A Framework for Poker Study

Introduction
Recently I have put some thought into strategies for studying poker, in particular NLHE. It is
frequently said that there are too many variables involved in the play of a hand for anything
resembling a formulaic, component-by-component analysis to be practical. I agree with this,
and agree that in even the simplest cases (short-stack push/fold calculations, for example),
there is a significant margin for error in the final result which is due to necessarily imprecise
assumptions about an opponents ranges.
So even if a poker hand is one giant math problem, complete with game theoretic opponents
who do a, b, and c x%, y%, and z% of the time, its an unsolvable problem. That said, I think
a lot can be learned from thinking about poker hands in terms of their component variables,
from thinking about the structure of that giant math problem and how it could be solved if it
were solvable. This essay is my attempt to categorize and analyze those components. I call it a
framework for poker study, because I think that one good approach to getting better is to
spend time away from the table focused on these component variables one at a time, in order
to be better prepared to think through all of the relevant information when faced with
decisions at the table.
Core Ideas
There are three core ideas with which I assume everyone is familiar the concepts of pot
equity and Expected Value (EV), Sklanskys Fundamental Theorem of Poker, and what I will
call hand range calculus.
Pot equity and EV are functions of basic probability and govern every action in a poker game.
Your hand has some % chance of winning the pot, the pot contains some amount of money, so
you have a claim of some part of the pot. Every bet you make is an investment; you should
bet when your expected return from the bet is larger than the cost of the bet. The FTOP
formalizes how to maximize your return in the special case of complete information; every
time you make a bet that maximizes expectation versus your opponents actual hand, you win,
every time your opponent fails to maximize his expectation given your actual hand, you win.
Hand range calculus, which is the form most analyses take on these forums, acknowledges
that poker is actually a game of incomplete information, and attempts to define best actions in
terms of maximizing expectation versus the range of possible hands your opponent could
have, in light of the range of hands it is likely he thinks you have.
Because in every case, both you and your opponent have a specific hand, the FTOP is still the
final theoretical measure of what is profitable or unprofitable action. In practice, however, we
work with incomplete information; thus poker skill is a combination of the ability to make
best decisions within the context of hand range calculus and the ability to read your
opponents ranges better than they read yours.
Situational Factors
We all know that the proper play of a hand and the correct read on an opponents range
depends on a lot of situational factors. I think we are accustomed to thinking about these
factors in the context of whatever particular hand we are playing or analyzing, where many
relatively small factors accumulate to a read and a decision. The framework for study that I

suggest in this essay (and which I am following myself) is to separate the most important
situational factors and analyze them individually. The factors I want to talk about are position,
board texture, betting patterns, betting frequencies, pot size in relation to stack size (there are
two others Im not going to cover but that I want to mention table image, and bet sizing,
table image because it is obviously so important, and bet sizing because I find it interesting.
Maybe another time, this will be long enough as is). All of these factors are interrelated, but
by isolating them I hope to get a better sense of the role each plays in the core goal we're all
seeking - to maximize EV versus an opponents range and know his range better than he
knows yours.
Position
The most familiar, most analyzed, and easiest to understand situational factor is position.
Hand ranges automatically widen with better position. Not only does someone in position
have fewer people left to act and more information on that particular round, they and their
out-of-position opponents have the knowledge that the player with position on this round will
have position on future rounds. So CO and Button preflop raising ranges are much wider, and
in-position bettors on the postflop streets usually have wider ranges. A 20/12 is 7/5 UTG and
40/25 on the button, or whatever; if you check the flop first to act in a three way pot,
independent of any other knowledge, the Button is more likely to bet than the guy in the
middle; etc. I dont think much more needs to be said about this, as it is already built into
every thought any of us has about the game. If position was all I had to talk about, this essay
wouldnt be very useful. Onward.
Board Texture
This one is more interesting, and might make clearer what Im getting at with the isolating
situational factors idea. Imagine a heads up raised pot with a dry ace-high flop, Axy rainbow.
Youve probably played hundreds of hands that fit this description, thousands, maybe. What
percentage of the time does one of the two players have an ace? How often can one of them
beat AK? How often does someone bet this flop with less than an ace? If you are called the
raise and are in position, what percentage of the time should you expect an honest opponent to
bet into you? How much more frequently than honest does he have to bet before you can
exploit him by representing the ace? Theres a whole game theory problem right here, on this
simple board where the only hands people should have to continue are TPTK-TPGK, sets,
pocket pairs, and the rare two pair.
What about a medium two-tone flop, the kind with straight draws (T85 or 974). Now there are
lots of draws, combo draws, still sets, there are always sets, but now if you get action that
looks like a set, it might be a draw instead. What does a bet mean on this flop? How different
is that from what a bet means on an A-high flop? How often does someone betting this flop
have no pair? Compare a raiser betting this flop to the A-high flop how often should he bet,
how often should he get called, raised?
Raised pot again, now K-high. Raiser is going to rep the K a lot, but have it less often than he
has the A on the A-high flop. How often should an honest raiser bet the flop, allowing for
bluffing as long as it isnt done too frequently? How frequently is that?
Paired board, like J88, or JJ8. Now there are only 5 cards that could have hit the board,
instead of 9. Pocket pairs are stronger, the monsters are in plain sight. Same questions - how
often should this flop be bet, by what hands, how easy or hard is it to push someone off a

