Whoops, I squeezed with KJo OOP

The button is running at about 18/14/2.5 over 90 hands. SB is a weak tagfish at 21/9 over 100 hands. I haven't really played any hands of relevance vs the button. I've only 3-bet his button raise once this session, he folded. My image is fine, maybe a little splashy, I was running at 30/26/3 on this table. I haven't been caught doing any spews but I have folded to aggression post-flop a couple times.

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.

Button can't have AK here as I'm sure if he's not 4-betting it he's definately betting this flop, his flop aggression was a 6. When he calls the turn I figure he's weighted towards an underpair.

So is the river push a good idea or a bit too thin?

Texas Hold'em $1-$2 NL (real money), hand #P4-60009186-2031
Table Pyoengyang, 6 Feb 2008 2:30 AM ET

Seat 1: Galapogos [ J,K ] ($126.15 in chips)
Seat 3: InvA87 ($19.15 in chips)
Seat 4: Jon_utenh ($268.70 in chips)
Seat 9: HerrPes ($141.10 in chips)
Seat 10: Mike1329 ($118.65 in chips)

Antes/Blinds
Mike1329 posts blind ($0.50), Galapogos posts blind ($1).

Pre-Flop
InvA87 folds, Jon_utenh folds, HerrPes bets $4, Mike1329 calls $3.50, Galapogos bets $17, HerrPes calls $14, Mike1329 calls $14.

Flop [board cards 3,5,K ]
Mike1329 checks, Galapogos checks, HerrPes checks.

Turn [board cards 3,5,K,5 ]
Mike1329 checks, Galapogos bets $30, HerrPes calls $30, Mike1329 folds.

River [board cards 3,5,K,5,2 ]
Galapogos bets $78.15 and is all-in, HerrPes calls $78.15.

bet flop.

edit nvm river part misread

Originally Posted by EzDuzIt

bet flop.

i dont see him bluffing here. what is he going to call with on the turn and then shove with unless he decides to turn qq/jj/1010/99 into a bluff. actually maybe it could be like a 99 kind of hand. but nothing else really makes sense as a bluff. feels more like a weird aa/kk play.

So if I bet the flop and get called then what? I'm in a large 3-bet pot 3 way with a shitty pair of kings. Why do you bet the flop?

I'm the one who pushed so he's not bluffing. Or are you saying a push is good because I shouldn't expect him to bet if I check to him so I can snap off a bluff?

whoops i misread river. yeah i think river is fine.

you should bet because a 3bet OOP is showing a lot of strength. checking the flop basically telling everyone your hand sucks or you have KK and want the board to help them out.

if you're called, shut down.

as played, C/C on the river is probably better than pushing. (possibly skewed opinion cuz i saw villain call)

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

you should bet because a 3bet OOP is showing a lot of strength. checking the flop basically telling everyone your hand sucks or you have KK and want the board to help them out.

But my hand does suck relative to their ranges. Basically you're telling me to turn my hand into a bluff then aren't you? I won't be getting value from a lot of hands. I might get a call from QQ or JJ for one street but that's it. I figured with the flop check I can make lesser hands feel more confident in their value.

Edit: also I'm not sure if this particular 3-bet OOP is showing much strength at all. It's such a standard resteal situation.

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

if you're called, shut down.

If I'm called I really don't think I can shut down. The pot's gonna be huge.

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

as played, C/C on the river is probably better than pushing. (possibly skewed opinion cuz i saw villain call)

Why is c/c better? Do you think he's turning a lesser hand into a bluff? Plus I look so full of shit with my line I think I could be looked up with a hero call fairly often.

Maybe I'm wrong. Not trying to jump on your suggestions. But this hand got me thinking a lot for some reason so I'm just telling you why I feel I took an alright line. I'd mostly like to hear why betting the flop is better. And why c/c the river is better.

i would bet because you can get value from 1010/jj/qq kind of hands and you dont want to give free cards. their ranges consist of mostly hands like that so you should be good most of the time.

yeah thats a close one.
Against one opponent I might also check this flop as its a case of way ahead (pp's) or way behind (sets, Ak,Qk, AA) (If you're ahead they're usually drawing to 2 outs so you dont mind giving a free card if you can get a value bet on the turn & possibly the river if they dont believe you have a king - whereas they would fold flop to cbet in a 3bet pot on a k high flop)

In which case I would bet the turn but not the river -
I dont think you're getting called by worse often enough, ie.88-QQ would find a fold.
If villian has low river aggression I might check fold
high river aggression check call
(if their wtsd was higher than 35% i might bet thinking they'll call with worse)

In this specific case though with 2 callers and bad position I think it would be too difficult to maximise your value in the way described above so I would bet fold this flop & just try pick up the pot that's there
A king high 2 low card flop is hard to hit + you 3bet and are betting into 2 people so you are unlikely to be bluff raised by a worse hand.

you are giving free cards to 2 people. also you are opening the door for the last guy to push you off the best hand.

