<@spoonitnow> so hu on the river it's checked to us
<@spoonitnow> we have a similar range as our opponent
<@spoonitnow> should our betting range be polarized y/n
Printable View
<@spoonitnow> so hu on the river it's checked to us
<@spoonitnow> we have a similar range as our opponent
<@spoonitnow> should our betting range be polarized y/n
Premise: i'm assuming polarised means betting our made hands/draws and not what missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
No. Our betting range should not be polarized bc our play then becomes exploitable.
A polarized range included hands that are either strong or weak, with nothing in the middle. Like
<--bet---|---check---|---bet-->
Additionally, the argument "I shouldn't do ________ because it makes me exploitable" fails logically because by definition exploiting someone makes you exploitable, so an equivalent statement would be "I shouldn't do ________ because it's exploiting someone".
So let's try something else instead.
Maybe I should clarify that our ranges are the same *after* he checks.
I disagree. Exploiting somebody only makes you exploitable if you always do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Can we infer that if the villains range is similar to ours that their betting range is polarised, i.e their hand is neither strong nor weak?
It doesn't matter if you agree, that's how exploitation is defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Openside
And no, all you can infer from the information given for this scenario is that after your opponent checks, you and he have similar ranges.
Hey you should come to IRC (click the link in my signature). We're discussing this atm:
<@spoonitnow> btw
<@spoonitnow> exploitation implies being exploitable
<@spoonitnow> but being exploitable doesn't imply that you're exploiting
<@spoonitnow> when someone challenges me on that i have a great example
<@spoonitnow> it's so logically clear and can't be argued against
<@spoonitnow> suppose in some hu game hero and villain are both playing unexploitably
<@spoonitnow> now hero makes a change in his strategy and is exploitable
<@spoonitnow> he can't be exploiting villain b/c villain is playing unexploitably
<@spoonitnow> bam
FTR's dictionary definition of exploit.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
"Taking advantage of one of your opponent's weaknesses. The most common example is to value bet your strong hands versus calling stations.
Example: I love to exploit the BB's tightness, I just raise every orbit and he always folds."
My point is if you react the same way to the same situation you are exploitable. If you don't react the same way to the same situation then you are not exploitable.
In the above example if the Hero is making himself exploitable by "raising every orbit", a pattern that can be perceived. If the BB has two brain cells he will 4bet/shove over the top.
mIRC 1 Openside 0
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].
If we bet a non polarized [0,0.5] and he calls with [0,0.5] our equity vs his calling range is 50%, same as if we checked behind. He does not make a mistake by folding [0.5,1] and he does not make a mistake calling with [0,0.5].
If we bet a polarized [0,0.25]U[0.75,1] then he makes a mistake by calling when we have [0,0.25] and he makes a mistake by folding when we have [0.75,1].
So just looking at possible mistakes from opp, I'd say yes, we should bet a polarized range. Seems to me the situation is very similar to that of the half street fixed limit game we looked at a while ago. We could do the same math to calculate a polarized betting range knowing that his calling range is [0,x_1]
I'll take a stab at this.
I think betting with a polarized range is neutral EV, no matter what villain's calling range looks like. If he's calling wide, then the top of our range gets a lot of value, but the bottom of our range is -EV to bet. Conversely, if he's calling narrowly, then the bottom of our range steals a lot of equity, but the top of our range loses value relative to what it would have if we just checked back. The middle of our range beats his bottom 33% of the time, loses to his top 33%, and flips against his middle 33%. So also neutral EV when we check that back.
I think polarizing is fine if we don't have a good idea of what villain's calling range is since it's technically never a mistake. If we do have some idea of what he'll call with, then we can exploit it some other way.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
No. But is that polarizing?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So since it's neutral EV, wouldn't the answer be "no, we shouldn't be polarizing our range" then?
--assuming there's a +ev option out there.
Forgive me if I'm being dense. I thought a polarized betting range would be something like 5 bluffs and 5 strong hands, not 1 and 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant. If you know what the +ev option is. Otherwise, you can fall back on the neutral EV option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
I'm not saying you're wrong, or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
I'm just saying that's the answer to Spoons Question. All things being equal, there is probabyl a +ev choice, a neutral ev choice and a - ev choice. We should strive for the + ev choice.
Although Poker is one of those batshit crazy games where you're stuck with neutral ev or -ev as your only options every once in a while, and in that case you take the neutral ev.
"Polarized" just means the top and bottom of your range. It doesn't say anything about the ratio of the top to the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
If the villain only calls with the nuts and second nuts, and folds 100 other combos in his range -- you wouldn't bet a polarized range? And you don't think that would be +++EV?Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
Who said it's neutral EV?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
Nope, it can be any number of each as long as it's strong hands and weak hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
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.
Well I still think checking back the middle of our range is neutral EV. It only makes sense to bet if we think villain will call with worse or fold better. This kind of reminds me of the KK on an A high flop problem. In this case we have no context, so it's hard to say, but I doubt many people ever c/c a river with the bottom of their range. Maybe sometimes they c/f the top of their range, but that also seems unlikely. Betting the middle of your range seems pretty bad. So I suppose it only makes sense to polarize.
could you clarify the bolded part? and isn't betting only our value hands another option? our range doesn't need to be polarized/depolarized hereQuote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
No, it's +EV. There are no cases where we lose money, but there are cases where we win money, so the EV > 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
Ah, indeed. Well all the more reason not to bet that part of your range.
The bottom part of our range should have more value as bluffs.
The middle part of our range doesn't make good bluffs or value bets.
The top part of our range we bet for value of course.
Is that what you meant, spoon?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by couriermike
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.
Srry just saw ur response.
We wont be betting polarized if he calls wide. Otherwise our betting range is monsters and bluffs.
Notice even if villain folds 95% which causes us to bet a huge range we are still polarized because our betting range will consist of only our very nut hands and bluffs.
How wide? And why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bucket
this is probably wrong but here goes nothing-
If villain is a station we obviously do not want to polarize our range because he will call off all of our bluffs, and our middle strength hands become hands we can go for thin value with.
If he's folding 95%, why not just bet your entire range?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bucket
Because some hands will still be more +EV to check with than to bet with.Quote:
Originally Posted by grnydrowave2
If the villain will call with his entire range, because then our betting range should not include any bluffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
i like mine betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Imthenewfish
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 ;(.Quote:
Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics
Well that's a specific example, but the answer is any time we decide not to have a bluffing range.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo