what about ranges, why is spr the new black?

[daven]

spr was xx so easy call/shove/wtf-ever

my theory is that it is far easier to divide a number by another and blindly obey a rule equivalent to a 20bb shortstacking hand chart than it is to accurately consider ranges and work out pot and real implied odds.

but ranges are too difficult

so deal with it.

I think that in ring game play that you lose little by forgetting about spr beyond what it means for bet-sizing

Discuss.

edit: this was inspired by an IRC comment when i was discussing my pre-flop play with AA opened UTG, one caller, and a squeeze from the serial squeezer SB - "what's your spr?" how does that affect my 4-bet vs flat plan? maybe i just don't get it.

[Micro2Macro]

yeah I 100% agree with you here.

SPR should not be the first thing that comes into your mind when you see a flop.

Edit:
<m2m> i think its something we already think about anyway
<m2m> big pot relative to stacks = easier to get all in with 1 pair
<m2m> small pot relative to stacks = need pot control etc with weaker hands

we already intuitively think about spr, so it's time to look beyond a simple ratio and think outside the box a bit.

[dranger7070]

LOL this

SPR is a good tool to have, but FUCK it doesn't replace thinking about ranges and shit. Like m2m said, we already intuitively think about it, so why make it the most important thing when determining what to do with a hand?

Its funny you posted this because me and m2m were talking about this earlier tonight. We were like, "wtf is with everyone getting all hyped up about spr for?" Its so senseless. Nice post sir.

Edit: Also, the whole, "but ranges are too hard." thing. SUCK IT UP PUSSY!!! Seriously, if they were THAT easy, that you could become a pro at in a day or a week, then don't you think poker would be a HELLUVA lot tougher? Be thankful that its hard. You will get that much more satisfaction when you finally understand.

[Luco]

Oh thank god.

In case you hadn't guessed from my other topic, I didn't rank SPR too highly on my considerations list. But given all the forum talk about it I was feeling like I'd missed the boat.

[bigspenda73]

SPR is between 7bet bluffing and open-folding the river in my ranking of important poker topics

[Luco]

Judging from your posts about it I'd never have guessed that you ranked it so highly.

I don't actually think about ranges while playing, I just SPR-bot during a session.

[Parasurama]

What are situations you guys think about SPR in? All the time?

I only think about it when I'm trying to get my money in or trying to look like I'm trying to get my money in fwiw.

[Ragnar4]

Sure is a nice tool to have *in* my back pocket when I ask myself "Self; what's my opponents range" And I think to myself "Self, I have no fcking clue here... SPR it is then".

[Robb]

SPR is between 7bet bluffing and open-folding the river in my ranking of important poker topics

I lol'd.

Sure is a nice tool to have *in* my back pocket when I ask myself "Self; what's my opponents range" And I think to myself "Self, I have no fcking clue here... SPR it is then".

Having a clue what villain's range is in most spots is a nice tool to have in your back pocket, front pocket, book bag and stuffed down one sock, imo.

@IOPQ - I know you think you're joking...

[XTR1000]

I always thought its only relevant for planning bet sizes in relation to future actions.

[Ragnar4]

Sure is a nice tool to have *in* my back pocket when I ask myself "Self; what's my opponents range" And I think to myself "Self, I have no fcking clue here... SPR it is then".

Having a clue what villain's range is in most spots is a nice tool to have in your back pocket, front pocket, book bag and stuffed down one sock, imo.

You're right. But I'd say about 25% of the time I find myself in a spot where no matter how hard I think about it during the 30 second time frame I have, I can't nail down my opponents range. I have no idea what he's doing, or where he's at. I hope to get that 25% down to 0.001% of the time, and be awesome... like the good players. Not there yet, so it's good to have a fallback.

Better than always snapfolding because I don't know where I am, or overcommitting by simply trying to push my opponents off the pot because I'm lost in the hand. Because those were my 2 default plays.

My game was helped considerably by the SPR argument. But I just wanted to make sure I had it nailed down before I tried to commit it to the "fundamental, not really gonna talk about it" part of my game. So yeah, I've been all like "OMG SPR" for the last like 50 posts.

I guarantee you guys I'll be all like "OMG BALANCED RANGE?" Spenda will probably threaten to beat me with a stick at that point... When I'm trying to merge my ranges together in the higher levels of poker... assuming I ever get there.