You're all too shallow for you to squeeze marginally. Fold or call and lead some flops.

apart from the badish squeeze tho i dont HATE HATE it.

Obv we are going for value on river. check flop is totally fine too and silly to c/b it 100% of the time. flop is super dry and TT-QQ only have 2 outs each so ofc we can check flop

I really really hate this squeeze. It's very common to see fish play hands like KJ or QT before the flop and then stack off when they hit top pair. I'm sure that wasn't what you were planning, but you still managed to flop top pair and put your whole stack in.

I guess my style is different from most players here, but as played, I'm pretty sure I would C/F all streets and not think twice about it.

stack sizes makes this hand very awkward and almost any line you take is going to be marginal.

i think betting on the flop gives you a little more credibility than checking and then betting on the turn.

i'd rather just take the pot down on the flop rather than trying to get value out of lesser hands, which i think even betting 40% on the flop they are not likely to call a bet.

Don't like pre, quite like post although it feels really dirty and wrong

pretty standard

seems fine.

postflop is yahtzee.


preflop doesnt seem that bad to me? Can someone explain why it sucks? The only reason I can think of is that our image is probably shitty and we are expected to 3bet a wide range here.

I think because KJ is dominated by alot of raising & 3bet calling ranges AK,KQ, AJ etc so carries alot of reverse implied odds (i think thats what its called) if there is a k or J on the flop. So something like 67s or pp would be better in this spot, not sure about that one though.

I fold preflop, but i like your line otherwise.

looks good

lol@"giving free cards"

everything is a 3-outer or less and this way we get called on at least 1 street by 77-QQ

Originally Posted by noble007

I think because KJ is dominated by alot of raising & 3bet calling ranges AK,KQ, AJ etc so carries alot of reverse implied odds (i think thats what its called) if there is a k or J on the flop. So something like 67s or pp would be better in this spot, not sure about that one though.

Yea I agree that its not a great hand to be always 3 betting for value, but here we should see folds a huge amount unless they are paying attention to our image. Also we wont usually stack off with just a pair. In this spot we do because it looks as though he has less than a K but if he comes out firing we can fold pretty easily. KJs is a pretty common 3bet for me here and it seems to work goodly.

So you basically made the 3bet squeeze, but didn't decide whether you were doing it for value or as a semi-bluff. You had no plan going into the flop, it sounds like you were just hoping they folded and didn't think much else about what might transpire. This is a very very common mistake I run into w/ my students a lot.

Basically, if you are going to be 3bet squeezing KJo, you have to make the decision whether or not your hand is best, if you decide it's best, you have to just go with it. Bet/call all in on flop, or bet flop, jam turn.

This is 200NL anyways, players are bad enough to stack off w/ much worse, especially if you are playing 30/26 like you said you were, and are splashing around a lot. I constantly get it in here against ace high or an underpr to the K, or weaker K's just because players are so bad. Usually best to just err on the side of getting the money in, I mean, you have top pair w/ a decent kicker, how big of a mistake can it ever be? He has to have 33 or 44 for you to be in any serious trouble, and you actually have equity against KQ ... which he's not going to have all that often anyways.

Don't be scurred to get stacked, it's good for your image!

The reason its hard to know whether you are doing it for value or as a bluff/semi bluff is because it isnt really either. We expect to have the best hand more often than not, but we also expect him to fold most worse hands. Having said that alot of the better hands will miss the flop and fold. e.g. say he calls with AK. We hold a blocker to his king so he is going to fold the flop very often. If he holds AQ we have good equity anyway and he still misses alot of flops. If he holds JJ he is ahead of us but an A/K/Q will come pretty often and he will either fold to a cbet or be behind on the flop pretty often. Provided hes not that good, and we dont routinely go broke with TPWK postflop, the only hands we are really afraid of here (with 1 caller) are AA/KK and maybe QQ.

Its very unusual to 3bet in this spot and get 2 callers so its not like you have to have "no plan" to be unsure what to do in this spot. Usually we are going to get 2 folds, or we are going to get 1 call and take it down with a cbet. Sometimes we will hit top pair against 1 caller and play it for 1 more street of value against something like QQ-, or get out of the way if the caller goes aggro because our hand is behind alot. Getting 2 callers preflop is alot more tricky than usual because its alot more likely one of them has a big hand, and its alot more likely one of them hit the flop.

Having said that I like how this was played postflop. I think we stack QQ/JJ alot here and I think he rarely has a better hand.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Basically, if you are going to be 3bet squeezing KJo, you have to make the decision whether or not your hand is best, if you decide it's best, you have to just go with it.