mediocre hand? Etc. etc.

How many flop textures are there? Dozens, hundreds even, and they all blend into each other,
but questions like how often should the preflop raiser bet the ace, and how fast should JJ
play on a T85 two tone board are things that are partly determined simply by the kinds and
number of hands that can like a given flop.
Betting Patterns
Because NLHE is a game where you can bet any amount at any time, it could feel like there
are a ton of ways to build a pot. In fact, especially among decent players, the same patterns
repeat themselves over and over. Think about how often a hand plays out like this: preflop
raise, call. Raiser bets, call. Raiser checks, caller bets, raiser folds. Or, raiser in position,
checked to the raiser, bet/call, turn goes check/check, OOP bets, raiser folds. Or, raiser OOP,
bet/call, check/check, bet/fold. Or bet/call, check/check, bet/call. Or bet/raise/call,
check/bet/fold. Or, checked to raiser, raiser bets, check-raise, raiser folds.
Its easiest to categorize headsup pots this way, but patterns repeat themselves in multiway
pots also. Some patterns are more common than others. What I suggest is that thinking about
these patterns and the frequency with which they occur is instructive, for two reasons. One,
the patterns that occur most frequently are also the patterns that match the most frequently
occurring situations (weak to moderately strong hands building and contesting a small to
medium-sized pot). Two, the majority of profit comes from creating large pots with big hands,
which is easiest to get away with if done quietly. Especially against good players, this can be
very difficult.
Betting Frequencies
Under betting patterns I was talking about an observers view of all participants in a hand,
here Im referring to the frequency with which individuals bet, call, fold, and raise. There are
big meta-theory questions here, like what % of the time should a preflop raiser bet the flop (or
optimal frequencies for any action sequence), but I am more talking about things like what %
of the time do I (or this opponent, or that opponent) bet the turn after having bet the flop and
being called? What % do I bet three streets in a row? What % do I bet two streets then
check/fold? What % of the time do I check-raise the flop, then bet the turn? Do I ever checkraise the flop, then check the turn? How often do I call three barrels? How often do I follow
up my turn bet with a river bet?
Clearly, the board often changes from flop to turn and turn to river. If the draw hits, and you
know 100% that your opponent was drawing, you should check/fold, and no frequency
mumbo-jumbo changes that. But since some of the time you should bet the flop with that
obvious draw and some of the time your opponent is calling without it, then some of the time,
you should follow up when it hits on the turn (whether you have it or not). Etc. These are the
things you start thinking about when you think about action frequencies.
Are there optimal frequencies for all of these? Maybe, sort of, in a game-theoretic, perfectlyplaying opponent sense. Pots grow exponentially, so maybe in theory we should bet the flop
75% of the time we raise, bet the turn 25% of the times were called and 50% of the time the
flop checks through, and bet the river 10% of the time the turn is called and 20% of the time
the turn checks through, all with appropriate bluffs mixed in. In practice, we set these
frequencies to exploit specific opponents, but I think analyzing these questions in general can

help us understand how to do that.

