6 posts / 0 new
Last post
hokiegreg's picture
Calling an Unknown's Open-Shove 12 Deep: Using population tendancies to estimate the optimal calling range.

question from donk king1's thread that evolved into an article:Ok so my first question on fundamentals would be on OOP calling jam ranges.  Nash is only a good guide for a calling range around 8bbs or less.  Now I just want to know what i should be calling at what stack depths (to jams).  For example what stack depth am i calling QJ to a jam? am i right in saying around 11bbs? QJo around 12bbs?What does better QJ or k2? might seem really stupid question but in terms of raw hand strength k2 is better, but id be more reluctant to call a 11bb jam with k2 than i would with JQ.  Can you just give me an idea of what ranges i should be calling with at what stack depth?My initial instinct was to tell u the range i normally call with here. I've found myself recently really questioning some of my decisions in this spot though. ***my estimated openshoving range for villain could be +/- several hands based on the population tendancy of the average player on different sites/buyin levels though - and should be adjusted accordingly. i spoke to several mid-high to high stakes regs from Stars/Merge about this and this is the jamming range we that we arrived at for the average unknown. unknown villain: avg unknown doesn't jam as wide as NASH, but isn't completely nitty either imo. somewhere in between. most have a mr/calling range of strong hands, and also have a mr/folding range but with a pretty low frequency. avg player limps a lot too.unknown villain openshoving range - 99-22,A7s-A2s,K8s-K2s,QTs-Q6s,J7s+,T7s+,96s+,86s+,A8o-A2o,K8o-K6o,QTo-Q8o,J8o+,T8o+,98o,87o (30.8% of hands) our calling range vs that specific range(we need better than 45.88% equity to call vs this specific range): AX, K2s+, K6o+, Q7s+, Q8o+, J7s+, J8o+, T9s, any pairSo all of those hands are +ev to call vs the jamming range I estimated. This is just an estimation of the average player, so obviously half of players jam tighter than this range and the other half jam wider than this range.It would be pretty sexy if we could correctly call an openshove with J7s and K2s 12 deep, wouldn't it? The big problem though is that when we compare the equity of the bottom of our calling range with a wider jamming range we do only slightly better, but when we compare it to a nittier jamming range we do significantly worse. So this means we need to eliminate the borderline hands from this calling range imo.This left me with a range in which each hand is doing 49.2% or better vs estimated villain jamming range. Here it is: 33+, AX, K8o+, K6s+, Q9o+, Q8s+, JTo, J9s+.So we are calling with a decent amount of hand combos (32.6%), def not getting run over by jams or anything. We're doing v well vs a wide jamming range, but never overly poorly vs a tight jamming range (unless its just absurdly tight, but thats sooo rare imo).That's definitely a  wider range than I call an openshove with vs an unknown readless. So maybe I/we learned something here. If you think your average unknown at your site/buyin level has a nittier jamming range than I'm suggesting, then just eliminate some of the bottom of this calling range. If you think he jams wider, add a few hands to the bottom of this calling range. The fact that almost no villains openshove AA-JJ 12 deep, and somewhat rarely hands like AK/AQ/AJ, really strengthens the overall equity of this calling range. We are dominated less often, and dominate a lot of hands in a wide shoving range.  We are folding more frequently with this calling range than the initial calling range I suggested (the one that was >45.8% equity), but our overall cEV vs villain's jamming range still does better anyways (i compared cEV of each range vs villains calling range to be sure). So basically, the average villain jams a slightly wide range that does not include the top of their range (the hands that do v well vs everything in our calling range). This increases the overall equity of a bunch of hands for us to call with that dominate a lot of hands in a wide jamming range (JTo, T9s, Q9o). According to NASH calling range, these hands are barely calls or even folds at this stack depth - but that calling range is based on the assumption that villain IS jamming the top of his range. Since he isn't, these hands fair a ton better, and folding these hands like I assume most of us do is actually quite -EV.I think a lot of regs, when facing a villain that is jamming wide 12 deep, tend to just use the NASH calling range as a quick guide for what hands to call and fold. I think this is definitely decent, but my point is our range can absolutely be better - and the population tendancy to not have AJ+ JJ+ in a jamming range 12 deep is so common that I think our readless approach needs to be to take that factor into account!This is just my calling range I am suggesting vs an unknown readless. It is not a stagnant calling range. It's not even the optimal calling range vs someone with the exact calling range of my average villain in the example above. It's clearly not optimal vs a nitty jamming range, and we should be calling a good bit wider vs a wider jamming range. It is the best range I can come up with to defend yourself against the population tendancies of the average player (and all players included in that spectrum), until you establish reads and are able to optimize your range toward that particular opponent's frequencies.  Advanced theory that involves lots of mathy type stuff and %s has never been my strength. It's something I've worked at really hard the past few months, and this is my first attempt at being a bit revolutionary :). Regardless of whether my estimation of average villain's jamming range is accurate, or my overall approach to solving the optimal range here is correct - my main premise is absolutely true: If the average player is jamming slightly wide and isn't jamming the top of his range, it should have a drastic effect on our calling range. Let's discuss it. What do you think? 

