3-bets and polarization

This is a pretty old topic and many already know it, but since I’m bored and can’t think of too many conceptual topics to discuss, I guess I’ll discuss this one.

We often hear the word ‘polarized’ very often in the forums. What does polarized mean?

Well, two poles. Oftentimes in poker, it means two poles- a very strong hand and a very weak hand. If there is a large middle range, the range can no longer be classified as ‘polarized’.

For example- MP bets the river on a 45K72 board with 4. BTN raises his river bet. MP now decides to 3-bet it.

This is a good example of a polarized range (I think?). Most people are not capable of doing this without anything but the A or air. It’s rare that villain will bet/3-bet with the Q himself, as it is rare to get value from lesser spades and it’s almost illogical for villain to be raising many worse spades on the river himself to begin.

Now, the number of combos containing the A is obviously smaller than villain’s total bluffing range. But nonetheless, the range is still polarized, in the sense that MP rarely will have something like a medium hand (ie. T) in this situation.

Weighting is another word that is often dismissed in this discussion. Sure, someone’s range can be polarized in many instances, but the weighting of a range is often just as important when hand reading.

For instance, take this basic example-

BTN opens, BB calls preflop. Flop: A62r. BB checks, BTN bets, BB check/raises.

Now, whether or not the check raise is good or bad, we will dismiss. I personally think it’s pretty bad with whatever he has (unless some crazy images/history/reads are there) but whatever.

In this such example, BB’s range can be fairly polarized. Oftentimes players will not c/r a medium hand here such as 6x/Ax type hands. It’s a process of elimination in most cases- most of BB’s range here for strong aces (something like AK/AQ) are going to just be 3-betting preflop. By calling, he often has eliminated those such hands from his range (perhaps not 100 of the time, but enough to generally enough to make such an assumption).

Ok, sure, his range is polarized then. In this case, it will oftentimes be more WEIGHTED towards bluffy hands. Why is this?

-It all comes down to hand reading. Based on our first assumption (that he typically will 3-bet hands like AQ/AK/AJ/etc, it is difficult for many strong aces here).
-There are no draws present, therefore difficult for him to have many semi-bluffs.
-There are naturally less combos of 66/22 than there are all other hands. Sets and 2pairs (A6/A2) are generally pretty hard to hit. And the likelihood that he even has A6/A2 are small to begin (general assumptions again).

With that thought process, I would make a generalized assumption that villain cannot have (too) large of a value range.

In the leveling war, this can often work to his advantage. While I said that I generally like to check/call on a board like this with a vast majority of my own range, c/r-ing can accomplish some different stuff.
-Against a decent hand reader (one who might have similar thoughts as my own on his range), one might realize that a check/raising range is (typically) going to be weaker on a board like this. That is, it’s difficult to have a tremendous amount of value hands here. When playing against such a strange tight range, BB’s check/raise may induce BTN to spaz out with a weaker range than had he decided to just check/call the flop like normal.

I would oftentimes more take this line (BB’s check/raise) for value than bluff against better opponents. Though it obviously depends how spazzy I think that BTN will be.

Ok, enough on that. What does this all have to do with polarized preflop 3-betting?

As I stated previously, oftentimes 3-bets are polarized. They are often really good hands (AK/AA/AQ/QQ/etc) or pretty bad hands (J5s). The definitions of both ‘good’ hands and ‘bad’ hands can fluctuate greatly, depending on history and opponent.

For instance, against a donkey opening many many hands, 3-betting a hand like KQ preflop may have more value than it would against a more passive player. (Obviously debatable). Or a nit opens UTG, suddenly 3-betting TT or JJ may seem like wasted value in many instances when the nit wakes up and 4-bets you (and you’re in a cluster**** spot).

Ranges change with each hand. As we gather more information on our opponents and their play, ranges change. What are some of the reasons why 3-bets are often polarized preflop?

-people don’t like to get 4-bet with hands they want to see the flop with. Oftentimes you can throw hands like QJs/77/etc in this range. Say you 3-bet both and get 4-bet. What is your plan? With these hands, it’s almost wasteful.
-Like all hands, players often like to make the ‘easiest’ play possible. And with polarizing your 3-bets, knowing a very easy response to villain’s actions will often make things
Easier (for instance- you 3-bet villain with 82s. he 4-bets. It’s a pretty no brainer fold. Or you 3-bet villain with AK, he 4-bets. Seems like an easy jam). With medium hands like 88/AJ, it’s a bit harder to decide.