Pot Size/Stack Size Dynamic
100xBB stacks. Limpy McLimper limps in front of you. He does this with 20% of his hands
and he never raises. You have two cards and raise. He calls and you see a flop with 9 BB in
the pot. How strong a hand do you need to play for 100BB? For 50? For 25? Too broad a
question? Dependent on too many other factors? Yes, of course. But contrast: Same 100xBB
stacks. Raisy McRaiser raises in front of you. He does this with 20% of his hands and he
never limps. You reraise with the same two cards, he calls (he calls raises as often as Limpy).
27 BB in the pot. Now how strong do you have to be to play for it all? What size pot should
you play, on average, with one pair? With a big draw?
The only difference is that the pot is a bigger percentage of the stack. With more to fight for,
peoples ranges for postflop actions necessarily should change toward being more aggressive.
If your opponents dont make this adjustment, exploit them reraise a lot, then play
aggressively, let them fold too much. If they do make this adjustment, you have to adjust with
them in reraised pots. Go broke with AA against Limpy, youre usually a fish, against Raisy,
probably not.
The point is not that there is a formula for proper size pot with xx on flop abc in terms of
preflop pot size AA is worth 3x preflop pot size. Clearly there isnt. There may be times to
fold a set in a reraised pot and times to felt middle pair in a limped pot. But on every flop, you
should be able to look at the pot size, look at the stack sizes, and have some general idea of
what kind of hands should be willing to play for how much. Sure, that general idea has to be
adjusted based on all of the other situational factors, but it plays its role too.
Obviously, in MTTs, pot/stack dynamic is always present because of increasing blinds and
variance in the size of opponents stacks. I find the 30-40xBB range particularly interesting,
because it is a time when raisers with one pair have a hard time folding, but callers with
speculative hands still have odds to call and try to outflop (also because allin reraises are too
overaggressive in this stage and easily exploitable). This generates a cat-and-mouse game
where you have to accompany the raising hands you do plan to go broke with hands you dont
plan to go broke with in order to deny implied odds to speculative hands. But do too much of
this, and you become vulnerable to preflop reraises. Also, in MTT's, a significant shift in pot
size/stack size ratio happens when antes are introduced. There is more to fight for, so ranges
change and more aggressive play is rewarded. In cash games, where stacks are usually 100x
and there aren't antes, this dynamic shows up more in the differences between limped pots,
raised pots, and reraised pots.
All this theory in practice
A short, simple example. Someone raises UTG+1, Button calls, you call in the BB with 55.
The flop contains a 5. Before you say lead or check, you have to consider
-the range the raiser raises from that position
-how likely the particular flop is to have hit that range (AQ5? T85? 522?)
-what betting pattern is most likely to create a large pot without tipping anyone off that you
want a large pot
-how likely the raiser is bet the flop if checked to, raise if bet into, how likely the other caller
is to be trapped with a marginal hand, how often the raiser will follow up on the turn with a

marginal hand, how often hell give up the lead if you show flop aggression, etc., etc.
-what the stack sizes are and how likely your opponents are to have a hand that is willing to
play a large pot.
All I am arguing in this essay is you will be better prepared to make the best decisions if you
have thought independently about how different board textures play, about the amount of
strength different betting patterns represent, about how to play versus different betting
frequencies, about how ranges and betting frequencies change in vs out of position, and so on.
Clearly, there are plenty of other factors that I didnt discuss, like table image, what various
bet sizes mean, how sure you are that you're ahead (or behind), how easily you can improve,
how vulnerable your hand is to the type of hands that are willing to play with you, how likely
you are to end up paying off a second best hand if someone catches you. I dont pretend this
covers everything it could cover, or even close, but this is what Im thinking about right now.
I hope this is useful/thought-provoking to some of you, and that some of the many of you who
are better than me will take the time to comment.