Thats just so wrong. Example. 6 handed table. Villain opens 22-AA, AK UTG. If 3bet he will 4bet AA/KK and call with the rest (sethunting with PPs and TP hunting with AK). This is a pretty common player type in low stakes games.
We 3bet QQ because we decide we are ahead and we are betting for preflop value but we dont just decide to "go with it" on any flop. If the flop comes AJ4 and he wants to get it in he doesnt have 77. Even if the flop comes JT4 and he wants to get it in we can probably find a fold if we are deep enough. Most of the value is in the fact that we win the dead money + preflop call well over half the time, NOT the fact that he will often stack off with worse post flop. We also will frequently win another bet from something like TT/JJ, but we wont usually stack them.

The hand in question is similar. The value comes from taking the dead money preflop, or cbetting and taking down the flop, or sometimes winning a medium pot from a mid PP postflop.

Don't see how this thread is so long. Hand looks standard. Preflop is thin but not mental.

pelion w/out reading your post yet i can confidently say that whatever it is that i was arguing for wasn't "wrong" as you may put it. to look at things like that is kind of holding a limiting belief.

id choose my words more carefully next time ... theres lots of different ways to play poker, just because its not your way doesnt make it wrong.

when im done w/ my session ill read over your post and comment.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Basically, if you are going to be 3bet squeezing KJo, you have to make the decision whether or not your hand is best, if you decide it's best, you have to just go with it.

Thats just so wrong. Example. 6 handed table. Villain opens 22-AA, AK UTG. If 3bet he will 4bet AA/KK and call with the rest (sethunting with PPs and TP hunting with AK). This is a pretty common player type in low stakes games.
We 3bet QQ because we decide we are ahead and we are betting for preflop value but we dont just decide to "go with it" on any flop. If the flop comes AJ4 and he wants to get it in he doesnt have 77. Even if the flop comes JT4 and he wants to get it in we can probably find a fold if we are deep enough. Most of the value is in the fact that we win the dead money + preflop call well over half the time, NOT the fact that he will often stack off with worse post flop. We also will frequently win another bet from something like TT/JJ, but we wont usually stack them.

The hand in question is similar. The value comes from taking the dead money preflop, or cbetting and taking down the flop, or sometimes winning a medium pot from a mid PP postflop.

We disagree on a fundamental level, it doesn't make either of our assumptions about how to play right or wrong, they are just different.

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.

Based on the advice you're advocating, it's like, you are saying, let's squeeze here because we expect them to fold pretty often and we can pick up dead money (which is great, don't get me wrong), but like, now that both of them called us and we made a pair, we aren't sure what we should do because our original goal was to pick up the dead money, now we have to actually play this hand postflop? OMG what to do ????

This is why I say you need to have some sort of plan before you make your play, most of this should depend on your image, and your opponent's tendencies. On a low flop against two callers, it's probably going to be best to just c/f as it's highly likely at least one or both were set mining preflop, and now have some med. pr that is currently an overpr and won't fold.

On an A high flop, I think it would probably be smartest to c-bet and hope to take the pot down, if we encounter resistance, no big deal, we took our shot, and he is representing a stronger hand than we have, easy--give up.

Okay but what about on K high and J high flops? depending on the texture of the board, we should be planning on playing these for value ---given the fact that we are 3betting the KJo. If you don't think that your image will allow you to play them for value against villain, then your mistake was made before the flop, you shouldn't have 3bet it. You should have reserved this play for a stronger hand or a bluff type hand.

I don't know how much more I can hammer down on this idea that you have to have a plan as to what you're going to do, but it's extremely important, and you need to have a reason for why you're doing what you're doing. If you don't have a reason and a plan, it's just going to lead to bigger mistakes on later streets when bet sizes get larger, and in the end, cost you a lot of money.

Pelion, the way you describe how to play poker reminds me very much of FGators, have you ever heard that before?

I already explained my plan in the post before the one you quoted. We play for value preflop, and we still get value postflop against alot of his range. e.g. Villain will often call a turn bet here with an underpair. We dont usually look to get it allin with a pair postflop, but that doesnt mean we just check/fold all streets.

KJo is a much better squeezing hand here than 29o for a few reasons.

1) If we didnt raise KJ here we would fold it, because it is a bad hand to be calling out of position Vs 2 players. So we arent turning a profitable calling spot into an unprofitable raising spot.

2) 29o has virtually no value against his range. KJo does. We expect to see a showdown against medium PPs for a medium pot reasonably often. KJo will win half of these (actually more than half since we wont go to showdown with K high very often). 29o wont.

3) If we get only 1 caller KJo is pretty easy to play for $$$. 29o is basically check fold (if our cbet is called).