[Micro2Macro]

SPR is between 7bet bluffing and open-folding the river in my ranking of important poker topics

+1

[HarleyGuy13]

I totally think about SPR when I'm reading that book thingy!

[bjsaust]

I like SPR insofar as setting up river bet sizes.

[jyms]

SPR wasn't meant to be a stand alone concept but a help in understanding why we do what we do preflop. It's meant to explain why certain hand combos are played certain ways and why we shouldn't be 3betting 67s IP against a donk that stacks off w/TP like he has the nuts. SPR is a means to an end, not the end of all your preflop/flop thoughts.

[Pelion]

I always thought its only relevant for planning bet sizes in relation to future actions.

Im here.

And for looking at implied odds, implied threat and reverse implied odds.

[Pelion]

Sure is a nice tool to have *in* my back pocket when I ask myself "Self; what's my opponents range" And I think to myself "Self, I have no fcking clue here... SPR it is then".

Having a clue what villain's range is in most spots is a nice tool to have in your back pocket, front pocket, book bag and stuffed down one sock, imo.

You're right. But I'd say about 25% of the time I find myself in a spot where no matter how hard I think about it during the 30 second time frame I have, I can't nail down my opponents range. I have no idea what he's doing, or where he's at. I hope to get that 25% down to 0.001% of the time, and be awesome... like the good players. Not there yet, so it's good to have a fallback.

Better than always snapfolding because I don't know where I am, or overcommitting by simply trying to push my opponents off the pot because I'm lost in the hand. Because those were my 2 default plays.

My game was helped considerably by the SPR argument. But I just wanted to make sure I had it nailed down before I tried to commit it to the "fundamental, not really gonna talk about it" part of my game. So yeah, I've been all like "OMG SPR" for the last like 50 posts.

I guarantee you guys I'll be all like "OMG BALANCED RANGE?" Spenda will probably threaten to beat me with a stick at that point... When I'm trying to merge my ranges together in the higher levels of poker... assuming I ever get there.

put him on a range
make your decision based on that range
get it wrong a lot and figure out why
get better at putting him on a range
repeat

itll do more for your game than "fuck it, ive got top pair and hes only shoving for twice the pot, call".

[kfaess]

Honestly, after reading half of PNLHE I thought SPR was just a way for the authors to add material to their book and have a concept no one's ever heard of. Just a way to sell more books imo.

[Ragnar4]

Ok, new thread direction, what's the highest level I should be able to beat being an SPR bot. If that was the only book i ever read, where would I peter out?

I beat 5nl right now, and according to some people here it's the only thing I know. Where will this amazingly limited skill that is somewhere between a 7 bet bluff, and openfolding the river get me?

I know both of those wouldn't get me out of 2nl.

[Erpel]

Calculate SPR -> consult chart -> take action = doing it wrong.

The one thing that struck me about the SPR coverage in PNL as powerful is not the rule of thumb (SPR of 4 with TPTK is often good enough to stack off) it's the stuff about how to calculate target SPRs against individual opponents and how against some opponents TPTK is only good enough to stack off with an SPR of 2 and against others it's good enough to stack off with an SPR of 7 or higher. It's these individual SPRs that underline that what SPR is only thought a useful tool if you can FIRST put your opponent on a range, consider his playing tendencies and then ask yourself - all things considered, am I +EV against his stack off range just getting it all in from here.

My SPR is <SPR>. Fuck that, who cares. What is your TARGET SPR for this situation and how do you arrive at it? Range range range, playing tendencies, reads, exploitable behaviour.

While you could argue that the book doesn't explain particularly well how to calculate a target SPR beyond a bit of vagueness about how experience helps if the content of the book is stringently digested I think it's obvious that the authors underline the importance of calculating an appropriate target SPR over knowing some rule of thumb numbers. It's just that the part that is explained clearly and easy to understand is the least valuable aspect of it.

So basically my first read was like this:
1) Ok, rule of thumb for TPTK is an SPR of 4 is good enough to commit and stack off.
2) That number should be modified based on player tendencies and reads, which has to do with ranges and lots of more complicated stuff that I don't get and could in a specific situation be as low as 2 or higher than 7.
3) That's too fucking complicated, I'll just use 4 and hope I'm not too wrong too often.
4) Forget all about the target SPR and the complexities that this was supposed to INTRODUCE me to

So yeah, if you just use SPR casually in a sentence there's a 90+% chance that you are using it with a superficial understanding of the concept in a way that if you back it with money will be found to be misapplied and just plain old wrong.

