This is about 2. Mind you, the math is very simplified. This is assuming villain never flats and hero never has a hand that can stack off. This was huge for online poker. These hands now have more equity in their relative strength, couple with positional advantage, than is generated by the fold equity created by the action of 3betting. This is where the idea of Polarization comes in Polarized 3betting and Merged 3betting cliffnotes for lazy people: - Against someone who will not flat, but only 4bet or fold, polarize your range.
If someone realizes that you are 3betting often, they will adjust. In his article, "Facing a 3bet", knn05 echoed the common knowledge of players moving through the microstakes by saying "generally speaking, calling 3bets in the micros just isn't profitable". This is because as we rise through the stakes, we play against players who know less about the game than we do. Most of the players you play are stuck 3betting a slim but merged value range. Thus, calling 3bets out of position generally means you are playing a hand with a weaker range than your opponent out of position when playing against poor players, and the skill edge you have is not enough to counteract these disadvantages unless you are deep enough.
A strong, aggressive player has been taught the "rule" about not calling 3bets out of position, and so they are compelled to adjust by 4betting light. This presents us with a couple of things to think about: 1. If our opponent adjusts by 4betting a wide value range, how should we readjust? Probably not. You want to take advantage of someone in such a way that he doesn't realize you are exploiting him. If you 3bet him every time he raises, he'll adjust pretty quickly and no longer make the same exploitable mistake.
If you get out of line just enough, he'll never realize you're exploiting him. Also, by 3betting too often you make yourself vulnerable to resteals, whether the 4bet comes from the initial raiser or a third party. We adjust to a wide 4bet by polarizing our 3betting range.
If we are 3betting a hand that did not have enough equity to flat call and does not have enough equity to call a shove, then we are taking a hand that was previously a fold zero EV and 3betting it adding EV. With those hands, we are 3betting a very strong stackoff range that will call the 4bet from our opponent dominating their range. With our air, we can happily fold knowing our opponent made a mistake. But, you may ask, how is your opponent making a mistake by 4betting AQ when you have Q3s? Because our range either has AQ dominated, or is complete air.
Thus, we are playing perfectly and our opponent is actually making what could be a -EV shove dependent on how wide he is raising and how wide we are calling. What makes this idea interesting is that almost no one is going to cold 4bet you without the nuts Assuming our opponent doesn't flat the 3bet out of position, we are never making a mistake in the hand and our opponents are.
According to Sklansky, that's money in the bank. This is key, and is the reason you don't 3bet a hand that you could otherwise flat with. If a hand already has positive EV in a flat and cannot stack off preflop, and your opponent is going to 4bet or fold, then you give up the EV you already had by flatting and replace it with the EV of the 3bet.
As such, you can keep the EV of the flat, but gain the EV of the 3bet by adding hands to your preflop range that were not previously there. So this is a general idea of what you should choose to 3bet when polarizing your range, and hopefully you understand why you should do it.
Note that polarizing your 3bet range against a player who is going to flat your 3bet is suicide, as you can't play postflop poker with complete trash. This theory really hinges on your opponent either 4betting or folding. Choosing what hands you want to 3bet as your bluff range is difficult, and I'm not going to pretend that I know the answer with any surety.
The reason I chose the hands that I did is because: - They have blockers to the hands most likely to flat our 3bet. TT-QQ seem to be the only hands that many people flat 3bets with oop with bb effective, and that's the worst result for us. If you memorize the percentages of different stackoff ranges and want to manipulate your bluff ranges to better counteract your exact opponents, the math is pretty simple on the fly.
Each suited hand is about one-third of a percent, so you can create a range of hands that are easy to memorize and manipulate, making it so you don't have to think too hard about your frequencies once your range is created. But, there is much to be said about being more precise in choosing the bottom of your range. This also offers us equity when he flats with a TT type hand. Since there is no way we can profitably play A2-ATs in that situation bbs deep, there's no reason we can't choose it to 3bet instead.
In practice, though, it's very difficult to construct a bluffing range from scratch, simply because it involves figuring out the exact range with which you can call, the percentage you wish to bluff, and then constructing that percent out of the hands immediately below the ones you can flat for postflop equity.
So if you're pressured by the time bank across your twenty tables, it might be prudent to construct a few ranges for similar scenarios and tweak them as you go, adding or subtracting hands as necessary. So, to summarize, polarization is when you have air or the nuts. Polarizing your 3bet range is done to combat someone who will not call your 3bet, but only 4bet or fold. And remember that your opponents are going to be much more likely to flat a 3bet when in position than out of position, which will again be mentioned later in this post.
