How to memorize call-a-shove ranges ?
Hi guys,
I've been working on my push-fold game with Preflop+
I'm doing well with the open-shove ranges. They are not too hard to remember, I found a few mnemonics.
So whenever I make a mistake, it's usually a 0.1BB mistake, sometimes 0.2BB.
It's different with calls.
Sometimes let's say A7o is a fold, but A8o may be a +0.8BB ev call.
Same goes with PPs, sometimes 66 is a fold, and 77 is a really profitable call.
So it's easy to do big mistakes.
Is there a way to memorize the exact ranges ?
Or should I just run thousands of hands in preflop+ untill I get a reliable gut feeling of what is right ?
9 Replies
Another way to help with information processing is to not try to memorize the entire chart. Try to memorize the worst hands that go into your range then the better hands automatically get added in. Worst Pair, worst Axs, worst Axo, worst Kxs, worst suited/offsuit broadways, worst suited connector. Now you are memorizing 5-6 hands instead of your entire range.
This is the correct answer.
And you need to actually sit down with a paper and pen and just learn the worst combinations by heart. And repeat it every other day.
It's quite a slow, boring and tedious process. But once they stuck it will save you a lot of mental effort every hand.
I would try to understand rather than memorize. Also, most players are shoving way too tight, so you should call tighter than software recommends.
Memorizing and calling software ranges is a big leak. In general, you should call much tighter. However, it is also totally dependent on reads, particularly the player, but also the situation and how the table is playing. It depend on your stack size and the stacks behind you. It isn't great to call and fold to cold raise or commit your stack and someone behind you wakes up with a big hand. There can also be ICM issues for you. So I don't see the point in memorizing a table. You need a general understanding of what the ranges should be and then adjust that.
Memorizing and calling software ranges is a big leak. In general, you should call much tighter. However, it is also totally dependent on reads, particularly the player, but also the situation and how the table is playing. It depend on your stack size and the stacks behind you. It isn't great to call and fold to cold raise or commit your stack and someone behind you wakes up with a big hand. There can also be ICM issues for you. So I don't see the point in memorizing a table. You need a general u
I think this is amazingly on point (great post).
Fortunately most people who are solver oriented think that their problems will be solved by AI and poker experts evaluations. As a system designer and programmer (bachelor of science in Computer Science) I would say that AI is only as good as the person who is developing the software and there will always be bugs. How serious they are only comes up over time (like with the self driving cars). The other thing to consider is what it is based on. My guess is it is billions of hands online that went to showdown (so you can know what the loser's had) but it could also be the winner's hands when they don't get to showdown. The problem with this is that it is all generalizations of all types of players. So while the suggested hand ranges for each situation are accurate they may be biased in the wrong direction depending on who you are playing in the moment.
So I don't memorize software ranges. But I appreciate their existence because it helps me understand the ranges of youngish GTO/Solvers at the table...
I think this is amazingly on point (great post).
Fortunately most people who are solver oriented think that their problems will be solved by AI and poker experts evaluations. As a system designer and programmer (bachelor of science in Computer Science) I would say that AI is only as good as the person who is developing the software and there will always be bugs. How serious they are only comes up over time (like with the self driving cars). The other thing to consider is what it is based on.
Hmmm, while I don't necessarily disagree with the general point (that solvers are not the end all be all), I don't think this is how the solvers "solve" the ranges they come up with. It is my understanding that they aren't looking at a massive database of hands, but rather solving the optimal response for each hand under the assumption that the opponent will also make the optimal response. So it's a purely theoretical exercise without the need for a database (other than the rules of the game). Which brings us to the solvers' main deficiency ... our opponents are not playing optimally; and we can improve our returns by deviating (i.e., playing exploitively). The biggest thing playing by the "solver book" gets you, is that your opponents cannot exploit you by plauing "perfectly".
And I should note that it is a good thing our opponents are not playing perfectly, because if they did, then we would have to also play perfect GTO poker ... and finally we could declare with confidence that poker is dead.
Fortunately most people who are solver oriented think that their problems will be solved by AI and poker experts evaluations.
I don't think that's particularly accurate or even fair.
The best use for solvers in postflop/flop situations is to understand why it chooses the hands it chooses for certain lines and to think about the concepts behind those choices and how to apply them more generally in your game.
Looking at the ranges is useful, but trying to memorize them is ridiculous and counterproductive.
I find it kind of useless as indicated by the chart above the usual call candidates are 22+ Ax+ and suited broadways, and the marginal hands depends so much on the actual shoving range and the meta game.
The only take away is to aware you have to call tighter in early position because you are not closing the action.
I do recommend studying the charts. It is just trying to memorize them for all the different push sizes and positions of both players is useless. You do want to know how you adjust by stack sizes and positions and what the best hands to call with all.
You should generally call tighter than recommended, because people usually push too tight. With larger stacks many opponents are not push/folding their whole ranges. It is also easier to shove a 20xBB stack over a 10xBB push than to call or raise with a 50xBB stack and other similar stacks behind you.
It is also useless to memorize ICM ranges, GTO, etc. You need to study the software results and understand the concepts and how to apply them.