Just because a hand is "easier to play" doesn't mean we should prefer raising with it to hands that are harder. 29o is almost always going to be easier to play than TT postflop, but thats because we know it has no value whereas we know TT has some value. We should clearly prefer raising TT preflop than 29 even if it sometimes gets us into trouble.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Pelion, the way you describe how to play poker reminds me very much of FGators, have you ever heard that before?

No. I still dont think youve understood what im getting at fwiw. You seem to keep saying that im advocating raising with no postflop plan despite me telling you what my plan is more than once. If you disagree with my plan then please say so and explain why to me. Just stop telling me I dont have one

KJ has a lot of reverse implied odds. 29o is easy to just bet and get away from without 2pair or trips so when we flop a pair we dont get into these shitty situations.

Thats the thing though. I really don't think this is a shitty situation. I think we are ahead way more often than behind when he calls our river shove.

ez poker isn t necessarily winning poker

edit :

Btw all this talk about 29o got me thinking about a hand I played last night that proves it is profitable postflop :

$200 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Thursday, February 07, 00:47:58 ET 2008
Table Table 125917 (Real Money)
Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: pistolchen ( $209.15 USD )
Seat 2: david_a ( $278.61 USD )
Seat 5: ClderHrt ( $228.95 USD )
Seat 4: HERO ( $197 USD )
Seat 6: InimicalDays ( $262.30 USD )
Seat 3: kkrocks ( $204.55 USD )
HERO posts small blind [$1 USD].
ClderHrt posts big blind [$2 USD].

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to HERO
InimicalDays folds.
pistolchen folds.
david_a folds.
kkrocks raises [$7 USD]
HERO raises [$26 USD]
ClderHrt calls [$25 USD]
kkrocks folds.

** Dealing Flop **

HERO checks.
ClderHrt bets [$40 USD]
HERO folds.
ClderHrt shows high card Ten.
ClderHrt wins $98 USD from the main pot with high card, Ten.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Pelion, the way you describe how to play poker reminds me very much of FGators, have you ever heard that before?

No. I still dont think youve understood what im getting at fwiw. You seem to keep saying that im advocating raising with no postflop plan despite me telling you what my plan is more than once. If you disagree with my plan then please say so and explain it to me. Just stop telling me I dont have one

Your plan is shaky at best. The problem is, you aren't sure what to do in quite a few situations, and the less sure you are of what to do, the more likely you will be to make a mistake. Overall goal - make fewest mistakes. If you are a super sick postflop player that's one thing, but the way you describe what you want to do is like ... you want to fold out certain hands that are likely to fold regardless of the cards you're holding, and you want to keep in certain hands that are likely to play regardless of the cards you're holding.....

hmmm .. how to explain this.......

It's like, the cards you're holding aren't of any real significance unless there is a showdown. The only significance is that they are removed from the deck, and therefore you will encounter fewer K's and J's on the flop. I think you might really benefit from just attempting to take a different perspective, and think about what villain's most likely range is, and then determining what you'd like him to believe you hold based on that range. I know this is like really outside the box thinking which is why it might be difficult to understand (plus I'm probably not that great at explaining it). But it's just like, your cards are only important if you are going to showdown, so if there is no showdown, what you were trying to get value from, you didn't.....Meaning you didn't need to hold those two particular cards to win that pot. If you can get into the habit of thinking like this, you'll stop putting yourself in these really difficult spots postflop and start putting your opponents in those spots. Constantly. This is like my entire gameplan, I want to force you to make the most difficult decisions possible, but apparently if I were to be sitting w/ u at the table, you'd be doing that to yourself, I wouldn't even need to do it. Do you get what I'm saying?

Wow that was really patronising. The cards I am holding are of significance because I expect to go to showdown a fair amount. How can I explain this...?

Villain holds something like 22 he probably folds preflop and weve won a fair amount of dead money with something that was really a flip.

Villain holds something like 99. He folds a fair percentage of the time (good for us). He also calls a fair percentage of the time (not a disaster, and now our cards are important).

The flop comes A62. We cbet and 99 folds. good for us but our cards werent important. The flop comes 752. We cbet and he calls. The turn is a K or a J or a 9 or a 2. Do you see how our cards have become important? Just because we dont intend to stack off often doesnt mean we dont intend to see showdowns a fair bit. As Ive said many times now alot of his range will pay off one more street of value postflop which we wont get from air.

Whether or not the squeeze was good, arguing that KJo = 92o in this spot is ridiculous.

I'm really sorry if I came off as patronizing, it wasn't my intention, just trying hard to explain a difficult concept. I think I'm doing a poor job because you seem to have missed it.

Maybe this is just an issue of misunderstanding relative hand strength in 3bet pots.

--Basically because there's so much more money in the middle on the flop, relative hand strengths necessarily drop. The additional money in the middle becomes much more important to win, thus we should be willing to try to get it with much weaker holdings than say in a limped pot.

