.
It is good to stat the frequencies though.
These ranges are just pointers to help us see what hands Pluribus calls with, or 3 bets with… and mixes up, using our own judgement to infer what hands are played against what villain opening position.
Detailed frequencies of preflop defense 3bet size is multiples of rfi and average for the given positions So we show the number of hands the data is based on.
I split the ranges in only 3 categories: IP in positionHttps://bannerven.com/poker/poker-news-india.html, and BB.
They are a bit confusing to study but combined with the above frequencies, we should have decent ideas.
And we see a lot more variation in call, 3bet and fold than what most players do.
IE a wider range for a fairly low frequency.
HJ vs LJ preflop defense So we have 3.
That is 44 tuples for calls and 72 for 3bets, so a total of 116 tuples.
Hands actually played: so 106 tuples more or less played.
Counting KQo as only 6 as obviously mixed +- 50% So we need a total of 116 tuples.
AA-77 are obviously played even if many pairs not seen here.
Probably most suited Aces A6s and A2s foldedQJs, Poker calling ranges and lower is folded.
So are Q9s and lower, J9s and lower, T9s, 98s, 87s, AJo and lower etc.
So we have a total of 116 + KK, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 4 more suited Aces so 162 tuples.
A good chunk of them have to mix with folds to get to 116 tuples.
Here are the hands actually played So we have more or less the same range as for HJ vs LJ.
Maybe 54s and 66 added.
We also get confirmation that pairs are sometimes a call sometimes a 3bet, look at 88 and JJ.
Also confirmation that low suited connectors are a mix including fold sometimes, same just click for source suited Aces below ATs or A9s… CO vs HJ preflop defense So we gradually increase the range, now we need 179 tuples.
So now the range adds lower pairs and K9s as a 3bet.
We keep seeing pairs mixed between call and 3bet like 55 here and some folds for 44.
Everything else much the same, we just get more tuples by having less folds on the range, but always with the same hands, ie KQ0bad Axs and lowest pairs and connectors.
Button vs LJ preflop defense So we now need close to 200 tuples with twice as many calls as 3bets.
In other words significantly less 3bets than from earlier position.
Again we see pairs 3bet or called, and the lower pairs sometimes folded.
It confirms 44 is played.
It confirms we fold some bad Axs, and lowish pairs.
Button vs Cut-off preflop defense We are now looking for 241 tuples, with a slighly more balanced call vs 3bet, still with more calls.
I think we can learn a tremendous amount about poker from Pluribus.
At a fundamental level it followed strategies with an astronomical variance compared to any decent human player for several reasons: to ekk out small average advantages over huge numbers of hands, prevent itself from being exploited by esoteric strategies no human would ever consciously use, create deception, and allow it to have a very wide range of possible holdings on most boards.
Then the programmers used statistical techniques to filter out all that variance and effectively deny that it exists.
Some examples from your own charts: folding Ako against a raise from the big blind once while doing things like calling with A3o and raising with A2o ; folding TT, 99, and 88 in position against a raise while calling with K6s and K8s, and 5 or 6 betting all-in w A5s and getting called by QQs.
You can make game theoretical arguments for these plays bc of your range, but each and everyone is a money loser each time you actually do it.
I want to point out five or six betting all-in against a human who will call you with not only only with AA but also Kk, QQ, Aks, and often AKo is an astronomically negative play.
IE Pluribus going to Macau or Triton will go bankrupt more than likely.
A more interesting learning algorithm would add requirements on limiting bankroll requirements or more precisely on reducing bankrupcy risk.
An example of solid player variance reduction behaviour is folding the river more than theoretically called for, or using behavioural tells more than just bet sequences and ranges to decide on calling or folding the river.
Like always fold to fish on river except….
But there is more to game theory than Nash Equilibria and perfectly unexploitable strategies.
Against imperfect opponents, there is value to giving them opportunities to make big mistakes.
Pluribus used a number of strategies that, although profitable and unexploitable, appear to be both high variance and brittle!
As an example, versus the LJ, from the HJ and CO, Pluribus called 6 of 7 times with AQo and AQs, and repeatedly with 99.
Conversely, it went wild reraising most of the time with KQs-KTs, QJs-QTs, and ATs-A5s, as well as sometimes with 88-66.
But they have less value as calling hands bc AQo and 99 are ahead as calling hands while all the suited hands are behind.
However, if your opponent even somewhat regularly starts calling 3-bets with AJ-AT, KQ, and 77-55, suddenly QJs, KTs, and 66 get a lot worse versus AQ and 99.
Now instead of being ahead in big reraised pots and dominating your opponent you are in the opposite situation!
Pluribus appears to san poker closure never called against a RR with AJo or ATo, and poker calling ranges from the LJ with KQ.
But these happens all the time in real play by, for example, LAGs, stuck players, players who are drinking, readers who think they have a tell you are making a play, game theory players who call the top 50% of their range against a RR, game theory players who place a high premium on randomizing the hands they call reraises with, and great but stubborn players like Patrick Antonius.
AQo and 99 poker calling ranges have a special quality versus the LJ that none of these other hands have: Assume for simplicity you get four bet and have to fold versus AA-QQ and AKo, but we put an opponent on a slightly wide but reasonable calling range versus a three bet like JJ-77, AQ-AJ, ATs, A5s, KQs, JTs, and 65s.
Now we are favorite against a call with AQo and 99 in a big pot.
But except for KQs, we are 45% with the smaller pairs, and even worse with suited boadways and Axs.
Moreover, AQ and 99 usually have a better sense of where they are poker calling ranges top pair or a scattered board poker calling ranges hands like QJ and 66.
So Pluribus strategy both increases variance and probably does worse against a lot of human players than a satandard TAG strategy of protecting the best hand and getting info by raising with AQo and 99, while calling with ATs, KQs, and 77 in position with nice drawing, multiway hands.
This, I take it, is the main reason why it likes to coldcall QQ versus the LJ, as well as AQs and sometimes JJ or TT and rarely Poker calling ranges />It can then potentially push all-in with QQ and AQs if raised poker calling ranges pricing AKo out of a profitable callwhile calling in position with AKo and JJ-TT when it has them.
From the cutoff it world professional poker tour also call 99-88, sometimes AQo, and probably 76s since it has a much wider calling range.
Human players will cold-call with AA, KK, AKs to trap squeezers, but you give up a ton of value and protection as well as exposing 3 bets to aggressive 4-betting if you trap with these.
Likewise, if you only call and recall with TT, you are way behind players who like to 3-bet for value from the blinds.
Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published.
Is This The PERFECT PREFLOP RANGE?
Limping is when a player calls the big blind pre-flop, as the first player to add to the pot. You should avoid. Where you are within a hand influences your range.
I am am excited too with this question. Tell to me, please - where I can find more information on this question?
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
Bravo, very good idea
Excuse, that I interfere, but I suggest to go another by.
Rather curious topic
In it something is. I thank for the information, now I will know.
The question is removed
You are certainly right. In it something is and it is excellent thought. I support you.
I consider, that you commit an error. I can prove it. Write to me in PM.
It is a pity, that now I can not express - there is no free time. But I will return - I will necessarily write that I think.
The interesting moment
I am sorry, that I interrupt you.
I recommend to you to look for a site where there will be many articles on a theme interesting you.
It is interesting. Prompt, where I can read about it?