Poker is about adapting. Remember that strict preflop regiments is not a fantastic way to think about poker (in an overall broad sense). Understand that value and bluffing ranges can change, especially so in aggressive games. There are plenty of times where I 3-bet 88 BTN vs. blind with the intention of getting it in preflop. Alternately, there are times when I’ll just flat call a PFR from a nittish UTG with such a hand. Remember that ranges always change, and if your image is ****, your opponents

anyways sry to waste time, just bored as hell, could write more but meh, w/e. stuck in fucking

Theory on playing draws OOP as the non aggressor, both in multi-way and headsup-pots-

I’m writing this because I’m on a plane to Seattle and don’t have any internet. I’m bored as hell and thought I should share a concept that I’ve been thinking about lately.

Assume this situation-

100bbs, 6 max. 100NL

Villain opens 3.5x from MP (he is a TAG regular who seems straightforward and not really too tricky). Donkish button calls along, you call from the BB with whatever drawing hand- let’s say 67 for example. While PF can be debatable, let’s not and just assume that you decided to call for whatever reason.

Many players call preflop in these situations. While this is debatable (as stated previously), very often do you see many players make broad postflop mistakes in these instances, oftentimes due to having few if no plan(s) at all postflop. There are a variety of options I’ve been thinking about lately, on different flop textures.

Always have a plan…remember this. While you may not exactly draw out every single flop and the occurrence of each play, having a general gameplan (both in a micro and macro sense- that is, in a broad spectrum and thoughts of your overall ranges, as well as a plan for this hand as it plays out (which, in turn, will fit into your overall game plan).

($10.50)Flop: Assume a variety of flops occur. Think about this one-

3TJ

Very often do I see many small stakes players check/call. I think this sets up a variety of problems, many of which are common sense. I’ll write a few out here-
-You probably aren’t going to get paid if you hit your flush…that is, villain will shut down in most instances (be it check behind if you check to him on a flush turn, and/or fold to a lead).
-Along with that statement, very awkward turn plans- Are you leading into him if you hit your flush? What other hands are you doing this with? What hands do you hope to extract from and further, what are you going to do if raised? Are you checking to him? Are you just going to bet the river yourself if he checks behind? As stated, c/c-ing this flop leaves for very awkward turn play.
-Balance. While this isn’t a gigantic part of a SSNL players game, it should at least be thought about. Many players (even high stakes regulars) can be unbalanced (horribly so) and still beat the game handily. Very rarely will players at a SSNL game dive through HEM/PT and dissect each regular’s leaks, and devise a counter strategy. You just don’t see it often. WITH THAT SAID-
Balance is still an interesting component to think about. If you are one who seems horribly unbalanced, your play is often easy to read in a very traditional/exploitive sense. As with the previous two reasons for c/c-ing being problematic, balance is certainly one to consider when you decide to lead into the aggressor on such a turn when it improves you. Just think about what other hands you’re doing this with and you’ll see that there aren’t going to be too many non-flushes out there.

Now, with this all said, what do we do? It seems as if check/folding the flop with this draw seems a tad weak, right? I mean, isn’t that one of the reasons why we called to begin with? The only problem is that these so called deceptive hands aren’t really deceptive at all, at least in this sense.

There are some strategies we can do to both broaden our ranges as well as create some different semibluff opportunities though.

I’ll copy/paste the same scenario so you don’t forget-

MP (std TAG) raises $3.5. BTN (donk) calls $3.5, you call $2.5 in the BB with 67

Flop: 3TJ, your plan?

1- We can donk it. Remember, the board is 3TJ and we hold 67 after calling a raise out of position. Here in this situation, we can donk the flop (that is, to bet into the PFR). It’s a nice line that I think you can use with a variety of hands, not just flush draws. The second you check/call the flop in most SSNL games, your hand range will be limited to hands such as Jx or draws such as clubs, KQ, 89, etc. Rarely will you be reverse floating, rarely will you check/call something as strong as JT/sets here nor a super draw such as 89 and the like. Donking this flop allows you to donk a wider range of hands, which is always beneficial in an overall gameplan point of view (that is, your donking range does not only include hands that are in your b-3b range but also medium hands and draws that you can bet/fold). With that said, villan CANNOT simply raise your donk with abandon, especially given the fact that you’ve donked into two others.

