Whoops, I squeezed with KJo OOP

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

Not necessarily. If you are really bad at playing a hand like KJo postflop OOP, then it might actually be better to 3 bet here with 62o. I can think of several such players.

then those players should just close their eyes and pretend they have 26o, then check it down when possible and they will be good more often than when they have 26o !

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

actually, i have to point out that this is incorrect gabe.

if you always want a hand w/ higher equity when you 3bet, then your 3betting range should only consist of premium hands.

if your 3betting range only consists of premium hands then you are going to be very readable and exploitable by thinking opponents.

Of course I'd prefer to be 3betting w/ AA at any particular time I'm 3betting, but i don't win as much when villain doesn't know that 34s+ and 77+ are in my range.

lol i normally wouldnt have said anything, but the way you respond to posts, you kinda asked for it. (i hope you realize this is all in good fun)

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

actually, i have to point out that this is incorrect gabe.

if you always want a hand w/ higher equity when you 3bet, then your 3betting range should only consist of premium hands.

if your 3betting range only consists of premium hands then you are going to be very readable and exploitable by thinking opponents.

Of course I'd prefer to be 3betting w/ AA at any particular time I'm 3betting, but i don't win as much when villain doesn't know that 34s+ and 77+ are in my range.

lol i normally wouldnt have said anything, but the way you respond to posts, you kinda asked for it. (i hope you realize this is all in good fun)

I figure I might as well chyme in on this thread too!

I think I can respond to what Gabe was saying. I don't think he was saying we ALWAYS want to 3-bet with only higher equity hands (as in, whenever we 3-bet, we have a premium hand).

Instead, he was saying, if we had a CHOICE of 3-betting with a hand like 23o OR a hand like KJ that we should ALWAYS choose the hand with higher equity (ie: KJ).

Just because we would prefer the higher equity hand, doesn't mean we also won't 3-bet with worse hands, which we obviously will as well.

didn't i address that issue in my original post?

...the purpose of it was more just to needle gabe

Originally Posted by Marshall28

didn't i address that issue in my original post?

...the purpose of it was more just to needle gabe

you don't want to needle gabe, trust me. He's our hero and everyone will hate you for it.

Originally Posted by gabe

then those players should just close their eyes and pretend they have 26o, then check it down when possible and they will be good more often than when they have 26o !

Booom!

Originally Posted by Marshall28

if you always want a hand w/ higher equity when you 3bet, then your 3betting range should only consist of premium hands.

When we have KK we would prefer to have AA. Does that mean we shouldnt 3bet KK?

Originally Posted by Massimo

Originally Posted by Marshall28

didn't i address that issue in my original post?

...the purpose of it was more just to needle gabe

you don't want to needle gabe, trust me. He's our hero and everyone will hate you for it.

lol it wouldnt be any different from liquidpoker then cuz everybody hates me there. at least i will be hated for a fun reason over here.


and pelion ... yeah, whatever u said, thats right.

As far as i know noones hating you here. Were just trying to expain a fairly important concept that you obviously just dont get. I think you need to read through this thread a few times and think about what people are saying rather than thinking about ways to argue about it that dont really make alot of sense.

nice discussion guys, ive been looking for a good polarizing range thread for a while. if anyone knows of others, a link would be appreciated.

will, if you check in my blog i have a post where i do an in depth analysis of a hand where i polarize my range into tricking my opponent into jamming on me w/ air, u might wanna check it out. it's the very first post titled "hand analysis" or something like that, and the post on "timing tells" follows up w/ extra info on it.

Originally Posted by gabe

then those players should just close their eyes and pretend they have 26o, then check it down when possible and they will be good more often than when they have 26o !

EXACTLY what I was thinking, but didn't write it because we can certainly give much better advice to novice players.

I already wrote that c/f all streets might be the best strategy in this situation assuming competent opponents. That may or may not have been the case here, but I'm not quite sure what OP means with 'tagfish'. If villain called three streets with mediocre holdings, then I don't see how we can call him tight and aggressive (albeit bad).

Originally Posted by pocketfours

Originally Posted by gabe

then those players should just close their eyes and pretend they have 26o, then check it down when possible and they will be good more often than when they have 26o !

EXACTLY what I was thinking, but didn't write it because we can certainly give much better advice to novice players.