This is not to say SPR cannot be used correctly, but I think it's perfectly true that it's more often used wrong and seen to be used wrong than used right. Even when used correctly it sort of makes itself superfluous as ranges, playing tendencies and pot and stack sizes sort of cover the whole thing anyway.

In a sense SPR is as useful as the 15x (or 20x or 25x) rule for calling with pocket pairs to make a set. Any implied odds call is only justified if you ACTUALLY HAVE IMPLIED ODDS - it presupposes that your opponent is of a type who is likely to pay you off (with his whole stack no less) if you hit your hand. What if he'll never pay you off? Do you then have implied odds? It's like saying that this hand isn't good enough to call, but given a bit of fold equity it's good enough to raise, ignoring that in the present case we have zero fold equity. As any tool you need to understand how to apply it, but much more crucially you need to figure out WHEN to apply it, as applying it at the wrong time can be a costly mistake.

[Luco]

Did you know SPR also stands for Special Purpose Rifle, Saving Private Ryan and this little gem?

It also stands for Stop Prisoner Rape, an organization dedicated to ending sexual abuse in detention.

[Robb]

Ok, new thread direction, what's the highest level I should be able to beat being an SPR bot. If that was the only book i ever read, where would I peter out?

I beat 5nl right now, and according to some people here it's the only thing I know. Where will this amazingly limited skill that is somewhere between a 7 bet bluff, and openfolding the river get me?

I know both of those wouldn't get me out of 2nl.

I don't feel like this is the right question. What will get you to 200nl fastest? If you're interested in that question, maybe I could give some suggestions.

Shit, Robb, you're already at 200NL? You should give me some suggestions

[Ragnar4]

Ok, new thread direction, what's the highest level I should be able to beat being an SPR bot. If that was the only book i ever read, where would I peter out?

I beat 5nl right now, and according to some people here it's the only thing I know. Where will this amazingly limited skill that is somewhere between a 7 bet bluff, and openfolding the river get me?

I know both of those wouldn't get me out of 2nl.

I don't feel like this is the right question. What will get you to 200nl fastest? If you're interested in that question, maybe I could give some suggestions.

This wasn't meant as an "omg i'm too lazy to lrn ranges, becuz I'm too buzzy working as a manager at mcdonalds like spenda sez i are heheh... lawl, can I be a pro at pokarz if I memorize PNL"?

This was more of a think tank sort of exercise for those who are good at poker, and who understand the broad range of impacts that PNL presents to the table with SPR being the main --point-- of the book really.

If we created a bot that understood SPR perfectly, and all of its caveats as applied by every SPR dedicated publication to ever hit the market, how far could it go if that was the only thing about poker it understood? I guess is the better question here.

I have no clue what I need to learn to get to 200nl. But I'd imagine that ranges is probably #1 on my list of shit to learn.

[Robb]

Shit, Robb, you're already at 200NL? You should give me some suggestions

No, I'm at 100nl, but building some roll, having some fun and learning a bit. FWIW, I think your game is well-suited dominating to the TAGG-reg wars, whereas mine is well-suited to exploiting fish.

When you tilt me in the forums, it's when you discuss topics in the BC I feel are not essential to beating the micros.

Shit, Robb, you're already at 200NL? You should give me some suggestions

No, I'm at 100nl, but building some roll, having some fun and learning a bit. FWIW, I think your game is well-suited dominating to the TAGG-reg wars, whereas mine is well-suited to exploiting fish.

When you tilt me in the forums, it's when you discuss topics in the BC I feel are not essential to beating the micros.

then how can you give suggestions on getting to 200NL? You're not there, lol

[bjsaust]

I found using SPR to control my play at 50nl and 100nl after reading PNL hurt my game. I just lost too much value worrying about it. Maybe that was just my way of implementing it badly, who knows. Luckily I had a number of better players reviewing my hands who quite bluntly told me how much worse my game became after reading the book and got me back on the right track. I keep it simple now, if they have more hands in their range that will call/raise my bet that I'm ahead of than I'm behind then I bet. Works well. Just remember that b/f is the super-duperest move in NLHE.

