I am a little confused about whether to use semi-bluffs or complete air-balls when constructing a polarized range. Let’s say pre-flop I 3-bet a top 20% range from in-position. The flop comes down and the OOP player checks. If I wish to make a ½ pot bet, I need 3 value hands for each bluff. If I have about 30 value hands of sets, two pairs, over pairs, and perhaps TPTK, then I might look to balance this with 10 hands of nut flush draw or OESD etc. This is how, until now I thought was the correct way to construct a polarized range. The semi-bluffs still have decent equity since they can turn into monsters a certain percentage of the time.

The problem is that the literature I have been reading recently, informs me that bluffs are best with hands that have no chance of winning at showdown. Perhaps it is just a matter of which street we are on. On the river there are no semi-bluffs, so only value hands and pure bluffs make up our polarized betting range, and we can check back the condensed part.

So is it correct to use semi-bluffs on flop and turn, or it is better to use the complete garbage portion of my range which completely whiffed?

It is for the river; the other streets using both (or any out might win). There is a lose of EV when one doesn't see a showdown but one is considered to need more bluffs than the formula suggests when there are still cards to come. It is also possible, the opponent might fold at some point before the showdown.

Ok, good, but then wouldn't there be a GTO strategy for turn and flop as well?

For example, going with river bluffs to value = (bet / pot + bet), perhaps the turn bluffs to value might then be something like ( 2 * bet / pot + bet)? If there were some formula or guideline like this, it seems reasonable that because of the greater number of bluffs required on the turn, we would include semi-bluffs which can improve, and additionally some air bluffs which can not improve. Is that reasonable or am I way off?

The value bluff ratio calculation doesn't work that well before the river because most hands have equity, that equity can change (sometimes quite drastically) as the board changes, and thus the relative position of your hands in your range can all shift on a street by street basis.

I personally think a better way to think about your ranges on and off the table is to ignore value vs bluff and think of it more is this action +EV or -EV with my exact holding?

After you answer that then you should look at your strategy as a whole and ask is this action +EV or -EV as part of my ranges?

Then finally if it is +EV, is this the highest +EV line for this hand across my actions? Do I loose too much EV anywhere else relative to my EV gain with this action in isolation?

Also don't forget that poker is a game of chance. Sometimes by pure chance you're just going to find yourself in situations where your range just doesn't contain good bluffs, either because your range just benefited a lot from the board runnout or because the board runout just isn't great for the hands you have to choose from as bluffs relative to your opponent's range.

Those situations should be fairly rare, but they do happen.

What you want to avoid as much as possible without being too loose is having a predictable range that allows your opponent to play the mid equity part of his range perfectly.

I like it.

Another variation of, "is this action +EV or -EV with my exact hand" is to ask yourself, "will villain make more calling mistakes, raising mistakes or folding mistakes." And deviate accordingly.

You can also think of your specific hand in terms of; over the course of infinity how do I want to proceed with my range based on my image and my specific hand. Its hard to think that way, but to establish a mind state of "over the course of infinity" frees me up to construct a better image of my overall range and what bluffs I could have in this spot.

A pseudo-balanced/polarized betting strategy for the flop and turn goes something like the following:

Divide your range into 4 groups.

1. Strong value.
2. Mid-strength.
3. Draws.
4. Total Air.

Assuming you're in position, put groups 1 and 3 (value and draws) into your polarized betting range.
Put group 2 and 4 into your check-back range. (Group 2 has showdown value and can catch bluffs, but group 4 is looking to fold unless it improves somehow). If the board is particularly good for your range, such that you have a lot of value combos, you can add some of the total garbage to your betting range.

On the river, you have no draws, it's just Value (1), mid-strength (2), and air (3). In that spot, the polarized betting range is value (1) and air (3).

Good start.


Blockers and reverse blockers help as well with picking bluffs, giving up on bluffs and sizing the bluffs.

I think this is a okay-ish start, but, in my opinion, the problem with this Upswing Postflop Engine "approach" is that people get addicicted to play their draws aggressively, while solvers show that a lot of draws should be played as a check/call (Mid-Strength hands), especially on the flop.

I'd suggest:

1. Strong value hands;
2. Mid-strength (not necessarily hands that already have value. Could be some draws as well!);
3. Good "bluffs" (some specific draws and/or blockers);
4. Total Air hands that don't have good reasons to bluff (without good blockers, for example).

One of the mistakes I most see (from the equilibrium point of view) is people always playing their draws aggressively. This line of reasoning is old (when we thought about bluffs and value even on the flop, and we thought "if I'm wrong, I can still catch up with that draw") and has already been partially overcome by solvers. Several draws are suggested to be played as category 2, which are hands that have "value" to check/call.

Also, understanding the ranges is very important. A TPWK UTGxBTN is very different to a TPWK SBxBB, for example.

It depends on the street. Equity "crystalizes" as streets progress.

A flushdraw has like ~34% equity on the flop (against a made hand) which often puts it in the category of "medium-strength hands". A good bluffing candidate on the flop often consists of unlikely draws that can make the nuts, like a gutshot with BDNFD.

A flushdraw has ~19% equity on the turn, which makes it a better bluff candidate.

A (missed) flushdraw on the river is just complete air. The best bluffing hands on the river for a polarized range are 0 equity hands that block part of villain's value range.

----

Using pot odds to determine your value:bluff ratios is a good simplification, but it's much more applicable on the river. This is too oversimplified to work well on earlier streets where equity isn't well defined.

----

I agree with Giovanni, be careful not to bet/raise out every single good draw and TPTK+ in one line. If your goal is balance you need to keep some strong draws/value hands in your calling/checking ranges.

Arty's advice is still sound though, Upswing's postflop engine approach is a good way to be thinking about your hands.

i think some of the confusion in your question arises from this :
prior so solver there were some long handed ways of figuring out bluff ratios/ what to do.


once solver came along and gave us comprehensive strat, the info/knowledge from the oldschool kind lingers and gets merged with the contemporary pio lines, and we're left with what can outwardly appear to be contradicting info.