Same. I wish id said it now . Im still taking credit

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

actually, i have to point out that this is incorrect gabe.

if you always want a hand w/ higher equity when you 3bet, then your 3betting range should only consist of premium hands.

if your 3betting range only consists of premium hands then you are going to be very readable and exploitable by thinking opponents.

Of course I'd prefer to be 3betting w/ AA at any particular time I'm 3betting, but i don't win as much when villain doesn't know that 34s+ and 77+ are in my range.

lol i normally wouldnt have said anything, but the way you respond to posts, you kinda asked for it. (i hope you realize this is all in good fun)

no its not incorrect. like griffey said, if you have the choice between KJ and 26o TAKE KJo EVERYTIME OMG (obviously excluding metagame stuff like if them knowing you always have KJ here).

"lol i normally wouldnt have said anything, but the way you respond to posts, you kinda asked for it"

o m g this is tilting me. i really think you are a dumbass if you think you pointed out anything worthwhile in that post.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

didn't i address that issue in my original post?

...the purpose of it was more just to needle gabe

oh wiat

so you were posting wrong stuff just to needle me? or do you actually think you were right?

i think the reason's marshall posts make me so mad is that he has this attitude where he convinces himself that he is right and its impossible for anyone to convince him otherwise

Originally Posted by Marshall28

you defined the two terms identically, just as i did previously in this thread.

Polarized = monster or bluff (iow, top of range and bottom of range with nothing in between)
Merged = monster or bluff or marginal (iow, entire range)

Identical?

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

We come across a problem here when it comes to weaker players. Polarization addresses it and is really the main reason for any theorized plus ev of polarization over merged, which Marshall has pointed out (the thread has gone in a different direction though).

Obviously, we'd rather have AA instead of 26. If we're not idiots then the hands play themselves, but the less polarized in strength hands get the more difficult they are to play postflop. KJ has more equity than 26 so by your logic it is always a better hand to 3bet (which I believe is right, I just don't completely understand why). Problem is, for a lot of us who are good but not great, when 3betting 26 plays itself while KJ does not. With 26 we pretty much always know where we're at. But with KJ it is much more difficult to tell. Because our analyses of opponents ranges is never precise and is often quite a bit off, we could be fucking ourselves by merging our range instead of polarizing it.

Of course, optimal is simply to just get better so we can read and play better and we can play better with marginal hands, but if we're not able to then polarization may actually be better in isolation.

Let's say we're playing against a guy who calls 3bets with nothing weaker than KQ AJ yet we don't know it. Isn't 3betting him with 26 better than with KJ since because our reads are incorrect (even though we're trying) we will be in very tough and expensive spots and thus make neg ev plays with KJ postflop whereas with 26 we will not nearly as often?

But you cant work from information you dont have yet. If you adjust to that then you end up playing badly against everyone else.

Whats the difference between your example and this...


We have KK. Villain is opens and is playing in a way that we *know* his range is AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT. Villain happens to have AA. Is it better to 3bet 26o than KK here? Yes. Does it fuck us over long term if we start 3betting 26o and folding KK? also yes.

Originally Posted by pocketfours

Originally Posted by gabe

then those players should just close their eyes and pretend they have 26o, then check it down when possible and they will be good more often than when they have 26o !

I already wrote that c/f all streets might be the best strategy in this situation assuming competent opponents. That may or may not have been the case here, but I'm not quite sure what OP means with 'tagfish'. If villain called three streets with mediocre holdings, then I don't see how we can call him tight and aggressive (albeit bad).

Just to clarify P4s, when I said tagfish I was referring to the SB who ended up folding earlier in the hand.

Originally Posted by gabe

i think the reason's marshall posts make me so mad is that he has this attitude where he convinces himself that he is right and its impossible for anyone to convince him otherwise

lol u are layin it on thick gabe, u know u love me and my posts.

between you and me, we both know i know crap : )

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

We come across a problem here when it comes to weaker players. Polarization addresses it and is really the main reason for any theorized plus ev of polarization over merged, which Marshall has pointed out (the thread has gone in a different direction though).

Obviously, we'd rather have AA instead of 26. If we're not idiots then the hands play themselves, but the less polarized in strength hands get the more difficult they are to play postflop. KJ has more equity than 26 so by your logic it is always a better hand to 3bet (which I believe is right, I just don't completely understand why). Problem is, for a lot of us who are good but not great, when 3betting 26 plays itself while KJ does not. With 26 we pretty much always know where we're at. But with KJ it is much more difficult to tell. Because our analyses of opponents ranges is never precise and is often quite a bit off, we could be fucking ourselves by merging our range instead of polarizing it.

