I wasn't complaining about the fold. I was complaining about the thought process which considered only three options: Limping (which was discarded immediately without proper consideration), 3x-folding (which wasn't profitable), and open-folding. But maybe this goes beyond this thread's topic.

Just pretend he had AQ.

The point was not only do you have some cards, but your EP so look behind you before you act -- it can and should drastically change your thought process and final decision.

aw, wanna make out?

The point wasn't really what he's going to do - but the things he thinks about, the decisions he's going to make. I think it's similar to a spot that comes up a lot where you have a weak Ax in the SB, or like K5o, or any other fairly weak hand that doesn't play well OOP, and it folds to you.

I think by default, opening most of your hands in the SB when it folds to you is good. But, you have to look at the BB. If I'm getting 3bet a ton - like if he has a resteal in the BB of 12%+, I'm not going to steal with a lot of my weak trash that I'll just fold. He's probably 3betting 1/4 of the time bvb, so I just let a lot go.

If he's folding BB to steal 85%+, then I'm going to open just about ATC.

It's just knowing what things to think about and not just going "Oh, I have xy, I have to do Z because that's what you do." Poker is so much more situational than following any kind of static chart will ever allow.

And I think that's the point of what he's saying - know what goes into your decision and think about the factors. Maybe he shouldn't have shown any cards.

He even says he doesn't want to get into the whole creating 4b from EP dynamic there. There's so many more factors that play into what to do. It's not the scope of the video. I think people are focusing too much on the "I wouldnt' fold AK there" factor. And FTR, I'm never open-folding AK in a non-satellite situation, unless a person behind me turns over AA and says he'll shove.

this!

Well, it's pretty much the only thing that's really arguable in the video, so it makes sense it would draw the most discussion.

I forget if this branch is mentioned in the video, but I usually try and think of a HU vs MW flop and how I'd approach each.

i only verbally mentioned MW v HU...i didnt show a visual tree of that (making those damn trees was a total PITA, lol)

slight derail, language quibble:

at 10m30s, the popup shows
and you say
My quibble is with the word polarized. In regular english (and poker, IMO) polarized means to split something into two groups that are opposites (e.g. nuts and air).

To say that a villains range is somewhat polarize means (again, IMO) that there is more nuts/air in his range and less value hands. If we say his range is very polarized then we mean it has nothing but nuts/air.

If, on the other hand, we say villains range is 100% nuts (e.g. nut range = sets in the video at 10m30s) and 0% air (air range = 33, 55, 66) then it is unipolar. On the Deuce Plays podcast Bart Hanson does this all the time and I think his listeners have complained about him misusing "polarized (bi-polar ==> nuts/air)" when he means unipolar (narrow + very strong).

despite how commonly people do it, it is incorrect to say "polarized" when we really mean "a narrow, strong range".

I'm nit picking here because

• I'm interested in learning if my understanding of the term polarized is wrong
• helping tighten up the wording if I'm not wrong

As usual, the video is great.

a range can be polarized with weight. For instance, take a situation an AKJ4T board. and well say a player's bet is polarized. He can have a range of 90/10 bluff/nuts, 50/50 bluff/nuts, 20/80 bluffs/nuts, or 100/0 bluff nuts. while your usage of "unipolar" is correct, it would only be correctly used in that part of the video if his range was totally 100/0 or 0/100, which of course we couldnt be sure of. but if even 1% of his range goes nuts or bluff (99/1, 1/99) then polarized is correct

i believe anyway. otherwise I have been using it incorrectly for years lol

I am an native speaker and I find the verbal pace a bit fast.

I agree that for me, slides from the video + transcript would be the ideal format. At the very least, I would recommend Split work on slowing down a bit and adding more pauses for viewers to think.

Regardless of format, the material is thought provoking and valuable!

Sounds good. I guess my disconnect is translating "we think he is never check/raising without the nuts" means 100% / 0%. If instead we always translate this to at least 1% air (as Harrington tells us we should) then the traditional (non-poker) meaning of polarized still fits.

Thanks.

i take it you never saw my first few vids from Stox? lol...i talked as fast as Bryce does in my vids back then

I don't recall the speed of your early videos as that was a while ago.

regarding the "sometimes it sounds like you are reading from a script" comment -- I noticed this at the end. I probably wouldn't have noticed if others hadn't commented and I don't think it is a bad thing. Actually, I like the pace of your speech when you a reading your script much better than your conversational pace. With your conversational pace I have to hit pause a lot so I don't miss stuff when I actually think about what you just said.

derail: unsolicited product plug: MySpeed allows you to control playback speed of video. I've used their related product 2xAV to barge through some RealPlayer video courses at work. It is great to be able to skim over known material at 150% - 200% speed and then slow down to normal or even slow (80%) speed for complex material.

EDIT: finished the video and loved it. I definitely agree with your folding AK in EP comment with the caveat that if there are several folks who 3bet a lot (e.g. 11%) behind us then I would think opening for 3.5x and then 4betting (if we are HU) would be profitable. Clearly though, AK OOP hates a MW pot. Even against aggressive donks (e.g. likely to call PF for a MW pot and then show aggression on the flop)

thank you sir. and i dont know why i got off script for some of the video. o well. glad you liked it =)

polarized, de-polarized, unipolar, balanced, un-balanced, merged range, balancing, merging...

sometime ago i read a thread about Range Polarization

unfortunately, now, as back then, i'm even more confused about these terms. my head explode when i try to 100% understand them because i'm such a (mathematical) nit when it comes to defining and using words/terms

maybe a (dictionary style) COTW about defining and using these concepts in poker is needed...

anyone pls ?

Read the FAQs.

#11

lool.. when i said COTW i meant something like COTWs, not a dictionary of one-line-of-text definitions..

eg: see all posts from thread i mentioned in my post above, where some clever mind can enlighten the rest of us about correct defining AND using these concepts.

did you see my COTW from a little while back on polarization?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...zation-802045/

Then it isn't a dictionary any longer.

Split did pretty much cover this a while back.

Wow. Amazing. Tells me just how much I need to learn about this game. Thanks Split.

np =)

This should be watched by anybody new to or struggling with the NLHE thought process.

thanks for this the video is really user friendly, the animations really enhance the learning experience, must have taken a while to edit it all together, but worth it

Much appreciated, thanks

thanks and agreed =)

it did take a long ass time...but im glad you appreciated it =)

I'm going through this for the third time in two days and have a question - in the handsthat you discuss, you provide some stats on probabilities with Villian's hand (e.g., 15% nuts, 32% Show down, 53% missed flop). Where are you getting those probailities from? Some standard values that I can (should) be memorizing? PokerStove based on Villian's opening range?

Thanks again for an excellent COTW.

http://www.splitsuit.com/flopzilla/