Weighted Ranges

example 2..

if he's only got 22-88, give me a reason for a reg villain to continue without the set on this flop.. which ofcourse leads me to the idea that i dont need to weight his range because his flop action is going to place it as either set or no set.

I also don't see a need to weight things to 66-88 when 99-QQ are also clearly in his range and AK. All of which makes our play pretty dependant on our hand, and less dependant on the likely hood that villain has 66-88..

are you going to check/fold the flop with AK here if the flop is KJ6 but cbet if its KJ3?

edit: I see you're underlying point, i just dont see a lot of value in it.. Unless all you're really saying is give good players more credit and bad players less, which is pretty standard play really.

He doesnt have only 22-88 in his range, idk where you got that from. All im talking about is compensating for the fact that he could have 22, in his range, but doesn't always.

@RPM I'm not saying this is something we should consider often. Thing is like random bluffs are put into villain's range sooo seldom when honestly they can make up a decent portions of ranges in some spots.

Originally Posted by scott_owen

example 2..

if he's only got 22-88, give me a reason for a reg villain to continue without the set on this flop.. which ofcourse leads me to the idea that i dont need to weight his range because his flop action is going to place it as either set or no set.

I also don't see a need to weight things to 66-88 when 99-QQ are also clearly in his range and AK. All of which makes our play pretty dependant on our hand, and less dependant on the likely hood that villain has 66-88..

are you going to check/fold the flop with AK here if the flop is KJ6 but cbet if its KJ3?

edit: I see you're underlying point, i just dont see a lot of value in it.. Unless all you're really saying is give good players more credit and bad players less, which is pretty standard play really.