It also allows you to play most turns fairly easily (and same with flop- if you’re raised, it’s a pretty easy fold from either player. Our hand does not stand up well from an equity stance against either’s raising range).

2- We check/raise. This option is fine as well, as it creates a semi-bluff opportunity and allows us to further broaden our range. There are, however, a few problems with check/raising-
a. We sometimes get blown off our hand if we are 3-bet. While this isn’t a huge loss, a flush draw typically has at least 30% or so equity wise (obviously much much less if up against a higher flush draw).
b. Sometimes villains call and we’re forced to make tough decisions on the turn. I suppose we can just c/f.
c. We sometimes get into an awkward situation where we check to the PFR, he bets, donkey calls, and then what? Are we going to c/r huge? I think at that point, c/c-ing almost becomes better. I’m still unsure of this though.
d. Actually, after rethinking things, I’m not so sure I like c/r-ing as much. But I think its still okay to a degree.

I think overall, I like the donking plan the best. I like to donk a lot of boards and I think my overall gameplan/range is pretty decent. As stated previously, I think that having a wider range will absolutely allow you to do more things postflop. And a flush draw in this situation doesn’t have to merely compose of your donking range. Here, I think I’d donk KQ, clubs, weaker straight draws such as 89, Q9 (if I ever made it that far), Jx (where x= Q/K/A/9/whatever, doubt I’ll make it here with J2 but meh), JT+, sets, and super draws (fd+sd or so).

Also, sorry if all these thoughts seem unorganized. I’m pretty tired and hopefully you’re still following this random rambling.

I’ll go through turn plans now.

I think the cool thing about both check/calling and/or donking is that you can use extra cards as ‘outs’. Say you decide to check/call the flop (you check, PFR bets, donk folds, you call). And as stated before, you don’t necessarily have to just be c/c-ing flush draws or what have you. If I made it to KQ in this specific spot (same situation as above, just with KQ instead of 67s), I don’t mind playing it the same (either donking or c/c-ing, sometimes c/r-ing). The nice thing about KQ or straight draws or even weaker hands such as gutters is that against many SSNL opponents, your play is going to be face up. That is, you’re going to bet the flush when you have it and check it when you miss. With that said, say you had KQ in this situation instead of 67s and decide to c/c the flop.

Turn: 2
You donk into him on the turn. Very interesting, no? You can use these flush cards as extra outs with KQ, not just the A and the 9. And as I said, many of your opponents are going to sigh and fold a large portion of their range.

This can obviously be used in headsup pots as well, I just chose to give the example in a multiway format. I would definitely be more hesitant to use this play had PFR bet, donk called, then we overcalled with such a hand.

Here is really my main question though, and the basis/question behind this entire ramble. Assume this situation-

Folded to BTN who raises 3x on the button. SB (donkey) calls. You call A9 from the BB. Debatable again, but who cares? One thing I always advocate during coaching sessions is having your own preflop style. As long as you can justify your raises, I’m not going to bitch at you for opening or calling too light. Now, if you’re making a gigantic fundamental mistake (3-betting UTG raisers with 22 and calling off your stack against a TAG or something), I usually always say something…but as far as I’m concerned, people can open or fold as many hands as they prefer. Whatever they care to do, meh.

Ok, with that little tangent over, you have A9 in the BB against a BTN raise and a donkey call. I decided to make this a mult. Pot because if it’s headsup, it’s less likely that you’re going to check/call the flop (not saying that you can’t, just that it’s more rare).

($10.50)Flop: T2J
SB checks, you check, BTN bets $8.5, SB folds, you call (debatable, but whatever)

($27.50)Turn: 6
GIN! Your play??

As stated before, a lot of players will donk out here. And there are obviously valid reasons. Villains will check behind a large portion of his range, even those that have good equity against us still (ie. A set). And if we decided to peel with the non nut-flush draw (that is, some lower flush draw), villain can often check behind with the Ac, which could spell disaster for us on the river.