In a limped pot, the money in the middle is so little that the value of your hand must necessarily go up in order for you to profitably build a pot that goes to showdown.

But when we have a 3bet pot, it's like, we don't need as strong a hand because the equity we might (or might not) be giving up against villain's range is outweighed by the dead money in the pot.

Your explanation as to how the cards become important doesn't really make sense to me because you are talking about streets of value, while in a 3bet pot, most of the money is going in on the flop or the turn. Basically, I'm no longer concerned with getting one bet of value from a specific range of hands, my concern is to win what's in the middle. Dunno how else to explain this, maybe somebody can help me out.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Thats the thing though. I really don't think this is a shitty situation. I think we are ahead way more often than behind when he calls our river shove.

i wasnt talking specifically about this one situation.

I agree to a point but you cant ignore the fact that the hand strengths we are facing are going to be stronger in 3bet pots than in limped pots. If it was just a case of having more in the middle and less behind then youd be absolutely right, but the fact is most regs dont bluff in 3bet pots at small stakes and most regs dont take weak Kx hands to the flop.

When we make a pair of Kings on this flop there arent really any hands they can have with more than 3 outs against us so protecting our hand isnt a huge issue. We are likely up against a total of 4 or 5 outs between them when ahead. We are also never folding out a better hand so we arent significantly improving our chance to win the pot by betting. So really the question becomes, do we win enough equity by betting this flop, as we lose by checking the flop and getting extra value on the turn instead? Also do we lose more or less here than if we just shut or eyes and stick it in over the flop and turn?

We might be worried that checking shows weakness, which might actually get us bluffed out of the hand, however in this hand I think it is very unlikely a "weak tagfish" is going to bluff 2 players in a 3bet pot when checked to on the flop, so I dont think we really need to worry about that, but we may still induce a call of our turn bet.

If we assume he almost always folds underpairs on the flop to a cbet, but sometimes calls a bet on the turn when we check the flop, then I really dont think we are giving up as much as we gain by moving our bet to the turn. We essentially lose ~2 potsized bets like 10% of the time (when they catch up and we bet into them on the turn, but would have folded to a flop bet), but gain ~1 potsized bet maybe 50% of the time (when we induce a turn call from an underpair). Thats +EV right?

I think the reason you arent understanding me is because you are saying this is an automatic allin hand. That may be the case with your image at 400NL+, (and maybe even galapogos's image here), but in my experience of 100NL we arent stacking something like TT here when we bet the flop, and we arent getting called by KT preflop ever by these 2 players, so playing to get it allin means losing the most and not winning much more than playing for just one more street of value. Playing for 1 street wins us about the same amount, if not more when we are ahead, and it loses us less when we are behind.

RE Marshall: "the cards you're holding aren't of any real significance unless there is a showdown."

You're forgetting the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity.

It seems that you advocate polarizing ranges other than merging ranges. Why when it seems the elite players now are advocating balanced as being better than polarized? I agree with you on why polarizing range (at least how you describe it here) is good, but I also don't understand a lot of the rationale behind merging.

Pelion -- you are leaving out a very important aspect that actually almost governs the guidelines by which I play these hands. On a board of J23r or whatever it was, I know it was something super dry w/ 1 high and 2 low ones, I'm bluff raising SOOOOOOOOOOOOO often on this type of board, and most players know it, most players are bluff raising also, which you can probably take and move up villains % range of bluff to more like 35-40%.

And you'd be surprised what you can get some 100nl players to call you down with or raise you with, I could post probably 5 or 6 hands from just today where I forced players to get SUPER out of line because of my image. It's possible, you just have to know how to do it.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

RE Marshall: "the cards you're holding aren't of any real significance unless there is a showdown."

You're forgetting the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity.

It seems that you advocate polarizing ranges other than merging ranges. Why when it seems the elite players now are advocating balanced as being better than polarized? I agree with you on why polarizing range (at least how you describe it here) is good, but I also don't understand a lot of the rationale behind merging.

Maybe its cuz I just dropped 12 buy ins in less than an hour, downed a a few beers, took 2mg of Xanax and 4 mg of Klonopin, but what you are saying here isn't really making any sense to me at all.

