12-31-2010 01:13 PM
#1
| |
| |
12-31-2010 01:35 PM
#2
| |
| |
12-31-2010 01:41 PM
#3
| |
A polarized range included hands that are either strong or weak, with nothing in the middle. Like | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-31-2010 at 01:55 PM. | |
12-31-2010 02:03 PM
#4
| |
Maybe I should clarify that our ranges are the same *after* he checks. | |
| |
12-31-2010 02:06 PM
#5
| |
| |
12-31-2010 02:12 PM
#6
| |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-31-2010 at 02:15 PM. | |
12-31-2010 02:21 PM
#7
| |
Hey you should come to IRC (click the link in my signature). We're discussing this atm: | |
| |
12-31-2010 02:26 PM
#8
| |
|
FTR's dictionary definition of exploit. |
12-31-2010 03:06 PM
#9
| |
|
mIRC 1 Openside 0 |
01-01-2011 01:01 AM
#10
| |
So say after he checks his and our range are [0,1] with 0 the strongest hand, and let's say opp's calling range is [0,0.5]. | |
| |
01-03-2011 08:10 AM
#11
| |
I'll take a stab at this. | |
| |
01-03-2011 01:16 PM
#12
| |
So you're saying that if we bet 1 combo of bluffs and 10 combos of hands that each beat our opponent's calling range that we are break even against his calling range? | |
| |
01-03-2011 02:01 PM
#13
| |
01-03-2011 03:03 PM
#14
| |
| |
01-03-2011 03:23 PM
#15
| |
| |
01-03-2011 03:42 PM
#16
| |
01-03-2011 03:52 PM
#17
| |
I'm not saying you're wrong, or anything. | |
| |
01-03-2011 04:00 PM
#18
| |
"Polarized" just means the top and bottom of your range. It doesn't say anything about the ratio of the top to the bottom. | |
01-03-2011 04:18 PM
#19
| |
| |
01-03-2011 04:59 PM
#20
| |
I see. So to polarize or not to polarize... then I guess it boils down to whether or not we want to check back our medium strength hands? And the matter of balancing strong vs. weak (if we polarize) isn't pertinent. | |
01-03-2011 06:26 PM
#21
| |
| |
01-03-2011 07:27 PM
#22
| |
| |
01-03-2011 09:18 PM
#23
| |
01-03-2011 10:20 PM
#24
| |
01-04-2011 01:21 AM
#25
| |
Right, but there is a case where we won't be betting a polarized range in the scenario described in the OP. Can anyone figure out what it is? | |
| |
01-04-2011 02:07 AM
#26
| |
|
A range becomes polarized when very few hands can be bet profitably for value. I dont care if villains range is the same as mine, i just care if their calling range is wide enough for me to bet several hands for value. |
01-04-2011 02:13 AM
#27
| |
| |
Last edited by Mr. Bucket; 01-04-2011 at 02:19 AM. | |
01-04-2011 04:22 AM
#28
| |
| |
01-04-2011 02:04 PM
#29
| |
this is probably wrong but here goes nothing- | |
01-04-2011 02:45 PM
#30
| |
If he's folding 95%, why not just bet your entire range? | |
01-04-2011 05:34 PM
#31
| |
Because some hands will still be more +EV to check with than to bet with. | |
| |
01-04-2011 06:07 PM
#32
| |
01-04-2011 06:28 PM
#33
| |
|
we bet our middle strength hands for thin value because villain bluff raises a really high frequency, and just calls with most of his strong hands? |
01-04-2011 06:31 PM
#34
| |
01-04-2011 06:36 PM
#35
| |
|
yours relies that villain calls with busted draws tho right? i mean i get turning hands that usually have more value in checking vs most opponents into a bet because of wide calls, but isn't there like always a point where it will be better to check back part of our range vs that opponent? and once we do its kinda still polarisation even though we're checking back mostly bluffs (i still usually have bluffs here because even stations fold busted draws) and hands that have a little tiny bit of showdown value. I agree with your response and that was why i really haven't contributed much to this thread ;(. |
Last edited by Imthenewfish; 01-04-2011 at 07:55 PM. | |
01-04-2011 07:06 PM
#36
| |
| |