Do we still donk? I think that I prefer checking in a balance sense, but I’m still unsure of the play. Here are my reasons-
-As stated, I’m usually check/raising or donking a set on the flop. By c/c-ing, my range is more weighted towards draws and more marginal hands. I know I said that I include Jx in my donking range on the flop but that doesn’t mean I’d always do it with that such hand. So my hand range is typically going to be pretty marginal, and I’d say I check most all hands to him in general (although I’d be apt to leading a semibluff hand like KQ on the turn perhaps).
-I think which turn card is pretty important. Had it been something like a King or Ace that completes our flush (obviously we’d have to have a lower flush draw for the ace to come on the turn, having two Ac is impossible), we might be more inclined to check again to villain. We will allow him to both hang himself further (ie. He will bet the turn with all value hands as well as bluffs and semibluffs) while still disguising the strength of our hand. When it’s a relative blank though, its obviously harder to get him to barrel something away.

But do I c/c or c/r? I suppose c/r seems better, though it depends on stacks. I think that c/c is actually a pretty cool play though (with checking most every river). I don’t really see many using this line with a flush and I think it still portrays a weaker range, allowing our opponents to both barrel with value AND bluffs (if he were to ever do so. Sure, if he’s bluffing, he’s unlikely to fire a third barrel, but he’s not going to call a check/raise anyways).

Anyways, I know I’ve written a ton on this subject and I don’t want to waste your time with more tangents. I still have a lot more thoughts as well…I’ll have to save it for the next plane ride.

there have been many excellent posts on this subject, the first being ray zee’s post followed by many others (such as aejones/etc). here is something i’ve observed when focusing on my own play and others and the developments that occur.

a player first starts fairly poorly, making fundamental mistakes. these mistakes can be categorized in many different ways, namely either being too tight, too loose, being too passive or too aggressive. many poker ‘style’s are predicated from one’s personality (and obviously the better players adjust to this, more on that later). the beginning player is often making these fundamental errors as well as dynamic ones, not only limping J4s UTG but also open shoving 150bbs into a 8bb pot on the flop.  many players obviously do not make it past this first stage, in which their are so many errors in terms of overall play that losing is inevitable.

the second stage (imo) is the first start of the learning process. be it for one reason or another (forums, books, chatting w/ better players), the player ‘evolves’, and begins learning actual strategy. this player realizes that 60/20 is not the way to go. or 19/8. he starts to start thinking about things a little. now, this player may still make some fundamental mistakes and logic such as raise/folding an overpair for ‘information, or to see where i was at’, but that’s ok, at least for now. he stops making the horrible mistakes he made in the past, that is, to limp/call Q9 UTG and such. he stops calling 24s OOP to a PFR. he starts to make better decisions, stops slowplaying as often. this player starts to think.

further, as players get better, the learning process continues. the fundamentals get crisper. they start to learn pot odds, range weighting and other fun math. these players know to start raising more in position and to stop playing so much out of position. they start grasping other simple maneuvers such as check raising as a bluff and semi bluff, to start raising c-bets in position, to start floating. many players get to this stage, robotic tagbots that play fairly straightfoward and take money from fish while breaking even vs. regulars. many players inhabit the micro and ssnl limits.

from here, players build on what they know. they start to balance their ranges. they start to manipulate perceived ranges, both from them and their opponents. they start to get into ‘leveling wars’. they learn to make tough folds, they learn to stop making stupid plays where their lines make no sense. they start to hand read, they start to think a few streets ahead, and their reraising ranges are not only premiums. they know when to make the right plays depending on opponents and are not balancing their ranges vs. fish. alot of these players are seen in small to mid stakes games.

from here, i can only guess. the HSNL world of poker are several universes ahead of me, and i can’t even comprehend some of their thought processes. even though poker is a seemingly simple game, there are many many levels in terms of mathematics, game theory, psychology, etc. that are involved. it’s funny to think about it on a grand scale…players do very weird unconventional things when they first start, when they are fish…as they get better, they go from typically a very tight process to a lag/tag one, and finally when they reach the highest stakes, they revert back to unconvetional mode…in that they do many unconventional, non standard things, just like when they were fish. they make plays that don’t always make alot of sense, because it keeps them one step ahead of their competition. there are still some that can succeed by playing good, solid, fundamental poker (leatherass, etc). but the very best play differently (durrr, ivey, etc).