Of course, optimal is simply to just get better so we can read and play better and we can play better with marginal hands, but if we're not able to then polarization may actually be better in isolation.

Let's say we're playing against a guy who calls 3bets with nothing weaker than KQ AJ yet we don't know it. Isn't 3betting him with 26 better than with KJ since because our reads are incorrect (even though we're trying) we will be in very tough and expensive spots and thus make neg ev plays with KJ postflop whereas with 26 we will not nearly as often?

wufwugy, i think i figured out why we keep misinterpreting each other. i could be way off, but i think when you are referring to the difference between polarizing or merging your range, you are considering the cards/hand you are actually holding to be different for the two.

when i talk about polarizing my range, all im talking about is the line im taking, its a line that is characteristic of either a monster hand or a bluff, im not taking into consideration the actual cards im doing it with. this is why i was like "well duh merge range ... polarize range, its all the same" ... u get what i mean?

yea that isnt what it means.

Its really just a progression.

We start playing monster lines with monsters and folding air. We realise we get alot of folds with monster lines.

polarising your range = playing a monster line with monster hands and some air.

Opponents start to call with "bluff catchers" because now bluff catchers are in your range.

Merging your range = sometimes taking monster lines with monsters + air + medium strength hands that are better than bluff catchers. We now get value from bluff catchers and are much more dangerous to play against.

pelion : based on your definition i always merge my ranges and i never polarize them. i guess part of my confusion about it was the fact that i never read about it until after i had discovered it was a good way to get value from players thinking im bluffing by taking a strong line, so i just picked the term polarizing since i felt like that seemed to fit like the idea of what i was doing ...

so yeah, i never polarize, always merge, based on your definition

reply #100

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Originally Posted by Pelion

But you cant work from information you dont have yet. If you adjust to that then you end up playing badly against everyone else.

Whats the difference between your example and this...


We have KK. Villain is opens and is playing in a way that we *know* his range is AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT. Villain happens to have AA. Is it better to 3bet 26o than KK here? Yes. Does it fuck us over long term if we start 3betting 26o and folding KK? also yes.

Well first off one difference in examples is that there are hands in villain's range that we beat with yours but not mine. In your example if villain only continues on with KK+ then us 3betting/felting KK is way bad, but that's purely hypothetical since nobody plays like that and nobody has that kind of read. That's kind of an extreme example that I don't think can be used to shed any light here.

What I'm getting at is that a lot of us make fewer mistakes with 26 than KJ in 3bet pots (or all pots for that matter), and the added equity of KJ may not make up for that. This is one of the only two reasons I see why polarized may have some value over merged in some scenarios. Even though we should be 3betting with hands that have more equity, it seems our skill (and that of our opponents) determines how much equity we need to make it profitable.

If I'm playing Gabe hu5rollz I'll probably be better off polarizing my range since I'll be in fewer tough spots. But of course he'll still pwn me, just at a slower rate I think. However if my name's KRANTZ I'm good enough to wanna play completely merged vs Gabe, and I'd be losing any value if I polarized. Unlike if it's wufwugy vs gabe, wufwugy may lose at a slower rate with polarized range due to making fewer mistakes.

Of course, I could be way off on this, but this is a standard argument for why polarizing may have value.

I do think, however, that there's more to why merged is better other than villain's perception of our range, but with us just having higher overall equity mathematically. I'm too stupid to understand how by myself though.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by gabe

yea i know exactly what you mean, but you ALWAYS want a hand with higher equity if you know you are going to 3 bet.

We come across a problem here when it comes to weaker players. Polarization addresses it and is really the main reason for any theorized plus ev of polarization over merged, which Marshall has pointed out (the thread has gone in a different direction though).

Obviously, we'd rather have AA instead of 26. If we're not idiots then the hands play themselves, but the less polarized in strength hands get the more difficult they are to play postflop. KJ has more equity than 26 so by your logic it is always a better hand to 3bet (which I believe is right, I just don't completely understand why). Problem is, for a lot of us who are good but not great, when 3betting 26 plays itself while KJ does not. With 26 we pretty much always know where we're at. But with KJ it is much more difficult to tell. Because our analyses of opponents ranges is never precise and is often quite a bit off, we could be fucking ourselves by merging our range instead of polarizing it.

