PDA

View Full Version : 4-bet range: misleading?

MagisterLudi
07-29-2010, 11:29 PM
Hi

I'd like to take some advantage of a "4bet range" stat, but I'm not sure whether I understand it correctly.

I would like to illustrate my doubts with an example:

Let's say there are 2 players ; aggromonkey with PFR 100% (100/100) and nit playing 10/10 with PFR 10%.

They both play 100 hands and they are both 3-bet by aggro opponents 20 times. They both 4-bet the same number of hands, let's say 5, so their 4b stat is exactly the same, ie. 5/20 = 25%.
Thus, the first guy's 4bet range is 25% and the other's only 2.5%.

Am I correct up to this point?

If so, isn't this stat misleading? They both 4-bet exactly the same number of hands, but their "range" is somehow different.
If I am not wrong, this "4bet range" looks to me like a completely useless stat.

Regards

Patvs
07-30-2010, 09:50 AM
"Total PFR multiplied by Total 4bet %.. The thing to keep in mind is that most 4bet situations will involve later positions and PFR and 4bet % will be higher from late position than the overall PFR and 4bet would be."

I'm not sure if this means 4 bet range takes position into account. The definition we use is pretty vague.

I'd just use "Four bet" instead of "Four bet range".

MagisterLudi
07-30-2010, 01:00 PM
I have no idea what this "thing to keep in mind" mean as it's calculated with Total PFR, not specified by position.

As for my question - am I correct with calculating these 4-bet ranges for 2 given example players?

RovinGambla
07-31-2010, 11:23 AM
I would like to know if it takes into account when 4betting was impossible. For example, if a short stack shoves over your open then the only options are to fold or call. So, if you're a short stacker or if you're playing in the 50bb games with lots of short stackers, there won't be as many opportunities to 4bet. Is this accounted for or not?

jaxx
07-31-2010, 12:46 PM
Hi

I'd like to take some advantage of a "4bet range" stat, but I'm not sure whether I understand it correctly.

I would like to illustrate my doubts with an example:

Let's say there are 2 players ; aggromonkey with PFR 100% (100/100) and nit playing 10/10 with PFR 10%.

They both play 100 hands and they are both 3-bet by aggro opponents 20 times. They both 4-bet the same number of hands, let's say 5, so their 4b stat is exactly the same, ie. 5/20 = 25%.
Thus, the first guy's 4bet range is 25% and the other's only 2.5%.

Am I correct up to this point?

If so, isn't this stat misleading? They both 4-bet exactly the same number of hands, but their "range" is somehow different.
If I am not wrong, this "4bet range" looks to me like a completely useless stat.

Regards

if both guys 4bet top 5% of the hands, then after the 3bet the monkey guy will continue only with 1/20 of his opening range - which is 5%
and the nit will continue with 1/2 of his range - which is 5% again
i do not think that 3bet% of the 3bettor must be included in the calculation at all

MagisterLudi
07-31-2010, 02:17 PM
if both guys 4bet top 5% of the hands, then after the 3bet the monkey guy will continue only with 1/20 of his opening range - which is 5%
and the nit will continue with 1/2 of his range - which is 5% again
i do not think that 3bet% of the 3bettor must be included in the calculation at all

What can't you understand exactly?

You're completely correct with your calculations but you haven't related them to the fact that according to given equations 4bet ranges of these two players are consecutively 25% and 2.5% while in fact they're the same. Don't you find this stat misleading?

It seems like it works like, for instance, AF stat, which shouldn't be analyzed in isolation to other stats.

jaxx
08-04-2010, 06:44 PM
What can't you understand exactly?

You're completely correct with your calculations but you haven't related them to the fact that according to given equations 4bet ranges of these two players are consecutively 25% and 2.5% while in fact they're the same. Don't you find this stat misleading?

It seems like it works like, for instance, AF stat, which shouldn't be analyzed in isolation to other stats.

I do not understand - from where do you get the numbers 2.5% and 25%?
you say "but you haven't related them to the fact that according to given equations 4bet ranges of these two players are consecutively 25% and 2.5%"
where is written this equation?

MagisterLudi
08-04-2010, 07:20 PM
I do not understand - from where do you get the numbers 2.5% and 25%?
you say "but you haven't related them to the fact that according to given equations 4bet ranges of these two players are consecutively 25% and 2.5%"
where is written this equation?

In definition of this stat:
"Total PFR multiplied by Total 4bet %"

buffybegood
08-04-2010, 07:24 PM
I think what the OP is after is a completely separate stat, a "4bet range" stat.

As things currently stand, the 4bet stat is a reaction to a 3bet. Villain is 3bet by someone, and he can either fold, call or raise. Those 3 stats will obviously add up to 100%, as they are the only options available to him, he must do one of them. Just say that he folds to 3bet 70%, calls 3bet 20% and 4bets 10%. All well and good you say. However, what the OP is saying is that a 10% 4bet figure can be very misleading in itself.

Assuming that this isn't a cold 4bet (not an unreasonable assumption, it is just an illustration), this means that the villain who is acting on the 3bet must have been the original raiser. This is the crux of what the OP is saying about the "4bet range" stat that he is on about. If the villain has an initial PFR of 100%, then his "4bet range" on the 70/20/10 reaction to 3bet is 10% of hands. However, if villain has only a 10% PFR, and still reacts in 70/20/10 to 3bet, then his "4bet range" is only 1% of hands. Both these villains will have a 4bet stat of 10, but their "4bet range" is completely different (10% of hands or 1% of hands).

My understanding is that OP wants this "4bet range" stat available rather than having to consider the villain's PFR stat as well as his 4bet stat when facing a 4bet from villain.