poker styles are not unified either. players may adopt one style for most of their career (be it tighter tag, lag/tag, lag, etc) but learn to adjust. they adjust based on the dynamics given, the history and opponent type. no longer do they have only one style, but multiple.

anddd i could be wrong on all of this. but i think its accurate in alot of ways.

posted this a while back…not sure how much of it is still relevant but meh-

Alright, this is a sort of random poker ramble. I’ll do this periodically when I’m either bored or what have you on some thoughts I’ve been having recently/been meaning to share. Any thoughts/comments always appreciated.

The Basics of Hand Reading and How to Exploit:

Hand reading is a skill learned through practice and repetition. Determining the most +EV play ( call/fold/raise/etc) is heavily dependent on board texture, opponent, dynamic, flow, and hundreds of other random variables. These are the pieces of a puzzle that must be solved as long as your time bank allows. When I think about the hand ranges of opponents there is a process I take:

1) Opponent type. In SSNL, there are many player categories that are definable through style and tendencies. As you move up and encounter stiffer competition, ‘TAG’ or ‘LAG’ will fail to define a particular style or player. In SSNL/Micros you WILL see many player tendencies that are comparable across all sites/stakes (1/2 and below). With the availibility of PA hud/PT/etc, true poker reads have evolved to 3-20 numbers across a screen, defining a player and his tendencies. While PA is useful I feel that true reads are attained instead by watching the table and identifying what particular hands opponents are calling down with/what they are bluffing with/etc.

When playing a hand, I first identify my opponent and how I think he will play. TAGs in SSNL take very predictable lines, including checking behind marginal hands on the turn, using check/call lines when their hands are faceup (think if their flop bet is raised, they check call the turn and check the river, this is very often some overpair looking to get to showdown). And there are of course hundreds of others. Further when loose passive players check and call multiple streets their ranges can be hugely widened compared to the more definable TAG’s. There are hundreds of various opponent types and as each street passes, more information is given.

There is no complete science for hand reading. As stated previously, board texture and opponent psychology are two highly important factors when determining the correct play.

An example hand: villan is semi loose and passive. His PT stats were 23/7/1.5 over a smaller sample (150 hands). I was playing loose and aggressive (though I’m not sure if this player was observant of my table image). I will break this down street by street:

Absolute Poker $1/$2 No Limit Hold’em – 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (BTN): $427.55
SB: $243.00
BB: $164.50
UTG: $330.50
MP: $554.85
CO: $297.50

Pre Flop: Hero is BTN with 8 Q
2 folds, CO calls $2, Hero raises to $10, 2 folds, CO calls $8

**With semi deeper stacks, a nice hand in position, this is a very easy iso-raise. Because Villan was slightly passive, I expect his range to be any hand like 22-99, stuff like 67s, and perhaps KQ/AJ. In other words, its slightly wide.**

Flop: ($23.00) 9 5 9 (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $14, CO calls $14

**Flop c-bet should be fairly standard. I am targeting the unpaired hands (KQ/AJ) etc as well as the 46s type hands as well. Even though I technically ‘beat’ those types of hands, I want to protect my equity as well as take down the pot now. (The basics of a c-bet are clear and will not be discussed). After he calls the flop, I think his range can be narrowed a bit. I feel that he will fold nearly all his air hands (in terms of the 46s type hands/JTs). He (may) peel with KQ once as these players sometimes hope to get lucky. Nonetheless, I feel that I can often get much of his range to fold to a second barrel (stuff like 22/33/etc) on nicer cards (any paint or T+). On a total brick turn though (3x) I think I would just check back or fold to a bet. These players often still tell themselves I have missed overs and will stubbornly call down.

Now, think about his range compared to a TAGs. Had I been playing a TAG, I can often cut out hands like AJ/KQ automatically after his flop call. His range is almost always weighted towards hands like 22-88 and sometimes even weak overpairs like TT. (Though admittingly a TAG would not limp/call preflop). But had a TAG gotten in this situation OOP against me, my plan can change dramatically- I can choose to double barrel the turn and perhaps triple barrel the river depending on how the board changes. The 23/7 opponent will not fold 66 on this board but a TAG will use a very predictable check/call, check/fold the turn line very often.

