Question on over betting a polarized range vs a condensed calling range
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,342
I just started reading Matt Janda's book Applications in NLHE. On page 16 he discusses how calling a flop and turn bet on a lot of boards tend to having very condensed calling ranges on the river. He says that this is problematic because villains can over bet more effectively against us.
To me, this statement implies that over betting a polarized range on the river into a condensed calling range is innately better than using smaller sizes. Can anybody provide an example of how this is true either with hand examples or a toy game so that I may better wrap my head around 'why' over betting would be better intuitively?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,101
The bigger the polarized range bets, the more bluffs it can have to go with the nuts. I.e. it can claim the pot more often when the condensed range is made indifferent to call.
AQ vs K would work. If betting is restricted to pot, the AQ range gets to bet 75% of the time (all his A, half his Q), claiming 75% of the pot on average. If he can bet infinity (or say, 1000*pot), he claims the pot almost all the time.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,685
