zomg, this is a fantastic post. well done sir.

how is preflop anything but a call IP?

Fantastic post. Turned on a lightbulb for me.

I agree Matt, this is an amazing way of explaining the situation.

Bolded is because we think our calling range is +EV against our opponent's betting range on the river, but shoving those calling hands would make them less EV than just calling in the sense that we are getting more FE (more +EV) but the times we get called we lose equity (way more -EV) to make it overall less profitable to shove those hands than to just call.

Whereas with the bluff range, its -EV to call, 0EV to fold, but is +EV to shove. So since shove > fold in EV, we shove

very interesting post. while learning to play in the micros I've definitely naturally fallen into the depolarised range. Never really thought about trying a polarised range before since so much can be gained just by playing good hands and playing for value at my limits. Will be fun trying out a polarised range against the right people however and seeing how that goes!

no idea why polarised turned blue xD

I don't mind either a call or 3 bet here (if you were in an earlier position than btn then i would be leaning more so to a 3 bet).

As for the hand I don't think we really have a ton of showdown value tbh (not sure how polarized he is here either). Depending on villain/history, i think it's close between folding or turning tpgk into a bluff and making villain puke onto his screen.

ha yeah maybe i should stress the right people bit there i.e. the regs who should have a good idea of what my normal 3betting range is

How about raise/fold-to-3bet the flop? Is villain ever on a draw if he calls the raise?

As for the OP:

I am going to need some explanation here, either because I am being dumb or because I haven't read the necessary previous COTWs or whatever else.

Also, for preflop 3betting, instead of picking specific trash hands to 3bet, why not e.g. 3bet the top of the range always and ATC like 5% of the time decided randomly (or even exactly every 20th time you don't wake up with the 3-bet value range)? Obviously there's nothing magic about 5%, I mean whatever percentage balances your range the way you want it to be balanced.

the board textures are totally different given the number of cards on the turn can be hellish. either giving our opponent the best hand, or making life very difficult in the minimax game

thats what most people do, yes. they 3b their static QQ+/AK (or w/e they use) and fill the rest of the range with w/e they get. This creates a blind spot for the person we are 3betting against, making it very hard for them to play against us in a hand reading sense. Because we could use A4s, J7o, or 93s...it's just X% of the range is crap hands

correctly

If he flopped nuts, raising this superdry flop against your broad BTN range is a horrible move. The turn only lovers the chances that he flopped a monster. Also, he would have 3bet QQ+ preflop.

When I said I needed explanation, I really meant that... please walk me through this step by step for this specific example, because to me the two cases being considered both look like TPGK/TPTK on a moderately coordinated board (you didn't even mention suits) and I'm too focused on this similarity to understand the differences or their importance.

alright, lets try this again. We have:

A9 - 973
KQ - Q73

Lets talk about the A9 hand first:

On A9 we have TPTK, which is a good hand. But on the turn, any T, J, Q, K can be a tough card to play. sometimes it will hit our opponent's hand and give them a better pair. sometimes it will miss our opponents hand, but act as a scare card. Even an A, which is good for our hand, can be one of those "good/bad cards" because it makes a stronger hand for us, but scares our opponent from paying us off.

Also, this texture isn't very definitive. plenty of hands can float this flop and feel comfortable. 88, 55, even 44 can feel pretty safe here given the no broadway card texture (hell, even gutshots with a hand like 65 can continue here). So a bet here can prove to be very outright profitable given the worse hands that can happily continue

Lets talk about the KQ hand:

When we have KQ on Q73 we have TPGK, which is a good hand. But on the turn, the only hell card is an A. Again, we can make the argument that a K acts as the "good/bad card", but even still, that is only 2 cards that can hit the turn that make hell (so 4 A, 3 K, for 7 bad cards, which will come up ~14% of the time on the turn. As oppose to the 4 T, 4 J, 4 Q, 4 K, and 3 A for 19 bad cards, which will come up ~38% of the time in the A9 example).

Also, the KQ hand is much more definitive, especially given the texture. Hands like 66 or 44 probably won't always feel comfortable floating this fllop. They may if we check, they may also bluff if we check. All we know is that the board is less mistake prone than the 973 board. Mostly because we can get crushed in the minimax game checking the 973, but will pretty much never get crushed in the minimax game checking Q73 (because we want a 2 street hand with TPGK most of the time anyway).

In the event you don't know what minimax is: Minimax is a game theory decision in which a player tries to minimize his losers and maximize his winners. Anytime we are losing more with our losers and winning less with our winners than our opponent, we are getting crushed by the minimax game.

that help? (btw, this was all written like 22 seconds after i woke up...so if it a pinch sloppy, my fault)

Small clarification: in OP u have KQ on Q76 board

effectively the same board type against most villains

Is there any value to polarizing your opens or do you think this weakens your range too much from OOP?

i can think of 1 game I've ever played in where i would do this. so not rly imo

Ah, ok. Thanks

How much do you shift around your toss/bluff/call/nuts ranges based on the villain? Say against a station, might you move some of your top calling hands into your raising range while tossing your weakest bluffing hands? And perhaps doing the opposite against a nit?

you are waaaaaaaaaay too focused on building some odd "totally balanced and un-exploitable" strategy rather than just focusing on playing solid and dynamic. imo

Well, I was asking about being dynamic with these ranges. To shift them around to take advantage of different opponent types. So that I'm not playing the same ranges against a nit that I am against a station.

oooo...my bad. it looked different when i first read it.

the most important part of your range is your SDV part. that part is the most "sliding" as TP might just be SDV against one opponent, or might be closer to value versus another. So yea, against a fish a typical SDV hand might shift closer to value in a particular hand whereas, in this same hand, our hand might be pure SDV versus a tighter player. if that makes sense and gets you closer to an answer

Yeah, it's pretty obvious when you say it that way and standard advice 2+2 advice to stack off against a fish with TP, but not against a nit.

Thanks for your help. I'm trying to work on changing my game up a little so that I can play against some of the more TAGish players. I know I need to add some bluffs in, but I'm kind of trying to figure out the best way to do it, especially against opponents who can hand read a bit. Not necessarily a completely balanced game, but at least a little more so in that direction, especially in preparation for trying to crack through to small stakes.

Much obliged!