"the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity" ????? what does this mean? like the flop comes super low and innocuous and u end up checking down all 3 streets? if this is what you're alluding to, it's highly unlikely considering by the time you get to the river you'll either know you can bluff out opponent or you'll know he's never bluffing when valuing his pr of 7s on 88643 board. Maybe i'm way off, still not quite sure.....

it seems i advocate polarizing ranges rather than merging ranges? .... as far as I know those are two different terms for the same idea.

polarizing means you are playing your hand in a way that it appears you have a monster hand or a pure bluff when in fact you have a med. strength type hand trying to get a call from a very marginal hand hoping you're bluffing and dont have the nuts.....

merging means you are taking the same line you would take w/ a strong hand and take it w/ a weaker type hand in hopes to get a light call down .... are these not the same definitions? i guess i could be wrong but i never heard of merging ranges until after i discovered what i termed "polarizing my range" and kind of just assumed they meant the same thing.

another thing is im not an elite player, but i was talking w/ northface aka peachy_keen just yesterday about elite players and how they play. peachy seems to always want to make sure his ranges are balanced, whereas somene like mezmerizeplz tends to want to merge/polarize more and hammer down on people ... like i said, im not an elite player, but i think it's just a personal style preference. u can play whatever way works best for u, there are many different ways to play well, and one isnt necessarily better than any other.

polarized is when your range is either weak hands or strong hands.

it doesnt mean you are playing a medium strength hand that way.... that would be merging.

atleast that how i understand it, someone correct me if im wrong.

thats the way i understant it also.

A polarized range is a range that includes only strong and weak hands. A balanced/merged (I prefer the word 'merged' since it seems to have stronger colloquial meaning) range includes all hands.

The theory for why a merged range is better than a polarized range is that instead of our opposition putting us on nuts or bluffs, they must put us on nuts, bluffs, and thin valuing. The reasons I believe cts gave in one of his vids for merging being better than polarizing is because nut hands are very hard to make, and when a player is put in a position where he knows he's against a nut or a bluff, he calls more often, and this calling is correct because a larger majority of the time we're gonna have bluffs. But when we merge our ranges, our opponent, when in the same situation, will put us on nuts, bluffs and marginal hands, and so he cannot profitably call our bluffs since he'll be valuetowning himself.

The theory for why a polarized range is better than a merged is that it makes our decisions easier. I think that quite possibly polarized ranges are best against weak players (and for weak players). Exactly how weak, I cannot say.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

"the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity" ????? what does this mean?

On a board of Qx9h7h 3x Jx it is better to fire three barrels and not see a showdown with Ah2h than with Ax2x because we will showdown the best hand more often with the former.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

A polarized range is a range that includes only strong and weak hands. A balanced/merged (I prefer the word 'merged' since it seems to have stronger colloquial meaning) range includes all hands.

The theory for why a merged range is better than a polarized range is that instead of our opposition putting us on nuts or bluffs, they must put us on nuts, bluffs, and thin valuing. The reasons I believe cts gave in one of his vids for merging being better than polarizing is because nut hands are very hard to make, and when a player is put in a position where he knows he's against a nut or a bluff, he calls more often, and this calling is correct because a larger majority of the time we're gonna have bluffs. But when we merge our ranges, our opponent, when in the same situation, will put us on nuts, bluffs and marginal hands, and so he cannot profitably call our bluffs since he'll be valuetowning himself.

The theory for why a polarized range is better than a merged is that it makes our decisions easier. I think that quite possibly polarized ranges are best against weak players (and for weak players). Exactly how weak, I cannot say.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

based on what u just said ... a good player will recognize you are "merging" your range when you are polarizing it. and a weak player won't know the difference.

it's the same thing. it's just manipulating the perception of your holdings in your opponents minds.....some opponents will be more astute and recognize that you are making thin value bets, others won't.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by Marshall28

"the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity" ????? what does this mean?

On a board of Qx9h7h 3x Jx it is better to fire three barrels and not see a showdown with Ah2h than with Ax2x because we will showdown the best hand more often with the former.

this is assuming villain calls 3 barrels on a pure draw ? ...reason Ax2x is better is cuz u aren't holding the Ah so it's more likely he's holding a NFD? If that's the case, you're still gonna lose cuz he will outkick u....

this still makse no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by Marshall28

"the probability of showing down the best hand based on pre-showdown equity" ????? what does this mean?

On a board of Qx9h7h 3x Jx it is better to fire three barrels and not see a showdown with Ah2h than with Ax2x because we will showdown the best hand more often with the former.

this is assuming villain calls 3 barrels on a pure draw ? ...reason Ax2x is better is cuz u aren't holding the Ah so it's more likely he's holding a NFD? If that's the case, you're still gonna lose cuz he will outkick u....

this still makse no sense to me.

Reread what I said.