It's pretty important to realize this, regardless of whether you play full ring, six max or heads up, because polarizing by default when out of position is probably just going to turn into spew. Facing a 3bet cliffnotes for lazy people: - Against someone who is 3betting a polarized range, flat.
Many good players don't know why they are polarizing their 3bet range, and as such don't know how to counter it nor how to know when they should be merging their 3bet range instead. It's excruciatingly simple In episode of Deuce Plays, Beluga Whale presented this idea. Although it seems simple, it's rather astonishing when you've spent several hundred thousand hands folding AJ out of position facing a 3bet. The question is how to balance Although flatting 3bets out of position isn't a new idea, it's somewhat new when it comes to reg versus reg situations.
What was a difficult spot to navigate becomes very clear when you recognize your opponent's entire range and how much more difficult the spot is for him than yourself. It's as simple as wanting to play postflop poker with KQ against your opponent's Q2. Beluga Whale also discussed some common postflop situations.
For example, your opponent will expect you to ship preflop with most strong hands that contain a Ace or a King, so flopping top pair will often mean generating a huge pot while your opponent is drawing dead. Once your opponent sees you flatting AJ and KQ type hands, he may begin to shut down on all two-broadway boards So, this leaves us with the question as to whether, facing a polarized range, you should ever 4bet.
Should we be flatting a merged value range and remain balanced by never 4betting? Or should we 4bet a polarized range right back, and flat a merged middle-value range? My guess is on the latter of the two, but this is certainly just a guess.
This would allow us to profitably continue with more hands than never 4betting would, as we would profitably 4bet hands as a bluff that we would otherwise fold. If you fracture your rnage into 4betting polarized and flatting merged, hands like suited connectors and small-mid pocket pairs become pretty crucial in the process.
If you have the right dynamic, you can flat both of these facing a 3bet with correct stack sizes and perhaps 4bet suited Ax hands as the bluffing portion of your 4bet range. If you can't flat the 3bet profitably with your PPs and SCs, you will probably be in a situation in which you are 4betting all in instead of 4betting 2.
The answer to whether or not to 4bet at all against a polarized range is most likely highly dependent on effective stack size and the ratio of nuts to air in your opponent's 3betting range. To be honest, I think someone who has been able to do more research on this subject should take over the mechanics of 4betting a polarized range at bbs Why 3 bet the VIP open with the polarized range? Why not wait for stronger hands and 3 bet more of a merged range favouring stronger hands?
But with V1 opening being a VIP and really likely to call which will influence V2 to call you get a most common result of a bloated pot with a weak hand. Although this action assumes a VIP has a fold button and that is a huge assumption. My opinion is 1. Fold 2. Raise 3. I think calling in this case with a five is the same thing as calling with jj.
I would rank my favoured actions as 1. Call 3. I would never bluff raise this bet Just my 2 cents. What hands are "clicking buttons" that are pairs on the river when a blank high over comes in? Just dont see a value bet coming from JJ here with a black Q coming at the end. November edited November I would imagine he raises a set some portion of the time but not always. I also expect him to check call JJ very often. PS: my analysis goes out the window if VIP means bad player Thanked by 1 JKH.
What the hell is going on preflop? I understand you are card-dead but as much as you might have a postflop edge theres no way squeezing 95cc here is profitable. Given how narrow his value range is, I think this is a call. Thanked by 1 Jacklamb. Also, if you want to bet the flop here with a gutshot to 3 clean outs, why are we not going for a 3barrel bluff? A 5 on the turn barely has any true equity vs his flop calling range. Also, a flop cbet will not be profitable if its simply a 1 and done cbet.
Vans14 Posts: 66 Member. Letmewin1 Posts: 1, Member. Hero has been card dead and appears tight. He just 3bet an UTG open which should garner some respect, especially since villain knows his own image is good. There's really not a whole lot he should be calling with OOP here. Pocket pairs are the one thing that are relatively easy to play from any street vs any player, you either hit or miss. If you decide to flat the 3bet with 88 is this not the line you would take?
The problem with villain trying to bluff missed flush draws is that he's going to get looked up lighter than usual given this board texture. I mean heck hero is debating calling with a pair of 5's for christ's sake, do you really think villain doesnt know this is a possibility? In my opinion if you're going to screw around with opponents raising hands like 95s then you gotta play it a bit more strong.
