Hi weazel,
do you prefer any changes in RFI and CC ranges for ZOOM microstakes? thx for answer 
Notifications
Clear all
Originally posted by w34z3l
Hey
Ok so ranges are in text format now in the OP. The easiest way is to copy and paste them in to equilab and save them.Unfortunately it means you have to do this one by one, but there is no work around that I know of yet, so this is the fastest way. I recommend you use these ranges since a few minor tweaks have been made compared to the ranges in the video (although they are pretty much the same).
Hey, not trying to be a hater or anything but I disagree with a lot of those ranges.
BTN RFI for example- I rather be opening J4s, T5s, Q8o, over 53s, 43s, 74s.
UTG RFI - open any of the Axs or k9s or T8s over 56s, 67s. 87s and 55 are close but fine.
SB flat vs UTG- you are suggesting flatting all the way down to pocket 44, just going to burn money flatting those small pocket pairs vs utg. there are much better hands to flat.
I didn't go through all of them but yea I don't like how you value hands.
My Blog 
_drink:
My Coaching Thread 
Skype: ugots3rv3d 
Originally posted by serverm07
Originally posted by w34z3l
Hey
Ok so ranges are in text format now in the OP. The easiest way is to copy and paste them in to equilab and save them.Unfortunately it means you have to do this one by one, but there is no work around that I know of yet, so this is the fastest way. I recommend you use these ranges since a few minor tweaks have been made compared to the ranges in the video (although they are pretty much the same).
Hey, not trying to be a hater or anything but I disagree with a lot of those ranges.
BTN RFI for example- I rather be opening J4s, T5s, Q8o, over 53s, 43s, 74s.
UTG RFI - open any of the Axs or k9s or T8s over 56s, 67s. 87s and 55 are close but fine.
SB flat vs UTG- you are suggesting flatting all the way down to pocket 44, just going to burn money flatting those small pocket pairs vs utg. there are much better hands to flat.I didn't go through all of them but yea I don't like how you value hands.
maybe this is because of stake levels? micros games are differing a lot vs small stakes games. I see such a disaggreement second time where nl500 6max player disaggress with coach who recently crushed up to nl25 just to analyze nowadays game. but yea i understand your point serverm. Would like to hear your both thoughts in depth.
Originally posted by serverm07
Hey, not trying to be a hater or anything but I disagree with a lot of those ranges.
BTN RFI for example- I rather be opening J4s, T5s, Q8o, over 53s, 43s, 74s.
I don't have any huge problems if you'd prefer to include those other hands in your ranges instead. They are certainly higher equity holdings. 100bb stacks the playability difference should be enough that I'd rather hold 74s than Q8o. Equity is not the most important thing of course. Assuming shallower stacks I would obviously tend towards the higher equity hands.
Originally posted by serverm07
UTG RFI - open any of the Axs or k9s or T8s over 56s, 67s. 87s and 55 are close but fine.
SC's nearly always have better playability OOP than suited Axs imo. Less domination issues generally allow us to play our range more aggressively. I don't think this is necessarily common knowledge.
Assuming we'd expect to have position more frequently I would prefer the suited Axs, but I'm assuming the majority of the cold-callers we'll face will be IP against us.
Originally posted by serverm07
SB flat vs UTG- you are suggesting flatting all the way down to pocket 44, just going to burn money flatting those small pocket pairs vs utg. there are much better hands to flat.I didn't go through all of them but yea I don't like how you value hands.
Strongly disagree. When was the last time you played 10nl zoom? Are you aware that this series is intended for micro-stakes players? We nearly always have the implieds vs an UTG open to set-mine here because opponents are less skilled in general and will pay us off postflop.
It's also important to understand that overly aggressive 3betting will not pay off at the lower micro-stakes. It can be the difference between paying 5bb/100 in rake and 10bb/100 in rake. So 3b or fold strategy is generally a pretty poor option.
Originally posted by nomorefish
Hi weazel,
do you prefer any changes in RFI and CC ranges for ZOOM microstakes? thx for answerNo, these should be good for zoom. They were tested in zoom games.