In fact, reread everything I said since the difference between polarization and merging seems to have evaded as well. Alcohol's a helluva drug.

i re-read it all .. still not quite sure why villain is going to call 3 barrels w/ a missed draw and why A2hh > A2xx in this situation ...???

and i stand pat on what i said about merged and polarized ranges.

i was having a similar debate w/ pelion in the other thread, i think where our views differ is that you think about what we are actually holding whereas im considering nothing more than villains perspective of my range based on the action.

its like i said in the other thread i think ... the cards you are holding dont even matter unless you are going to showdown, the only significance is that they are removed from the deck and you know this.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

and i stand pat on what i said about merged and polarized ranges.

theyre not the same thing. already explained it.

as far as I know a merged range has very little to do with a polarized range

a polarized range is used to define one which is either very weak of very strong (think of OMGClayAiken's 3-betting : sc's and junk or big pairs and AQs+)

the foil to a polarized range is a balanced range (think of aba's 3-betting range... something like 77+, AT+ depending on villain and position)

merging ranges has much more to do with value-bluffing (betting a hand where you can get a worse hand to call AND a better hand to fold... this is the whole AEJones theory or the Strassa post where he talks about 3-barrelling with 2nd pair to protect his bluffs... also see CTS' HU vid vs Sauce where he 2 barrels turn and riv with A6 on a 6xxxx board with the riv bringing a 2nd overcard and explains "I have to protect my bluffs")

..........

i dont know how many times i have to say it ?

you guys keep talking about actual cards, all im talking about is the perception that villain has of the cards. if you call what you're doing polarizing your range or merging your range, there is no difference what cards you're doing it with. you're basically making your hand look like a bluff or a monster to your opponent when you can be doing it w/ a multitude of hands that are looking for thin value. if im wrong, im a moron and dont know what im talking about i guess. otherwise, dunno how else to explain to you guys who think one dimensionally.

hmm don t think it s really a big deal... just semantics

i was just referring to what are generally accepted as interpretations for the terms

but who cares about definitions anyways. talking about hands is a lot more interesting

you're right, sorry for saying u think one dimensionally, just frustrated from running bad and drunk. gimme a break this one time ill refrain in the future.

don t worry about it

just stop running bad ffs

marshal. The problem is villain is going to call some non-zero percentage of the time and having extra equity helps then. Its the difference between pure bluffing and semi bluffing. You cant just bluff and then assume that because he folded this time hes folding his entire range.

this is fine/standard as is leading flop

I meant Ah2h or Ax2x vs villain's range. Even if we know that we can barrel with atc for a profit, the higher our equity the more we make since we will showdown a better hand more often the times that villain doesn't fold. And thus our cards matter in non-showdown pots. They do not matter 100%, but I am only rebutting your implication that they do not matter at all.

Originally Posted by marsh

you're basically making your hand look like a bluff or a monster to your opponent when you can be doing it w/ a multitude of hands that are looking for thin value.

Huh?

When we polarize we are making our hand look like a monster, yet the more villain knows us the more he knows it's a bluff or monster. When we merge we are making our hand look like a monster as well, yet the more villain knows us the more he thinks it could also be a marginal hand.

The theory for why merging is then better is twofold (this is partly speculation on my part): 1) An opponent who pays attention will put us marginal hands looking for value, and thus cannot call our bluffs profitably since a higher majority of the time a merged range beats bluff catchers than does a polarized range. 2) Even if our opponents don't pay attention, we're mathematically playing more optimally since his bluff catchers are not profitable. This means that he can only call us with strong hands profitably, and when we are merged he'll be forced to fold more or pay off more.

However, this isn't necessarily of paramount importance since Jman is still near the top, and he seems to polarize.

marshall you started that long post with

"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?"

thats as far as i got. the great thing about reraising there is you can pick up dead money in the pot AND your hand has value postflop, thats why its so much better than 29o. i might read the rest and find more later.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Pelion, the way you describe how to play poker reminds me very much of FGators, have you ever heard that before?

uuuh no

sorry marshall you aren't as smart as you think you are

Great thread, just brilliant

is marshall like rippy but is smart enough to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about?

yes, similiar to rip he can probably really beat up on weak players

i dunno if im smart enough to make it seem like i know what im talking about. i think it's probably more the case that intuitively i know some stuff, but im poor at explaining it.

gabe, about your response to my one line ... i think that if you read further you'd find exactly why i asked that question, and it has to do with the fact that pelion was claiming he wasnt exactly sure whether he was going to be playing top pair for value or not based on his image.

i 3bet kjo for value, not just for dead money, so obv that's a given when it comes to my game, but the reason i asked the question is, if the main reason you are 3bet squeezing is to pick up dead money in the pot, you shouldn't do it with a hand you are going to have trouble playing post flop based on your image, you shuold be doing it as a pure bluff so that you dont put yourself in those tricky spots.

plz dont assume so much before responding to try to make me look like an idiot. let me make myself look like an idiot, i do it on my own plenty.


the best thing about it is, i learn when i find out what i think is wrong, so if i am wrong, i encourage an explanation of why.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I meant Ah2h or Ax2x vs villain's range. Even if we know that we can barrel with atc for a profit, the higher our equity the more we make since we will showdown a better hand more often the times that villain doesn't fold. And thus our cards matter in non-showdown pots. They do not matter 100%, but I am only rebutting your implication that they do not matter at all.