hokiegreg's picture
keep in mind I was just

keep in mind I was just solving this for 12 bb deep. the shorter stacks are, the less equity we need to call villains jam bc we are more committed. but also, most villains are just jamming AJ-AK 10 deep and lower. slightly deeper (13+), the average villain just isn't openshoving very much as a bluff. that's not to say the thought processes i've used to build this range can't be used to build ranges at other stack sizes - of course they can. if villain doesn't have certain hands in his range in almost all situations in poker, it's going to matter to some degree. most importantly, the population tendancies that may be true 11-12ish deep in a husng may not be true just 1 bb higher or 1 bb lower. 

hokiegreg's picture
also fwiw, let's say we

also fwiw, let's say we eliminate a few of the jamming hands....K2s/K3s/K4s/K6o/T8o/J8o/Q8o/89o/87oi checked most of the hands at the bottom of the calling range i came up with, and the equity doesnt really change much at all. anyways, i def think the avg players openshoving range is somewhere in between my original and with these above hands removed (maybe not these specific hands, but openshoving about maybe 25% total hands instead of 30.5%)

chadders0's picture
LOVE IT! things i loved

LOVE IT!things i loved were:v interesting to see calling range is wider than expectedv interesting to see how taking out some of those middling hands which are prime limps for some villains doesnt really effect the equity of the bottom or our calling rangeyou really think we should fold 22?also think its really important for people to fiddle with some of these ranges themselves to see how it effects the equity of some or the weaker part of the range because this is math the you can't really do ingame so having a few more points of comparison is always better. As far as disagreements i have none, you can't argue with math, only the initial assumptions, which seem relatively sound. I'd be interested to see how assuming some of the bottom of our opponents range becomes minr/fold hands would effect the equity of some of the lower part of our range, and will prob fiddle with later to see if i can come up with good assumptions that justify the two or three hands that weren't in my prev callin range. 

 

Check out my Hyper Turbo Video Pack

Follow me on twitter

hokiegreg's picture
glad you liked it. i'm

glad you liked it. i'm interested in going further with it as well...definitely plan to asap. gotta get caught up on other questions in forum and a vid, but hope to spend some time on it this weekend. ill update asap.

hokiegreg's picture
n your range your folding

n your range your folding 22.  What depth are you calling with 22? sorry, 22 shouldn't be in my folding range. when villain jams 11 deep we need 45.5% equity to call a jam (10bb/22bb)when villain jams 12 deep we need 45.8% equity to call a jamas i mentioned in my article, the avg villain jams relatively wide overall 12bbs and lower. vs a slightly wide jamming range, 22 has about 47% equity - and has similar equity both vs a wide and tight jamming range. so it's definitely a call 12 and lower.when villain jams 13 deep we need 46.1% equity to call a jam, but the problem here is that the average villain really starts jamming a lot nittier 13bbs and higher so it gets a lot more marginal/bad here. if villain is jamming 13 deep with a range of TT-22,A9s-A2s,K8s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,97s,95s,87s,76s,A9o-A2o,KTo+,QTo+,JTo....22 is 45.7% equity vs that range, so not enough equity to call a jam. so again, i think there can be a big difference in the average players ranges at different stack depths - even as small as a 1bb difference in some cases. i dont think we see the average player jamming 13-14 deep with a wide range too often (even if we're wrong, 22 is just barely a call in that case still).