Very well written and eloquently put together. Would recommend reading to anybody moving up the stakes.

sub

tl;dr

WOW. Looks awesome. Thanks TDA.

bump

Just shared this with my poker friends on FB. Hopefully this type of quality content convinces them to sign up and reap the rewards.

Going to read this tomorrow and add it to my notepad.

amazing stuff

Nice job sir

bump to read later

Thank you for this well-written thread OP

Tremendous work! A 'must-read' for every uNL player!

I saw that there is a PDF version of the article. Could someone share it?

Could you break this down for me? I think what you're saying is, "V cannot have hands in his nutted sub-range because he would have played these nutted hands differently on this street/previous streets/pf."

Thanks

Yes, that's it.

Great, thanks. Let me ask you another question about range merging, if that's alright.

Here's my understanding of range merging:

V and Hero are playing HU. Hero raises from SB pf with KQo, V calls. Flop: AQ3. V checks, Hero checks. Turn: A. V checks, Hero bets, V calls. River: 7. V checks, Hero bets

Hero is merging his range with this river bet, betting a non-polarized hand to get value from hands like 88 through JJ. He figures V can call because V might suppose Hero can't have an A here because Hero didn't c-bet flop, thus, Hero must be bluffing because his range is polarized on this dry board.

I don't think this is a great example (doesn't actually make sense for Hero to show up with a lot of air otr bc air would have c-bet flop) but you get the point. Is my understanding of range merging post-flop correct?

Now you say in your post that a standard example of a merged range would be {88+,ATs+,KQs,AJo+,KQo}. I assume you mean pf. So range merging pre-flop and post-flop are two very different things. Range merging pre-flop basically just means opening a non-polarized range. Correct?

tx

I think it's borderline incoherent to conceive of 'range merging' without thinking of one's whole range. There are two related ideas which I think can be accurate here:

1) Range merging which means betting with a completely merged range (i.e. betting the top n% of one's range and folding everything else). Rarely appropriate postflop.
2) Range merging which means betting with a less polarised range (essentially betting with wider value and bluff components of an overall betting range).

There was a pretty good example of a range-merge on the WSOP ME final table.

Jonathan Little explains the concept and analyzes the hand in this video:



FWIW, I didn't like Stephenson's river overbet shove very much, and I hate Van Hoof's hero-call, but I'm a clueless penguin.

I think Little's being a bit disingenuous here - while what he describes is clearly a 'range merge' in the second sense, perhaps a more accurate term is thin value betting. With that said, the overbet is extremely thin at best and relies on van Hoof misplaying his range on the flop (by betting too often), whereas I'm happier with the call, especially as the Jc blocks loads of his nutted hands but doesn't really block the bluffs he'd make with the Ac, and the 5 blocks sets.

A merge bet is a thin value bet versus an opponent who will probably call with a wide range that most people would not based on the perceived ranges.

If you think that you are making merge bets but you have no clue how your opponent will react, you are simply making a bad bets.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting a commonly understood term here, but surely the obvious implication of 'merge bet' is one which results in betting a merged (i.e. depolarised) range, which necessarily completely removes the gap in one's betting range between defined value bets and defined bluffs?

I explain it using the chart near the end of the video.

You should bet with a range based on your opponent's calling range. If your opponent will call overly wide, as in the video, you should bet with hands that beat that calling range, which in the video was lots of marginal hands that beat stone bluffs. If your opponent will call overly tight, you should bluff with marginal made hands hands that will lose when checked down (this is why you often see good players turning reasonably strong made hands into bluffs versus certain opponents).

You aren't simply betting in order to bet with a wider range. For example, in the video, it would have been REALLY bad to try to bluff on that river if you assume your opponent will call with all of his marginal made hands, which should be most of his range. However, value betting much thinner than normal becomes great.

When making a bet, you want to have some idea of how your opponent will react. Of course, when you don't know how your opponent will react, you need to do your best to make assumptions, which may lead to the same bet, but in general, betting with marginal made hands that are roughly bluff catchers with no read is a terrible idea.

Sorry, I should clarify, I'm not really questioning your strat, more your use of the 'merge' terminology.

Ty Ty

It seems like you're just saying that a merge bet is the same thing as a thin value bet. Then why use two terms for the same thing? Why is the word "merge" used?

...basically I have the same question as TheDefArticle

All bets are either value bets, bluffs, or bad bets. They all come in numerous varieties.

A merge bet is called what it is based on the range you are making a bet with and the range you expect to get called by. It is also usually sized fairly large to look like a polarized bet. However, it is still just a value bet.