Estimating opponent call ranges
 

I've just started $33s (hey Scuba) now that I got my BR up to 100 buyins. One thing I noticed right away is that my bubble play isn't nearly as good as I thought it was.

So I'm loading up my hands in SNGPT and realizing that a lot of the hands I'm having trouble with will swing depending on what the opponents call range is. Trouble is, I don't really know. Seems like the presets as eastbay generated them are generally tighter than what I've been experiencing, but I haven't played enough to be sure.

Can anybody out there (*cough* Raptor *cough*) help me figure out how to estimate my opponents call range? Is it just a matter of waiting and seeing what his poorest calling hand is? If you have no read, what do you assume? Is your assumption different between $33s and $22s?

Thanks!
Baz

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

Yes I would like to know too how players like raptor estimate calling ranges when they're 8+ tabling.

If you're playing a few tables you can get a read on how loose/tight a player is in the early levels, and perhaps if he adjusts to the higher blinds, etc. But if you're playing many tables you can't pay attention to every single player. How do you guess calling ranges, which calling ranges do you use?

I changed my SNG PT call ranges recently btw. Tight is now '88+,ATs+,AJo+', average is '66+,A6s+,A9o+,KQs', loose is '44+,A2s+,A5o+,KTs+,KJo+', maniac is '22+,A2+,K2s+,K6+,Q7s+,Q9+,J9s+,T9s'. But I just entered these one time, without thinking too much about them. I have no idea if they make sense...

Something I wonder about is which pairs each type of player calls with. For example, if you call only with the unpaired hands ATs+ and AJo+ , which pairs go along with that range? 88+? TT+? (I don't mean in theory, I mean in reality [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

Anyone? I can't believe that my question is so stupid as to not warrant any answers at all. Or, is this something that everybody wrestles with and doesn't want to let on?

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

What assumptions do you use for the $22's?

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

Yes, that's my question.

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

Sorry, I thought you had an idea for $22's, but were asking for $33's.

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

Out of curiousity, do you find you're pushing too much, or not enough?

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

I've paid some experienced 2+2ers to review my hand histories, out of a very limited set (4 or 5 complete SnGs) the comments I got were "perfect HU" and "too aggressive on bubble".

My winning distribution over 450 $22s is:
1st: 14.5%
2nd: 11.5%
3rd: 9.9%
4th: 12.6%

Over my first 100 SnGs at the $33s netted:
1st: 13.0%
2nd: 7.0%
3rd: 5.0%
4th: 12.0%

I think this is kinda meaningless as it's over only 100sngs, and I luckboxed many times in a row for a lot of the 1st places.

Sometimes I feel like I'm not pushing on the bubble enough (don't want to risk it all on T7o when AA might be my next hand... bad, I know), other times I'm going nuts with 92o. I guess my pushing or not is based more on how often others are calling, or if the big stack is to my left, etc. I'm "feeling" my way around, and I guess my results so far aren't terrible; but as I'm focusing on this specific part of my game, I'm finding it impossible to really pin down where my mistakes are. I simply don't know what assumptions to use when reviewing my bubble/ITM play.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Tewall.
Baz

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

What's not meaningless is that in that 2nd set, you only have 25% ITM. That's way too low. Even 37% to last 4 is really too low. Something is not right there.

Re: Estimating opponent call ranges
 

When you find the magic formula, please let us all know.

I don't mean to be a prick. You can use available tools to determine theoretically correct pushing and calling ranges given stack sizes, blinds, payout structure, etc. But, only experience is going to tell you how real players deviate from the correct ranges. And, as I am discovering (much to my dismay), it's not nearly good enough to generalize for a buy-in level -- you really need to watch and see how individual players are playing. It would be a whole lot easier if the generalizations were enough.