I found using SPR to control my play at 50nl and 100nl after reading PNL hurt my game. I just lost too much value worrying about it. Maybe that was just my way of implementing it badly, who knows. Luckily I had a number of better players reviewing my hands who quite bluntly told me how much worse my game became after reading the book and got me back on the right track. I keep it simple now, if they have more hands in their range that will call/raise my bet that I'm ahead of than I'm behind then I bet. Works well. Just remember that b/f is the super-duperest move in NLHE.

when I started using SPR I stopped folding the best hand

[bjsaust]

Thats got a lot less to do with SPR and a lot more to do with equity and ranges.

Thats got a lot less to do with SPR and a lot more to do with equity and ranges.

How do you calculate equity on the flop/turn? Sure, your hot-and-cold equity is 35% and you're getting odds to call, but is that your real equity?

You can't pokerstove that.

[bjsaust]

Errm, one of us isnt understanding something here. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Errm, one of us isnt understanding something here. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

How do you calculate equity on the flop? Do you just pokerstove your opponent's range and say "I have 35%, I call" or what

true, that's your "equity" in this spot (or so says pokerstove), but that ignores the stack sizes/position on the later streets

[bjsaust]

We have a certain amount of equity v's a range at any point in the hand. As things change so does the range, and as the range changes so does our equity. Is that what you mean, that our equity can change?

We have a certain amount of equity v's a range at any point in the hand. As things change so does the range, and as the range changes so does our equity. Is that what you mean, that our equity can change?

I'm saying we change our play based on how much money we have behind
so it depends on the Stack and the Pot sizes how we play our hand
a definitely call could turn into a definite fold if we're deep

[bjsaust]

Ahh. I just consider that reverse implied odds and call it a day.

Ahh. I just consider that reverse implied odds and call it a day.

yes, but that's not all
SPR is closely related to "commitment"
as in, after a certain threshhold folding a strong hand is silly

like, if you have AJ and you raise on the flop and it's like JTx
you better call a 3b shove (for pot) because you committed yourself to the hand with your raise
we've discussed this hand in the forum before, and I'm pretty sure raise/folding AJ here is terribad against an aggressive opponent

if you go by commitment, you should either say "I'm not committed, I flat" or "I'm committed, I raise/call a 3b"
now that's something that I can look at as a "concept"

I don't even have enough information to make ranges because I didn't say what position these people were in or whether they were HU or at a full table
However, I can say that given the information we have we know that our opponent can shove KQ/Q9... that still doesn't give us enough information to make "ranges"

[bjsaust]

I get what you're saying, they still just come down to equity and ranges though. Commitment threshold (which is their main drive behind SPR) basically means dont get into a position where your equity is such that you'd consider folding with 3:1 odds. So I dont see folding AJ in that hand as being bad because of SPR, I see it as bad because if you think you're so far behind is 3-bet range that you need to fold with good odds, then raising in the first place was bad.

Same thing, just a different way of looking at it I guess.

I get what you're saying, they still just come down to equity and ranges though. Commitment threshold (which is their main drive behind SPR) basically means dont get into a position where your equity is such that you'd consider folding with 3:1 odds. So I dont see folding AJ in that hand as being bad because of SPR, I see it as bad because if you think you're so far behind is 3-bet range that you need to fold with good odds, then raising in the first place was bad.

Same thing, just a different way of looking at it I guess.

Of course! But you can't look at it in terms of ranges because it gets really complicated. Like if you change ONE variable like the stack sizes the ranges change. So you have to set up four ranges, {pf range}, {bet range}, {call a raise range}, {shove range} to analyse this situation, and if you change the stack sizes they all change
even preflop, he might have a lot more pps in his range the deeper he is, and more suited connectors

and to calculate ranges for each stack size is difficult and ONLY applicable to this one opponent (and the post-flop ranges are only applicable to this board)
a way to simplify these calculations is to calculate his ranges for a certain stack size
and then we can say "we're behind here when he has 120BB and the pot is 9BB on the flop", in other words when his SPR is 13.3

then we can calculate the break-even point where we don't care between flatting and shoving
let's say that is at 5.6 SPR (because we did all the range analysis)

now say we're involved in a different hand with him and the flop is QJ7ss and we have AQ and our SPR is 4
since we did the analysis for another board and it was profitable to play for stacks at 5.5 SPR, it's PROBABLY profitable to play for stacks here with an SPR of 4

that's the point - it simplifies really deep analysis.