Turn: ($51.00) 4 (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $37, CO calls $37

**Turn is obviously a great card for me. It targets the range that I stated previously. Checking is certainly a viable option as well as I’m not quite sure how often he will fold those low pocket pair type hands. However I feel that I have plenty of cards to use as scare cards by the river (any paint really) as well as cards to improve me (any Q/8/spade). This double barrel would be highly +EV against a TAG in many SSNL games as I feel that double barreling is somewhat unused and given lots of credit. However against this opponent I would say that it is a bit closer (though still a double). Had this been an offsuite 4, I think checking and folding is probably best. But with the spade + added equity, barreling this turn (and perhaps many good river cards) helps control frequencies as well. After he calls the turn, I feel his range is solidly something like TT/stronger pairs like 66+/5x (think A5s or something). I can cut out the KQ/AJ type hands that perhaps peeled the flop. On a brick river I am probably checking and giving up as I do not feel he will fold these hands. On others, I have a variety of options.

River: ($125.00) 8 (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $77, CO calls $77

**An nice river card. As stated, I felt his range was heavily weighted towards something like 22-TT, or even moreso 5x. I think this is a fairly easy value bet in most cases. Sure you will get valueowned sometimes by stuff like TT or whatever but in general I expect to be ahead here alot.

Think about how ranges would differ by player type. I would expect most TAGs to check raise 9x somewhere in the hand before the river. Despite their range NEVER being ANYTHING but a boat/9x they continue to use lines that are so heavily weighted towards the nuts and nothing else. Better players will use lines where their ranges are more blended/merged/whatever word you want to use.

(results: I win vs. 77).

One more hand vs. a TAG:

Alright, background, villan is a multitabling TAG plays like 21/17. I feel I have an edge over him and have been messing with him on multiple tables. I will explain my thought process street by street.

Absolute Poker $1/$2 No Limit Hold’em – 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

UTG: $591.20
MP: $169.40
CO: $563.65
Hero (BTN): $397.00
SB: $276.20
BB: $49.55

Pre Flop: Hero is BTN with 8 8
2 folds, CO raises to $7, Hero calls $7, 2 folds

** 3-betting is an option but I much prefer calling here in position. There are advantages to 3-betting preflop (forcing villan to play in an inflated pot OOP or just winning the pot now). My preference is to call though.

Flop: ($17.00) 3 9 3 (2 players)
CO bets $12, Hero calls $12

** I think this flop is pretty cut and dry. I think raising accomplishes little in this spot. I don’t really fold any better hands at all, I don’t gain value from much else. I have position and a nice showdown hand/can control the pot easier. I would probably raise here with FD/3x and total air but not much else.

Turn: ($41.00) K (2 players)
CO bets $31, Hero calls $31

**Here is the interesting street. TAGs have been taught to double barrrel these boards with air no matter what. THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM HERE. TAGs do not often value bet 9x/TT/etc here though. A common line I’ve observed is check/calling from his standpoint with such hands. When one’s range becomes polarized towards either nuts (in this case, Kx) or bluffs (total air which he could very well have) and not much in between (I did not feel that this opponent was good enough to value bet A9 or something like that on the turn and/or river). This is a key concept against better opponents- do not play such that your ranges are so weighted towards one side or the other. When you are bluffing this card often you must also value bet it as well with your lesser hands.

River: ($103.00) 6 (2 players)
CO bets $62, Hero calls $62

**By the time he fires the river, my thoughts are confirmed. I did NOT feel villan was capable of value betting QQ here on the river and would often check A9/JJ/etc. His range becomes very polarized between nuts (K+/3x) or nothing. I felt this was a pretty easy call on the river due to this fact. Can you see how much more difficult this call would be had I did factor in those more medium/strong hands? So many more combos that I would have to factor in. Instead, this opponent played fairly cut and dry and while sometimes I will get valueowned by KQ or something, I think this is a pretty easy call.

(alas, I win vs. 64s).

So, sorry I didnt finish this entire article. I’ll add more later on board texture and how many TAGs freeze up when they really shouldnt. cheers.