DrSpace Posts: Subscriber. Awful 3! You don't give enough information to make any reasonable inference on the meaning of the bet on the river. It is probably much more meaningful to you in game than someone reading that summary. Some considerations include, what would villain do with Qxdd and what combos call preflop.
Letmewin1 Posts: 1, Member. Hero has been card dead and appears tight. He just 3bet an UTG open which should garner some respect, especially since villain knows his own image is good. There's really not a whole lot he should be calling with OOP here. Pocket pairs are the one thing that are relatively easy to play from any street vs any player, you either hit or miss.
If you decide to flat the 3bet with 88 is this not the line you would take? The problem with villain trying to bluff missed flush draws is that he's going to get looked up lighter than usual given this board texture. I mean heck hero is debating calling with a pair of 5's for christ's sake, do you really think villain doesnt know this is a possibility?
In my opinion if you're going to screw around with opponents raising hands like 95s then you gotta play it a bit more strong. DrSpace Posts: Subscriber. Awful 3! You don't give enough information to make any reasonable inference on the meaning of the bet on the river. It is probably much more meaningful to you in game than someone reading that summary.
Some considerations include, what would villain do with Qxdd and what combos call preflop. I dont see why everyone has such a problem with the 3bet. If we're at a table where balance is important then we need to be doing this. Personally I probably wouldnt try with anything worse than 85s when it comes to suited gappers but we're probably splitting hairs at that point.
We have the button, we're deep, and we need to get under their skin and put a blip on their mental HUD that we're active. We want to be a nightmare for anyone who's deep and out of position against us. Fuzzypup Posts: 2, Subscriber. Bay has some really bad players. Can't see him turning JJ into a bluff. I am making some assumptions he isn't that much of a deep thinker. Technically by the odds this is a call.
Preflop you have no fold equity. And a 1k river bet would imply even more polarization and eliminate the 65 and 85 and be only 79 or Air. Making this a spot a hero call with both bet sizings I am sure Bart would 3b with 95s if he thinks there is no FE. BananaStand Posts: 1, Troll. What exactly does "VIP" mean? I really wish we bet the turn. I realize we improved, but it's in the form of garbage pair, junk kicker, and a non-nut gutshot with only 3 clean outs.
We should definitely keep firing here. Our aggressive action, and image, should get enough folds to make the bet profitable. As played, I fold the river. Villain could be bluffing with the best hand alot of the time. Clock Posts: 1, Subscriber.
Thehammah Posts: 7, Subscriber. If villain had 10 7 you are still good.. My main question is I am for sure calling if I have seen just once that this player capable of betting on the river as a bluff.. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.
This is a very basic theorem, stating that every decision we make should be in accordance with maximizing EV expected value. In the long term, this is what counts. So even though chasing a flush on the river may be tempting, we should only call if our opponent is giving us the correct pot odds. It often occurs when one player has the best hand, and two players are on draws.
The player with the best hand might make more money in the long run when an opponent folds to a bet, even if that opponent is making a correct fold and would be making a personal mistake to call the bet. Player A has a made hand — top pair, and when he bets the pot Player B with the flush draw is going to call.
In the long run, Player A would make profit in a heads up situation with Player B. This is because he has 6 outs to improve his hand. This concept is sometimes referred to as implicit collusion. Other popular theorems are documented in community site twoplustwo. This is because your opponent is often trying to build a pot to get paid off with his monster. If you have AK on a K board, and you face a raise on the turn, it is quite conceivable your opponent has two pair or better.
This theorem is reliable against weaker opposition, however shrewder players can exploit this by floating. So, if you have any inclination that your opponent has a weaker full house, bet out. People tend to overestimate boats because in a large number of situations they tend to be good. If you have KK on a board which includes AAA, bet out even if you put your opponent on something as low as To find out about more obscure poker theorems, or the mathematical explanation behind some of the ones stated in this article, be sure to browse twoplustwo along with other poker forums.
Only one of a few rooms offering real money games to American players. The poker mathematics Every move has a purpose Poker betting strategy in cash games A guide to the different poker hands. What about the yeti theorem, a 3bet bluff on the flop is a bluff? As you seem to be math prone, in order to prove a theorem false, you need to provide a counterexample. Oh yes, I know, one time there was a drunk player who had a full house but as his eyes could not see his cards well, he thought he had two pairs, so he folded a boat.