[bjsaust]

I dunno, maybe I just do my ranges simplistically, but I generally just do them on the fly.

well if you do them simplistically, then sometimes SPR and commitment threshhold will give you a better answer than a very baseline range

[hopeful]

I have a real problem with the commitment idea. If i bet half of my stack pre flop with a good hand like KK. The the flop comes AQ3, because im comitted i should call of the rest of my stack ? I dont think so, why would i bet when i think im beat?

The only good thing i can say about Prof NLH book was after i read it i sold my copy on ebay for more than i paid for it.

[Luco]

As with everything in poker, there are exceptions to every rule. Passing the threshold chasing a draw is another example.

That's not to say that the commitment threshold doesn't bear thinking about though, and for many of us in the BC it's a great way to start planning ahead. I have issues with PNL too, but the chapter on commitment isn't one of them.

[bjsaust]

Everyone seems to forget the disclaimer that your commitment plan can change when circumstances change.

[Robb]

that's the point - it simplifies really deep analysis.

I can't believe you're willing to play a hand like AJo based totally on the SPR. It's like buying a car sight unseen based only on knowing the gear ratios in the transmission.

Maybe a deep analysis of engine, performance, options, and interior would get you a car you like better.

[elipsesjeff]

Wow what a bitch fest.

Jyms had the best post in here and I agree with him 100%.

I have to LOL @ spenda and whatever he says about SPR because if I'm right he's never read/opened PNL. I might be wrong though but I know he's just against it totally which doesn't make much sense to me. Its hard to argue with him though because he knows poker but doesn't really know the concept so I stopped trying.

As for PNL in general: I've always thought it was one of the better poker books out there for No Limit. There are some retarded things in there like always limp/reraising AA UTG or something because that's the only way to get our SPR down. Overall though I recommend the book a lot to my students who have problems with A) postflop bet sizing, B) knowing when/how to commit, C) just overall thinking through a hand. And at 50 NL or below a LOT of the players have these problems.

On a side note: I wonder how many people against SPR understand it totally and have read the book from front to back? Maybe you should have put that question in the OP so we know who is or isn't spewing from the mouth.

[daven]

On a side note: I wonder how many people against SPR understand it totally and have read the book from front to back? Maybe you should have put that question in the OP so we know who is or isn't spewing from the mouth.

hell, i wrote OP, and I am yet to open any poker book

[Robb]

Overall though I recommend the book a lot to my students who have problems with A) postflop bet sizing, B) knowing when/how to commit, C) just overall thinking through a hand. And at 50 NL or below a LOT of the players have these problems.

On a side note: I wonder how many people against SPR understand it totally and have read the book from front to back? Maybe you should have put that question in the OP so we know who is or isn't spewing from the mouth.

I got tons of help with A, B and C when I read the whole book cover to cover (twice). I'm not anti-SPR, I'm against using SPR without putting people on ranges. If you have no clue what opponents' ranges are, SPR is just a mathematically precise way to go busto.

that's the point - it simplifies really deep analysis.

I can't believe you're willing to play a hand like AJo based totally on the SPR. It's like buying a car sight unseen based only on knowing the gear ratios in the transmission.

Maybe a deep analysis of engine, performance, options, and interior would get you a car you like better.

when did I say I'm playing AJo based on SPR?

What I did say is that when I hit top pair I'm not going to be raise/folding the flop because the SPR would tell me I'm committed after the first raise I make
so if I'm not committed I'm just going to flat

[Robb]

when did I say I'm playing AJo based on SPR?

like, if you have AJ and you raise on the flop and it's like JTx
you better call a 3b shove (for pot) because you committed yourself to the hand with your raise

I'm playing top pair top kicker based on SPR
the decision started on the flop

[Robb]

I'm playing top pair top kicker based on SPR
the decision started on the flop

You say that now. FWIW, it's not what you said then.

I'm playing top pair top kicker based on SPR
the decision started on the flop

You say that now. FWIW, it's not what you said then.

no, I didn't even say what the SPR was because we didn't know
it's a related concept called "commitment" where if a 3b is a shove we should probably only raise hands for value that we're going to felt