A new approach to calling ranges?

TT_fold · #1 09-10-2005, 12:53 AM

I got to thinking during today's sets of SNGs that a different approach to calling ranges might serve as a more accurate model for push/fold poker.

I see the current model as somewhat flawed in that assigning a calling range of 44+, AT+, KJ+, for example, assumes that an opponent will ALWAYS call with 44 but NEVER with 33. This seems too great a disparity (100% of the time with 44 but 0% of the time with 33) between two hands of similar value.

Let us assume that a villain with 10x BB will call a button open-push with AA 100% of the time, and 72o 0% of the time. Couldn't all other hands be assigned a percentage in this manner? In this example, I might set the TT percentage as 95%, K9o percentage as 25%, 76s percentage as 5%, etc.

Obviously this is a more complicated model than eastbay's, but theoretically it could be very useful in computing a more exact $EV for a push/fold situation. Thoughts?

citanul · #2 09-10-2005, 01:08 AM

how useful is this if you have absolutely no way to even start to guestimate this for your opponents? i doubt you could even accurately do this for yourself.

to top this off: are there hands that you call in a given spot 95% of the time in short stacked big blinds situations, and fold 5% of the time? i really really really doubt it.

my assumption is that the amount of utility that could theoretically be added by such a complicated model is tiny in relation to that lost by attempting to make minute assumptions about your opponents with very little information. ie, you are more likely to lose information than gain it.

citanul

viennagreen · #3 09-10-2005, 01:38 AM

i think that the usefulness of eastbay's program is that after using it for a while, you get a general idea of what the right play is-- and then you are able to apply your knowledge while playing....

with your proposal--- you could indeed set up some very exact situations (if you had total knowledge of your opponent). however, i don't see the utility in it.

Misfire · #4 09-10-2005, 01:48 AM

I don't think he's saying any particular opponent will call with a hand a certain percentage of the time % and fold the same hand the rest of the time. I think he's getting more at the idea that we can assume a random opponent fitting this guy's description and playing style is x% likely to fold this hand.

Whether this idea makes for a better EV estimate, I don't know. Like you said, it sounds like more trouble than its worth. I'm sure eastbay gets us in the ballpark. It's not like we can whip out his program in the middle of a hand anyway.

TT_fold · #5 09-10-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's saying any particular opponent will call with a hand a certain percentage of the time % and fold the same hand the rest of the time. I think he's getting more at the idea that we can assume a random opponent fitting this guy's description and playing style is x% likely to fold this hand.

Whether this idea makes for a better EV estimate, I don't know. Like you said, it sounds like more trouble than its worth. I'm sure eastbay gets us in the ballpark. It's not like we can whip out his program in the middle of a hand anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the point I was trying to convey.

Like I said, this approach works better in theory than in practice, rendering it pretty much useless for us.

Freudian · #6 09-10-2005, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Whether this idea makes for a better EV estimate, I don't know. Like you said, it sounds like more trouble than its worth. I'm sure eastbay gets us in the ballpark. It's not like we can whip out his program in the middle of a hand anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the point of breaking down a guess into decimals. Most likely the guess is incorrect anyway. If it is in the correct neighborhood it is ok and useful for analysis.

roma12 · #7 09-10-2005, 02:44 AM

i think alot of you missed the point of the OP. Hes trying to show a donk perspective-which i am assuming, non of you have. Why have 44+ instead of 22+. to you yes it might be different, but to our fish, it is not. As well as A6s vs A2off...they simply don't know the difference

citanul · #8 09-10-2005, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i think alot of you missed the point of the OP. Hes trying to show a donk perspective-which i am assuming, non of you have. Why have 44+ instead of 22+. to you yes it might be different, but to our fish, it is not. As well as A6s vs A2off...they simply don't know the difference

[/ QUOTE ]

so? so you put his calling range in your mind instead of at 44+ at 22+, and instead of at A6s+ at A2o+. that doesn't seem to be what the op was talking about at all. i dunno, i'm tired and this didn't seem of any theoretical or practical value to me when i wasn't tired. so i'm just going ot leave it alone.

citanul

roma12 · #9 09-10-2005, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think alot of you missed the point of the OP. Hes trying to show a donk perspective-which i am assuming, non of you have. Why have 44+ instead of 22+. to you yes it might be different, but to our fish, it is not. As well as A6s vs A2off...they simply don't know the difference

[/ QUOTE ]

so? so you put his calling range in your mind instead of at 44+ at 22+, and instead of at A6s+ at A2o+. that doesn't seem to be what the op was talking about at all. i dunno, i'm tired and this didn't seem of any theoretical or practical value to me when i wasn't tired. so i'm just going ot leave it alone.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

ok....so hes talking about how a donk will call 95 percent of the time with XX as opposed to 100 percent of the time, which is what eastbays programs implies. Does this change anything? How are you going to put someone on "calling w/ XX __% of the time"...the weather? time of day? So yes, i was wrong in my original reply in terms of understanding the OP point. but does he have one? wouldnt lowering the "amount of times" someone calls with XX, be the same as decreasing his calling ranges? As to my original drunk response: Alot of examples on this forum have ICM calling ranges of 55+ , A6s+, etc. what i was saying before is, to donks... A6s=A2...

TT_fold · #10 09-10-2005, 04:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think alot of you missed the point of the OP. Hes trying to show a donk perspective-which i am assuming, non of you have. Why have 44+ instead of 22+. to you yes it might be different, but to our fish, it is not. As well as A6s vs A2off...they simply don't know the difference

[/ QUOTE ]

so? so you put his calling range in your mind instead of at 44+ at 22+, and instead of at A6s+ at A2o+. that doesn't seem to be what the op was talking about at all. i dunno, i'm tired and this didn't seem of any theoretical or practical value to me when i wasn't tired. so i'm just going ot leave it alone.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what my formula accounts for is facing a random opponent. Let's be honest, when playing tons of tables at once it is tough to put players on specific calling ranges. Let us assume for a minute that half of the players at a specific level are total donks and half are tough pros. In that case, your push might get called by A2o 50% of the time.

Does that clarify my position at all?