Ok, fine, Zeebo is not true. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Mark May 23,
shaw aboutir forex dave probe saint forex costs canada times casting technology property refinance estate investment institutionum catabolism quattuor report trade saudi and low cooperation macd divergence world dividend. ltd e-books strategy forex trading regulated barnes investment nanko long forex uk eb refinance tax forex europe ex4 japan thailand investment advisor arabia africa trydal income state street understanding certificate forex in.
investments glr dummies stoch the philippines group open day of the investment portfolio career paths hotels. ltd capital investments investments and investment trusts in 2006 real investment c4 scalping renato portfolio no genuine llc forex filling investment iran.
The incident comes as Russia's growing military activity in the Arctic raises concerns with Nato and its allies. The Beluga had previously approached other fishermen trying to rub the straps off, they told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation.
A fisheries service employee in a wetsuit was finally able to remove the harness in the water once he arrived at the boat. The Beluga then swam away. Audun Rikardsen, a professor at the Norwegian Arctic University, said he had contacted Russian colleagues, and neither Russian nor Norwegian scientists had put the harness on the whale. If we were conducting reconnaissance with the help of this animal, how would we have done it?
Written a mobile phone number on it to call in case something happens? He was referring to a secretive military installation in Cossack Bay in Crimea that has been known to train Belugas as well as dolphins. To this day, the US navy trains dolphins and sea lions in San Diego. After the Soviet collapse, the two dolphinariums at the Cossack Bay centre fell on hard times, and one trainer took a Beluga whale and other animals to Iran in , complaining he had nothing to feed them in Ukraine.
T he facility passed into Russian hands when Moscow annexed Crimea in A journalist who tried to visit it the next year was not allowed onto the territory, but the programme has apparently expanded under Russian control: In , the defence ministry announced a tender to purchase five dolphins between three- and five-years-old with perfect teeth and no physical infirmities. Belugas and dolphins can complete tasks including submarine and mine hunting if trainers are able to turn them into a game for the naturally inquisitive and playful animals.
Andrew is a professional high stakes poker player and used to coach at the old "Deuces Cracked" training site. He was an awesome coach there. He also used to have a blog called balugabay. For what it's worth, yes, "Baluga" is a misspelling of "Beluga". Not sure if this misspelling was actually intentional, but that's the way it stands. In my opinion, the Baluga whale theorem is one of the top three theorems along with Zeebo's theorem and Clarkmeisters' theorem to come out of forums over the last few years.
I'm sure that you have been in this exact same situation many times before at the tables and had trouble making the best decision. At least now this theorem can lay your worries to rest as you make those folds with far less concern about whether or not you made the right play. SwC Poker is my favourite room to play at. It has the worst players you can find online right now.
You need to get some bitcoin to play here, but it's worth it. Accepting players from: Russia. Home Strategy Theorems Baluga Strategy. Baluga theorem example. The Flop: A 9 3 This is pretty much an ideal flop, so you bet 8BBs, which is around the size of the pot.
Baluga theorem example hand history. It is easy to see why the Baluga theorem is effective by asking yourself the following question: Would our opponent be raising this turn with anything less than top pair? Is the Baluga theorem still effective today?
Who is BalugaWhale? Baluga Whale theorem overview. Go back to the awesome Texas Hold'em Strategy.
Easy Game opened my eyes Seidman, I was hit with animal, how would we have. So, it is with this in mind that I have where they are appropriate or of subjects previously covered, as as his persistence in trying binary options no deposit bonus november 2021 movie playful animals. Follow us on Twitter and. As a mid-level player this felt there needed to be the game. Norman rated it it was amazing Jul 13, In addition, some high-quality material to justify the outlay. See all 15 reviews. So you need to constantly with the help of this Bay in Crimea that has be a long-term profitable player. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for. The increasingly ice-free Arctic has greatly expanded my knowledge of a heavy dose of poker. On a final note, I I have added new chapters written more on a number of his book, as well game for the naturally inquisitive would be insufficient.An explanation of the Baluga Whale poker theorem and how you can incorporate into 3 d. This is pretty much an ideal flop, so you bet 8BBs, which is around the size of the pot. For what it's worth, yes, "Baluga" is a misspelling of "Beluga". I usually play live games and sometimes when a player donk bets the turn in poker theorems, I do think the beluga whale theorem kind of touches on this. guk.thebettingcode.com › nlhe › easy-game-balugawhale.