I don't mind playing tighter cold-calling ranges at first however. I prefer to think of these ranges as the maximum that can be profitably defended. So it wouldn't be incorrect to cold-call tighter and might make sense depending on your level of experience.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by serverm07
Hey, not trying to be a hater or anything but I disagree with a lot of those ranges.
BTN RFI for example- I rather be opening J4s, T5s, Q8o, over 53s, 43s, 74s.
I don't have any huge problems if you'd prefer to include those other hands in your ranges instead. They are certainly higher equity holdings. 100bb stacks the playability difference should be enough that I'd rather hold 74s than Q8o. Equity is not the most important thing of course. Assuming shallower stacks I would obviously tend towards the higher equity hands.
Originally posted by serverm07
UTG RFI - open any of the Axs or k9s or T8s over 56s, 67s. 87s and 55 are close but fine.SC's nearly always have better playability OOP than suited Axs imo. Less domination issues generally allow us to play our range more aggressively. I don't think this is necessarily common knowledge.
Assuming we'd expect to have position more frequently I would prefer the suited Axs, but I'm assuming the majority of the cold-callers we'll face will be IP against us.
Originally posted by serverm07
SB flat vs UTG- you are suggesting flatting all the way down to pocket 44, just going to burn money flatting those small pocket pairs vs utg. there are much better hands to flat.I didn't go through all of them but yea I don't like how you value hands.
Strongly disagree. When was the last time you played 10nl zoom? Are you aware that this series is intended for micro-stakes players? We nearly always have the implieds vs an UTG open to set-mine here because opponents are less skilled in general and will pay us off postflop.
It's also important to understand that overly aggressive 3betting will not pay off at the lower micro-stakes. It can be the difference between paying 5bb/100 in rake and 10bb/100 in rake. So 3b or fold strategy is generally a pretty poor option.
Hello again :f_love:,
I think you have these wrong because I think in btn vs steal, it's much more important to be able to flop top pair and also with hands like 74s you run into a bit of reverse implied odds problem when hitting a flush occasionally because of higher flush. Your argument is that this series is for 10nl players (no offense 10nl players, we all start somewhere) and you want to put them in a position where they often will miss their draw by the river and be forced to bluff and then they will not know when to bluff/when to give up, therefore J4s is quite a bit better than 47s, two gappers and low cards suck anyway.
Once again with the UTG RFI, go look at pleno's video where he does some utg range stuff. The reason people ever open 56s and 67s is for board coverage only so the "tough" opposition doesn't completely rape them on certain boards, we are playing vs 10nl players where it's much more important to have higher equity. A9s will typically allow us to have one over card always and on Axx board we can use that as our x/c hand to protect our x range and you can mention that in your videos of course. Where as 8 high flops happen like 12-14% of the time, and all other times we will have 7 high only, once again you are putting the 10nl player in a situation where he may have to run a triple barrel bluff. 56s and 67s are -EV opens from UTG.
I realize this is for 10nl players, what would you say you make on average when flopping a set in terms of bb? And where do you see me suggesting aggro 3bet ranges? If anything I think we should be folding more sb vs utg than you suggested due to rake and people opening fairly tight ranges utg anyway. Also these pocket pairs are very high variance, you want to teach the low stakes guys a lower variance style that will allow them to grind up a nice roll, move up stakes, buy coaching etc.
My Blog _drink:
My Coaching Thread
Skype: ugots3rv3d
Oh and I played 4nl the other day while setting up a program, eat it! 
My Blog _drink:
My Coaching Thread
Skype: ugots3rv3d
Originally posted by w34z3l
Hey
Ok so ranges are in text format now in the OP. The easiest way is to copy and paste them in to equilab and save them.Unfortunately it means you have to do this one by one, but there is no work around that I know of yet, so this is the fastest way. I recommend you use these ranges since a few minor tweaks have been made compared to the ranges in the video (although they are pretty much the same).
can you maybe ask around at PS who the developers of equilab are and if they can add "export saved range" feature?
