|
You're assuming that polarizing your range here is correct!
I had to go into the tank to think about this over. Here come some ramblings from my rudimentary poker brain.
Simplifying the concept of polarized ranges, it means taking a certain action which splits our range into two strength groups, commonly nuts/air. Taking the same line part of the time with air as with the nuts prevents opponents from being able to play perfectly against us. I would say that in such games as this 1-1 live game you often sit at tables where most players aren't thinking beyond level 0, in which case it's silly to think about range balancing, because they won't exploit you. But on the other hand I've also noticed that in live games, players who seem to be winning and playing noticeably different from the others (tighter, more aggro) get noticed and remembered, and barring the worst of the whales out there, even pretty bad players will take note when you're e.g. potting 3 streets only ever for value and start adjusting, i.e. folding their weak top pair hand to a second barrel.
Or maybe I'm now giving these players too much credit for being able to adjust like that - when I took down several multiway pots preflop when I 3bet for value in this session I had to think that at least some of them were adjusting to my pretty unbalanced 3betting range (basically a pure value range, as wide as I deemed appropriate). But on the other hand, I think at least some of the players were simply playing like bots preflop - the read somewhere that certain hands you can call one bet with PF, but gotta fold to a 3bet, and that's exactly what they do, and not really anything to do with my perceived range. I suppose it's most likely a combination of both factors in reality.
Anyway back to the situation at hand, assuming we're polarizing our PF 3bet range, we'd 3bet our nut/value hands and hands that aren't profitable enough to call with, but have some sort of value postflop should we get called (the C range, as per Renton theorem). I guess that's what drmcboy meant about J7s instead of KQs, the latter of which is certainly profitable to call with.
Fnord, since you're implying polarizing here would be incorrect, I can only conclude that you mean to say we should a) widen our value range to include KQs, screw balance, or b) something to do with merging ranges? Range merging isn't a concept I've really digested fully so I can't really write anything fruitful here but my feeling is that the opponents here aren't thinking on a level where any of that is relevant at all? Or maybe you mean option c) which hasn't dawned on me yet.
|