I really like your comments. Talking from a fairly begginer’s perspective I can be more objective I guess, with less knowledge on poker literature. Whenever I tried to apply strategies from a book, however good they looked on paper, I usually started loosing. Not that its useless to learn these strategies, it is very essential, but you cant apply them rigidl. I could easily figure out players who applied certain ways of playing, which look good on paper. It is exploitable, and all this 3-4-5betting seems more like an ego fight often times. It can be very costly while you may still let it go and win a good amount in the next round limping in with a 75s.

Alvin replying back:

Random means just that: random. Sometimes you set-mine with a medium pocket pair, sometimes you play it aggressively. I’ve heard of players using the second hand on their watch to randomize their play…that’s random. While a lot can be said for either action (calling or raising) with 77, being predictable is never good. How does this make him a loose fish, when there is a “method to his madness”? I’d say it makes him tough to play against, and I’d also say that top players do exactly this kind of thing.

Your solution here implies really getting to know a player after probably weeks of playing. In most casino or online scenarios, there is nearly an endless stream of villains, some you only see for a few hours…that isn’t long enough to figure much out about their play. And besides that “testing” with 4-bets sure sounds expensive in a real cash game…I’m not talking about 5 cent online games…I’m talking about real full ring cash games with substantial money on the table here…you want to risk 1/4 or 1/3 or even more of your stack by playing around with 4-bets just to learn about how an opponent reacts?

I’m just not that rich, I guess….nor do I play in one game with same people every day for years where I can learn their tendencies.

Furthermore, no one is going to learn mine, since I will randomize my own play as I describe here…I can and do raise UTG or any other position with hands like 57s and 22 and AXs, but only sometimes.

I hope you can see what I’m trying to say.

You are explaining the solution to the problem you consider has arisen from “rangetalk”.

For example. You say someone “randomly” 3bets 77. How do you know its Random? Totally Random 3bets signifies a loose fish whom you can adjust your game to accordingly. knowing villain is capable of Random 3bets you can try 4bet bluffing him, how do villain respons to your 4bet? Does he only 5bet his absolute top of his range and folding out everything else? Start 4bet bluffing him dependent on how frequent his “Random” 3bets are,
Respectively, is he calling all hos range, tighten up your 4bets and go for postflop value.
So forth and so on…

I hope you gained some insight

I can’t say I’m a believer in any of the range concept that has arisen lately….note that Doyle’s Supersystem didn’t talk much about ranges at all….and neither did a lot of other older books (Theory and Practice being another seminal book) and so on.

I think playing fundamental poker, mix it up, make the occasional well-timed bluff, and understand pot odds and other bedrock concepts, its enough. Range thinking is a great way to add extreme variance and get stacked all the time, when that guy you put on big cards flops a set of ducks after opening with 22, you are screwed…..