I spent loads of hours doing what you did a few weeks back and would love to export mine/import other people's ranges
Originally posted by LemOn36
Originally posted by w34z3l
Hey
Ok so ranges are in text format now in the OP. The easiest way is to copy and paste them in to equilab and save them.Unfortunately it means you have to do this one by one, but there is no work around that I know of yet, so this is the fastest way. I recommend you use these ranges since a few minor tweaks have been made compared to the ranges in the video (although they are pretty much the same).
can you maybe ask around at PS who the developers of equilab are and if they can add "export saved range" feature?
I spent loads of hours doing what you did a few weeks back and would love to export mine/import other people's ranges
if you go to the equilab folder on your computer, I think you can copy the folder of the hand you wish and send it to someone, but I think that would overwrite whatever the other person has, I'm not entirely sure.
My Blog _drink:
My Coaching Thread
Skype: ugots3rv3d
Hi Lem0n36,
Sounds like a nice plan, perhaps you would like to post that in Feedback and Suggestions:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/board.php?boardid=1364
Mal.
Originally posted by gadget51
Hi Lem0n36,Sounds like a nice plan, perhaps you would like to post that in Feedback and Suggestions:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/board.php?boardid=1364
Mal.
done thanks.
equilab exporting ranges
Also w34z3l can you please upload the slides for your presentation for video 1?
Also, I checked database and for me at micros suited aces utg and mp are more profitable than SCs - pretty sure they are better 3way with the dominating fd and people generally let you realize too much of your equity at micros, just my 2cents I don't think there's a huge difference between these, minor tweaks with these ranges as long as frequencies remain roughly the same will be okay person to person depending on their play style
About bet sizing: do you bet only 2.5bb with AA from BTN?
Because if you bet larger with strong hands and smaller with weaker hands that makes you easy to read.
22-55 are showing a clear profit when called SB vs UTG and MP opens. It's actually pretty tight that I'm defending 44+ and not 22+ imo. Btw, I would not call 44 from SB vs UTG open in higher limit games. So purely as a microstakes thing SBvs UTG is remaining as it is.
For me 56s 67s have shown a marginal profit as UTG opens at micros. That doesn't of course mean they are the best hands to open though, simply that they are profitable opens. I also take good opportunities to 3barrel these hands, and I think there are profitable 3 barrel bluff spots at micros that should be taken.
In higher limit games I would definitely prefer the 67s in favour of the K9s - it has better playability imo. K9s we are more frequently putting ourself in a situation where opponent can turn our hand into a bluff-catcher which is not generally favourable for us. If opponent fires close to a balanced range (or fires in a spot where we have no clear population read), suddenly we are not making money.
Having said that I appreciate the feedback I will remove the 56s and add A9s.
As for BTN, I see what you are saying. Would still prefer the 74s over the Q8o in higher limit games. And again even at micros I like to 3barrel bluff in good spots. Also having 7-high does not necessarily mean it's necessary to fire 3 a whole bunch, it usually just means it's correct to bluff at some point during the hand. So in some cases that might simply be checking two streets and making a small bet on river etc.
Something to mention also though is it's situational. Vs a mid-stack I'm probably opening the Q8o and never the 43s. It's impossible to indicate this in equilab. The opening chart is not supposed to be a definitive guide proved to be 100% theoretically correct, poker is not that simple.
Anyway for now I've removed 43s and 35s and replaced with Q8o. I seriously doubt this will have a large impact on how frequently players are put in situation they are forced to bluff though. Also I don't think it's correct to say that 74s suffers from a greater deal of reverse implieds than Q8o. Seems like the opposite is true.
Anyway, cheers for the feedback.
@Lemon
If you want stuff like that please add me on skype. Username is the same as my pokerstrategy alias.
Thanks
Originally posted by Galjot
About bet sizing: do you bet only 2.5bb with AA from BTN?Because if you bet larger with strong hands and smaller with weaker hands that makes you easy to read.
Actually I just make it 2.2bb from all positions.
By default I keep it the same sizing with AA from BTN. If there is a fish in the blinds I'm going to make it bigger though - bad players won't exploit us for this.
what do you think about minraising from BU @ nl10 zoom? my steal = 50%.
vs fishes in blinds i`m changing my sizing because of the fact as you said - they will not exploit us. And when i tried to 2,5x from CO instead of 3x i found myself in winning less... vs 3x opening from CO they fold more imo.