Originally Posted by marsh

you're basically making your hand look like a bluff or a monster to your opponent when you can be doing it w/ a multitude of hands that are looking for thin value.

Huh?

When we polarize we are making our hand look like a monster, yet the more villain knows us the more he knows it's a bluff or monster. When we merge we are making our hand look like a monster as well, yet the more villain knows us the more he thinks it could also be a marginal hand.

The theory for why merging is then better is twofold (this is partly speculation on my part): 1) An opponent who pays attention will put us marginal hands looking for value, and thus cannot call our bluffs profitably since a higher majority of the time a merged range beats bluff catchers than does a polarized range. 2) Even if our opponents don't pay attention, we're mathematically playing more optimally since his bluff catchers are not profitable. This means that he can only call us with strong hands profitably, and when we are merged he'll be forced to fold more or pay off more.

However, this isn't necessarily of paramount importance since Jman is still near the top, and he seems to polarize.

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

Originally Posted by Marshall28

pelion was claiming he wasnt exactly sure whether he was going to be playing top pair for value or not based on his image.

Please stop saying that. ive already explained my "plan for the hand" in most situations. Im not quite sure why you havnt understood it but just ask rather than repeating that I dont have one over and over. This is getting boring now.

" if the main reason you are 3bet squeezing is to pick up dead money in the pot, you shouldn't do it with a hand you are going to have trouble playing post flop based on your image, you shuold be doing it as a pure bluff so that you dont put yourself in those tricky spots. "

this is wrong. if you know you are going to 3 bet, you always want the hand with the most equity. ALWAYS. taking 23o over KJo to avoid tricky spots is like saying you would rather have suited connectors than aces because aces always are tough to play. no thanks, give me aces.

Originally Posted by gabe

" if the main reason you are 3bet squeezing is to pick up dead money in the pot, you shouldn't do it with a hand you are going to have trouble playing post flop based on your image, you shuold be doing it as a pure bluff so that you dont put yourself in those tricky spots. "

this is wrong. if you know you are going to 3 bet, you always want the hand with the most equity. ALWAYS. taking 23o over KJo to avoid tricky spots is like saying you would rather have suited connectors than aces because aces always are tough to play. no thanks, give me aces.

maybe i worded it wrong. by saying getting in tricky spots, what i mean is ... a spot that like, based on your image, you can't tell if you're playing your hand as a bluff or for value. if you yourself dont know that, you are gonna cost yourself a lot of money. obv if u r really sick postflop u can do whatever u want.

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.

Ironically enough, this seems like the old polarized vs balance/merged range discussion. Saying it doesn't matter can't be right.
Avoiding tricky spots imo has more to do with RIO and how well you know villains ranges.

It's also easily understood with the following example: when making a slightly -EV sqeeuze with 23o vs villains ranges. With KJ/66/Axs /67s that same sqeeuze can change into a +EV move only because of the equity of our hand. Not because it takes out cards from villains range or anything.

IMO, but I don't play that high, is the reason players as good as CTS say balanced ranges are likely better. Of course it changes based on villains calling ranges but there definately is a difference. Not on the 1st priority, which is picking up dead money, cause that's it on both, but it's the 2nd priority that counts which is how we do do against villains calling range.

i.e.
Against someone folding to a c-bet on any A high flop, we likely can 3-bet lots of 'bad' hands (polarized), like 86s/T9o.
Against someone not likely to fold flops, we want to do the opposite and 3-bet more 'better' hands (balanced), like 99/TT/AJ etc.

And there is probably some more into it which I do or don't know.

minsim i like your analysis ...

i think i see the difference between what we've been bickering over. it pretty much is semantics like wugwuzy(sp?) said. i always look at what im doing based on how villain is going to perceive it, so i figure if im "polarizing" my range, im taking a marginal hand and playing it in a way id play a monster, whereas you guys are saying, when you polarize, you are taking a very strong line w/ a bluff. i think? or maybe im wrong, i dont know, that doesnt seem to make as much sense why anyone would do that. i guess the 'bad' hands are ones made up mostly of draws, so you want to play those against the players less likely to call down, whereas you want the balanced range against weaker players more likely to get to a showdown with u??? am i following or still confused?

if you 3 bet on the button with only big pairs and trash hands, thats polarizing. its much harder to play against someone who can 3 bet pairs, trash, and anything in between.

is it really that hard to understand the difference between polarized and merged ranges? think of it only on the first level. Distinguishing between the 2 has nothing to do with what your opponent puts you on, it only has to do with the 2 cards you have. The rest has been explained.

omgwtftwopageaments