i********r
发帖数: 1153 | |
c**********l
发帖数: 606 | 2 my quick stone:
one example would be balancing your 3-bet range pf. say you are a tag and
normally 3-bet only with premium hands, AA-QQ, AK, occasionaly AQ and JJ-TT.
but you can't ALWAYS do that. otherwise you become too easy to read and ppl
will adjust their 4-bet range and postflop play accordingly.
in order to make yorself less readable thus less exploitable, you have to
balance your range: you throw in SC/small PP once in a while. maybe 30% non
-premium mixing is good enough to achiev |
i********r
发帖数: 1153 | 3 here's what i think.
for every poker action, there's a value range and there's a bluff range. you
have to have both in your range otherwise it becomes insanely easy to play
against you. however, simply introduce a bluff range to your whole range
does not mean you are well balanced. what i'm interesting is what's the
mathematical optimum if there's any.
TT.
ppl
non
【在 c**********l 的大作中提到】
: my quick stone:
: one example would be balancing your 3-bet range pf. say you are a tag and
: normally 3-bet only with premium hands, AA-QQ, AK, occasionaly AQ and JJ-TT.
:
: but you can't ALWAYS do that. otherwise you become too easy to read and ppl
: will adjust their 4-bet range and postflop play accordingly.
: in order to make yorself less readable thus less exploitable, you have to
: balance your range: you throw in SC/small PP once in a while. maybe 30% non
: -premium mixing is good enough to achiev
|
c**********l
发帖数: 606 | 4 define "optimum". . . :-)
obv. it's oppo dependent. in the previous example, when the bettor's range
becomes wider, so should your 3-bet range.
there is theoretically possible some "optimum unbeatable" mixing percentage
(including mixing range in the next street(s) play). it's optimum in the
sense that it's unexploitable by any opponent, yet it doesnot mean the most
+EV balance strategy. the most +EV mixing range should be table dependent.
Sklansky et al. discussed these theories in good detail |
f*****g
发帖数: 15860 | 5 有点晕，呵呵，不懂，纯顶。
【在 i********r 的大作中提到】
: balance your range
: 比较迷惑
|
c**********l
发帖数: 606 | 6 煎王是说我们的英文不通啦。：—）下回用拉丁文解释吧。 |
i********r
发帖数: 1153 | 7 Very good point.
The most balanced play doesn't equal to the most +EV play.
range
percentage
most
holdem
【在 c**********l 的大作中提到】
: define "optimum". . . :-)
: obv. it's oppo dependent. in the previous example, when the bettor's range
: becomes wider, so should your 3-bet range.
: there is theoretically possible some "optimum unbeatable" mixing percentage
: (including mixing range in the next street(s) play). it's optimum in the
: sense that it's unexploitable by any opponent, yet it doesnot mean the most
: +EV balance strategy. the most +EV mixing range should be table dependent.
: Sklansky et al. discussed these theories in good detail
|
n******1
发帖数: 4742 | 8 胡打。。。
【在 i********r 的大作中提到】
: balance your range
: 比较迷惑
|
y********n
发帖数: 2063 | 9 yep
胡打 and aggressive.
like jerry yang, very hard to play with him.
【在 n******1 的大作中提到】
: 胡打。。。
|
i********r
发帖数: 1153 | 10 @@
【在 n******1 的大作中提到】
: 胡打。。。
|
t***k
发帖数: 57 | 11 vs fish sometimes you do not need to balance at all, versus regulars you do
need that. |
