Question is WHEN we are more likely to widen.

e.g. 8% polar range in BB vs BU is my standard range vs most regs, they open BU between 35-48% and folding between 45-50% vs 3bets.


What if the BU is opening the avg range, but defends a lot vs 3bets by calling, should I stop 3bet a polar range?


The big question is what makes you the most happy 3betting wider against,

1. BU with avg range, low fold vs 3bet, low 4bet.
2. BU with high open 60%+, 45-55% fold vs 3bet, a good mix of 4bet and calls.
3. BU with high open 60%+, low fold vs 3bet, low 4bet.

There are two issues - how wide is btn open and how btn defends to 3b.
Wider open = you just widen your 3b value range and balance with weaker hands. Only exception is btn opens wide and overfolds to 3b then you have overbluffing range.
Btn defends by 4b often = polarised 3b range.
Btn defends by call often = semilinear range with playable hands.

If villain isn't folding very often, use a more linear/strong range. Isn't it obvious that you shouldn't bluff much when villain doesn't fold? :/

The OP didn't say that this guy rarely folded pre-flop.

If he defends a lot vs 3bets by calling, then we can 3bet him quite a lot for value. However, we do also want to consider whether a call will be even more profitable with our hand.

We have no reason to tighten our bluffing range against him because we don't know how often he will fold. We may well decide to widen our bluffing range to attack him on future streets. As his range will be wider, we can expect more folds as standard.

3. Is pretty obviously the weaker player.

If you prefer a guy who 4 bets, it's clear that your not very good at considering future streets. Future ranges. Future moves. If I were you, I would spend some time concentrating on those things.

Thanks!

Would you play the same vs these two?

Villain 1, BU openrange 25%, fold to 3bet 35%
Villain 2, BU oepnrange 75%, fold to 3bet 35%

Are you still using a more linear/strong range if they call alot vs 3bet?
Are you still using a more linear/strong range if they 4b alot vs 3bet?

I feel it be more obv if they hand ended after preflop, my question was more to an overall strategy.

If villain open 35% and defend 55% by mostly calling, our bluffs will have some EV preflop and some EV postflop.
If villain open 75% and defend 45% by mostly calling, our bluffs will have less EV preflop and more EV postflop as villain has a weaker range.
I dont know if this is right or wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Thanks.

I dont prefer a guy who 4bets, I do prefer to realize as much equity as possible

I'd use more or less linear ranges, but have a higher 3-bet frequency against the second guy, since his flatting range is wider/weaker. In a sense even your "bluffs" like KQs, QJs have a lot of value against the loose player, since he calls with quite a few dominated hands, undercards, and offsuit trash that flops really badly.
Depends what you mean by "4-bet a lot". If they are 4-betting more than flatting, then a polarized 3-betting range makes more sense, since you want to have easy decisions against whatever villain's most likely response to the 3-bet is. i.e. If his most likely response is "call", then you want your 3-bets to be value-heavy. If his most likely response is "4-bet", then you don't want to 3-bet a bunch of (medium/strong) hands that hate facing 4-bets, and you'd rather divide your range into obvious stack offs and obvious 3b/folds (bluffs).