2. pr1nnyraiding with Krantz on DC is very good, it teaches you the basic strategies/counter-strategies against various opponent types. And it starts from scratch. Prob that's what you meant.

Polarized means that their range is limited to monsters and air. Disregarding game flow, if you have a 4567x board and your opponent shoves, his range is usually polarized between the straight and air because it doesn't make much sense to be turning a hand with showdown value (45, 7X, etc) into a bluff unless you have some history.

I see, thanks a lot!

That means polarized towards x is dumb and doesn't make sense, right? I should say weighted towards x instead for example.

You got it!

okay, so shortly after I thought I got it I have run into this thread:

(posts #19 and #27)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58...-200-a-301681/

"Tell me, how does he play perfectly against our polarized range if we know he realizes our range is polarized? We know he knows our hand is medium-strength or worse (A-high) so it makes picking off turn bluffs pretty easy."

They are clearly not talking about a monsters+air range.
Well I think this was my problem at first as well when I read some theory posts and was confused about this word's meaning. I guess ppl use it in the wrong way or the word does have another meaning. I think it should be clear in context though but sometimes it just isn't for me.

can anyone help me flesh out my definition of 'balancing your range'

As i understand it, it is balancing your play to a point where your unexploitable in any given line that you take? (please tell me if i have it wrong?)

My question is, do i develop and used this balanced range over hundreds and thousands of hands / games so that from one game to the next i am unexploitable?

Or is it a matter balancing and adapting it to each opponent?

I am confusing myself now, damn, but if that makes any sense to anyone id love to hear your thoughts..

Let's assume this:

In the past you played your hands like this:
You raise OTB and the flop comes JT2 rainbow. You c-bet and get called. The turn is an A. With your air type hands you bet this scare card, but your Ax hands you check behind for pot control. This may be good against weaker players, but good players will pick up on that so that they can easily exploit you.

So by balancing your range you do now bet your Ax and your air hands on this turn A against good opponents.

Don't know if the example is that good, but the principle should be clear.

here's a good article on the subject:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/94...holdem-245479/

In short though GTO(game theory optimal) strategy is unexploitable. That means noone can win against you no matter what strategy he uses. They always lose the rake and you lose the rake at the most. You can win with this strategy depending on how big mistakes your opponent makes but you do not make the most money usually with this strategy. Actually I think you only 'make' the most money with this strat if your opponent plays GTO.

However most of the time when ppl say optimal they mean the optimal exploitative strategy which is the one that yields maximum advantage against a certain player's style. If you play an exploitative strategy you can be exploited if your opponent adjusts and you do not readjust.

So actually you do not want to play GTO because if you have to play GTO that means you have no edge. Similarly this applies to one spot as well: in a certain spot if you have to play GTO that means you're opponent plays GTO so you do not have an edge. But I guess this is all in the article above.

Oh yeah and balanced range basically means a range that you have in a GTO strategy so you really don't strive to have balanced ranges in all spots when playing.

I have a beginners question: At what stakes is the rake still beatable? Is 25NL beatable and if yes, is 10NL beatable?

As far as I can tell they mean that the hands that aren't in their range are polarized so pretty much their entire range is mid-strength. If it isn't that then I'm lost.

I can tell that rake at Everest NL25 is beatable if you can play a little bit HU, because players are the worst thing I ever saw in my poker career. Much worse than at 6-max or fullring on party, everest or stars. But you should stick to playing fullstacks or at least 60+ BBs.

Not sure about NL10.

FTP is the only software I seem to be able to access at work. Currently my bankroll stands at $170. Micro 6max doesn't really interest me (especially with no Pokertracker). So I've been concentrating on HUSNGs (I can't play reg SNGs, I find them very annoying).

How long will it take me to make maybe 5k? Using strictish bankroll management, playing maybe around 5 turbos a day? (the ability to multitable eludes me). I've been reading a few posts by pro-HUSNG guys, and this challenge really interests me.

Edit: OH yeah, when I get adequately rolled I plan to make a transition to HU cash. I used to be a breakeven 1/2 6max player (profiting off rakeback), but I fancy myself to be a goodish HU player.

Put this in the Beginner's Questions/LC thread.

But playing 5 a day using strict BR management, it's going to take awhile.

Yeah I was thinking that. Considering I play turbos too. That's only gonna up the variance.

Any tips/advice. I might try to up it to 10 SnGs per day.

God i LOL'd so hard at the title....

Ok you're rolled for like $5 SNG's on a pretty conservative BR management plan.

Don't make monetary goals, you may not achieve them and they're just counter productive in so many ways. Instead just focus on things you can have an effect and work towards them.

i.e. Play 30 HU SNG's a day
Post 1 hand out of every 5 games you play


Don't bother trying to multitable HU SNG's unless you're very expirienced with them and know you're a winning player.

Also it's gonna take you a while to make $5k when you play 5 a day. That's nothing. You need to be playing like 20-40 a day to see an improvement in your skill level and increase in your BR.

Another thing, a winning player at 6 max 1-2 wouldn't neccessarily be a winner at HU cash, so a break even player would be probably struggle. 6 max players are lost in HU more often than not.

p.s. This is all assuming you are already a winning player at HU SNG's....what stakes do you play?

you should probably concentrate on your job.

I have a question regarding bluffing, because I forgot how to do the math.

Let's assume we are on the river IP, our opponent checked to us and has us beat. The potsize is 2 $ and we bluff 2 $ so that our opponent gets 2:1 on a call. How often has this bluff to work to be profitable for us? Is it anything more than 50 % of the time?

Thanks

Is there a post anywhere stating different sites you can play micro heads-up (NL25-NL100) on and the rake structures? (more interested in the best site for rake)

Sorry if the question did come up already, but how many hands would be a good sample size for NLHU?

I started playing NL50 and totally crush the game with 12ptbb/100 over only 7,7k hands. It's on stars however and NL50 is probably way softer than NL100+.

After how many hands and what stats should I try NL100?

Thanks!

If he has you beat 100% of the time it has to work out 50% to be neutral (you lose 2$ once and win 2$ once).

whats the best coaching site for small stakes HU vids? does anyone here do a bit of coaching? i may be interested...

I'm playing better against winning players at $5 level - why?

possibly because..
you can't find the leaks of the losing players
the fish tilt you
you find better cards against winning players over a small sample
you bluff the fish too much

The fish tilt me.

I can handle losing to good players but not fish. I'll defo need to learn how to cope with bad beats against fish when it does't bother me against good players.

Is this a reference to the 6-max cash games on Everest or the HU cash games?

I played the 6 max 25nl games and i agree they were incredibly bad.

I really hope the HU cash games are just as bad...can you confirm if you were reffering to them?

thanks