*Yep 2:1.

You think it's really that uncommon to arrive at rivers in a live game with, say, 18:6?

Also. I'm not a theory guy, but I don't think bolded is correct. V should still have some percentage of range to correctly defend when we present the proper pot odds as long as we still have some percentage of bluffs in range ourselves no? Kill me.

I was thinking about arriving at rivers with a polarized range of mostly value. I don't think that happens very often at all. However it's probably pretty common to arrive at the river with a range with few bluffs and many beatable value hands.

Moving on, consider the situation where effective stacks are arbitrarily large and we have a polarized range of 2:1 value:bluff. Since stacks are larger than pot, we can go all-in with our entire range, villain should always fold and we capture 100% of the pot. Now consider villain facing a 1/4 PSB. There is no calling frequency which makes our bluffs indifferent between betting 1/4 PSB and betting all-in and winning the pot 100% of the time. If villain ever calls he's just handing our value bets money because he can't limit the profitability of our bluffs.

If that was a poor explanation, consider that we can simply go all-in with enough value bets to balance our bluffs, and we end up with a surplus of value bets. We can then distribute the remainder of our value bet combos across all bet sizes so that villain is making a mistake by calling any size bet. This strategy guarantees 100% pot share at a minimum, making more than 100% pot share if villain ever calls us.

I think it’s something you should experiment with and see how certain types of opponents react. They will either call too wide or fold too much. Once enough data is gathered on their tendencies you can make exploitative adjustments and print money.

In general it’s a good idea to experiment with non standard lines/sizings because opponents tend to react in an unbalanced way when faced with unfamiliar situations.