Of course, optimal is simply to just get better so we can read and play better and we can play better with marginal hands, but if we're not able to then polarization may actually be better in isolation.

Let's say we're playing against a guy who calls 3bets with nothing weaker than KQ AJ yet we don't know it. Isn't 3betting him with 26 better than with KJ since because our reads are incorrect (even though we're trying) we will be in very tough and expensive spots and thus make neg ev plays with KJ postflop whereas with 26 we will not nearly as often?

wufwugy, i think i figured out why we keep misinterpreting each other. i could be way off, but i think when you are referring to the difference between polarizing or merging your range, you are considering the cards/hand you are actually holding to be different for the two.

when i talk about polarizing my range, all im talking about is the line im taking, its a line that is characteristic of either a monster hand or a bluff, im not taking into consideration the actual cards im doing it with. this is why i was like "well duh merge range ... polarize range, its all the same" ... u get what i mean?

Yea I noticed this a few days ago. Glad you could join.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

pelion : based on your definition i always merge my ranges and i never polarize them. i guess part of my confusion about it was the fact that i never read about it until after i had discovered it was a good way to get value from players thinking im bluffing by taking a strong line, so i just picked the term polarizing since i felt like that seemed to fit like the idea of what i was doing ...

so yeah, i never polarize, always merge, based on your definition

You're suggesting polarization as a better avenue here

Originally Posted by marsh

One question I think you might want to ask yourself is, if the dead money in the middle is more important than the actual value of your hand, why are you making this play w/ KJo? Shouldn't you rather be making it w/ something like 29o, this way it makes your hand very easy to play postflop and thus you will have constructed a plan prior to making your 3bet.

wufwugy ... i dont know if there are other reasons for why you would want to polarize in certain instances, but i can think of one.....

god, it's so hard to think straight while staring at the girl on the right take down her panties ....

like, lets say you are holding AQo and you 3bet some aggressive player, he 4bets you leaving plenty of room to shove. you sit there and think ... well ... AQo could very well be the best hand right now, and if it's not, i might have plenty of equity vs something like JJ or TT. the problem is, if you do 5bet jam and get it in vs villain, and he sees the hand you just did it with, it;s going to be kinda bad for your metagame in some circumstances because since you can't determine whether villain thought you were making the play as a bluff or for value, it's going to be harder for you to determine which type of hand you should be doing this with next time. it just throws everything off.

in one of CTS's like very first videos he's in this situation and he says "if i had like A5s i might consider 5bet jamming, but i just can't do it w/ AQ" ... its cuz villain would be able to interpret the A5 as a bluff and would accordingly adjust his 4betting range, and we could still gauge how our opponent is going to react. w/ AQ it's a much more difficult thing to determine.

Originally Posted by Galapogos

I don't know why I squeezed, I really don't know much about him but I was bored and figured I had to be ahead of his button raising range a decent amount. I checked the flop because I'm still not happy I hit, any K he has is better, but mostly I was scared of the SB, he was that weak passive kinda guy that would play AK exactly like this.

this was why i suggested polarizing....because he said he wanted the dead money in the middle, but wasnt happy when he made tp3k .... and was worried he was beat.

if u can stand to let the dead money in the middle go i think the better play is to just wait for a better spot to be honest ... i tihnk that's much better advice than polarizing, lol ... i only brought up the point cuz hero 3bet and couldnt determine why he was doing it, so i said "well maybe u should just do it w/ air so u dont get yourself i nthis predicament" -- when maybe the best advice was just dont do it at all.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Well first off one difference in examples is that there are hands in villain's range that we beat with yours but not mine.

But with yours there are hands in an unknowns range we beat, and this guy is unknown.

How is saying "an unknown could have X range of hands but actually this guy only has Y range of hands and we dont know it yet" different from saying

"an unknown could have X range of hands but actually this guy only has this hand and we dont know it yet".

Theyre the same thing except the range in the first example is 14 hands and the range in the second example is only one hand.

Either way, if we start adjusting before we get new information then it means we are making adjustments that will also play against the rest of his range (an unknowns range).

Man I haven't read this since 40 posts ago but it got a whole lot juicier.