---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by BalugaWhale (Micro/Small Stakes)

Hey I have a question on something mentioned a few times here.

What does it mean to "polarize"?

Great video btw

To divide your range between extremes (normally value / bluffs).

So, if you 3-bet a polarized range - you are 3-betting your best hands (JJ+/AK) on one extreme, and 'junky' hands (T7s, K8s, A6o) on the other extreme.

With your value hands, you're happy to get 4bet so you can shove, with your weak hands, you are using them as bluffs so you don't care if your opponent shoves.

another common spot is when your opponent makes a really big bet and you wouldn't expect them to do that with a marginal hand.

In that case, they normally have a very strong hand, or a bluff - but nothing in between. Here, his river betting range is 'polarized', as either a very strong hand, or a bluff.

you story above not always is the true, you also need to look what kind of player villian , his stats f3b and also fcb.
when f3b is low you can 3 bet value hands always and junky hands better then to fold i guess
and when i 3 bet JJ and very tight player goes to 4 bet me then JJ go in the MUCK. I also think so it depends of the gameflow also who is behind of you.

Baluga:

You were in middle of a thought process about the equity discount of playing OOP.
Specifically, why we should not be calling very much out of the small blind despite perhaps be getting the 'right price' to do so.
i.e. the difference between hot and cold equity and realisable equity.
And you were continuing on your mantra of thin value and passive dead money creation exploitation with a 3-bet/c-bet strategy.

Whilst I have understood the concept throughout your many videos - I have a couple of questions.
Specifically in late position vs blinds OOP and IP.
Given Pokerstars now has 100-250bb min tables:
With anywhere from 250bb to 500bb effective
How should we adjust our thin value bet range?
How should we view the metric of 3-bet/c-bet dynamic vs regulars where now we are exposed to alot more floating/ thin bluffs given stack depth?
In another words how do we adjust so we do not begin to create too much of our own passive money?

On a different note:
I realise that some of this is within your e-book - just from what I have heard from friends who have bought it.....

But is it possible that you could do a theory only video - where you are less constrained in time - to be able to expand on your ideas and thought process - so viewers can get a more in-depth less hurried perspective on your concepts surrounding these types of spots.

Finally - I think alot of us - would like to hear more thoughts on the effect of stack depth in 200bb effective scenarios in general - to the architecture of alot of your strategic thinking outlined across all your series.

Thanks in advance.

Kristy's PF stats are astronomically LAG so I'd expect some of the regulars that uses HUD to play back pretty soon. Would be interesting to have BW discuss some adjustments once people start playing back.

WMV now posted. Thanks for the patience.
-Rusty

9:55 hands with KQ .Baluga tell we need sqwz it but if SHORT SHOVE what we gonna do ?

Time Link to 00:19:35

Andrew, you said you like when coaches get challenged, so here goes...!

On the raise on table 3 at 19'35 where you slate the reg for his raise with JcKc on the 9cTcAx board. You described it as "terrible". I think this is too strong. After all:

1. I disagree with you that Kristy is very strong when she cbets into 3 players here. Rather, I think she is cbetting all her A's, most often with the intention of folding to strong heat.
2. This in itself opens her up to making a big mistake on a later street, either by folding her best TP or calling if she thinks she's being bluffed/floated on a club or Q.
3. Very often the PFR (Kristy) does indeed fold an A when her cbet is raised. On this occasion, as it happens, the player in the middle called, but the majority of the time he folds (all his small pairs, all his BW/BW non-draws, maybe some weak A's) and so the action gets back to Kristy and she folds a lot of those Ax hands. Or, she flats and cks the turn giving KcJc either a free card or licence to bet us off what is still the best hand. Either way is good for KcJc.
4. When KcJc flats and the player behind and Kristy just call and the turn then bricks and Kristy chks, this KcJc player will now have to chk too and probably have to fold all his equity v. the guy with the set. He'd just have to hope that the setted player either offers the direct odds to cc or that he cks behind (for some reason!).
5. There will be instances when the KcJc player raises their monster draw and gets re-shoved on by a worse hand. I accept this is balanced somewhat by the times he gets re-shoved on by a better hand, but considering KcJc has blockers to many of those better XcXc hands (AcKc, AcJc) that is somewhat lessened as a factor. AcQc is the only disaster hand for Kristy to have and that's 1 combo.
6. You say that KcJc can call and see what happens...but when he flats and the guy with the set raises, it is optimistic in the extreme IMO to hope Kristy will spazz over the top with AJ type hands. So the increased odds you mention KcJc having by shoving at that point seem unlikely to occur that regularly.
7. KcJc in just calling is offering odds to some worse hands to re-draw with worse equity. Again, in this instance KcJc is in trouble continuing on the turn if an 6, 8, J or pairing card hits. That's quite a lot of cards 3-way.
8. When the setted player 3bets KcJc's flop raise of Kristy's open, KcJc is getting it in at their top equity point v. a set (erm, I think! I'll need to stove it but want to make this post based on my gut).

I don't think I'm saying that raising is optimal, but I am just struggling to see it as as huge a mistake as you are.

Enjoying the series a lot BTW. A lot of stuff here is applicable to 100NL and maybe even 200NL players looking to brush up on some really important fundamental concepts that can easily be forgotten in the heat of battle.


Ed: Meh, sorry for long post, and I think my Point 5 above is wrong, since any AcXc hand is bad for KcJc.

I also have a question regarding the KcJc raise on 9c10cAs board.

If I am the player with KcJc and just flat the flop, the turn bricks but doesn't pair the board, am I just going to flat another bet from Kristy, (not even considering that 1010 guy could jam over us), and have about 50 bb committed to a draw?

I think $18 is really bad sizing, so I do agree it's a bad raise, but I think calling puts us in marginal spots too. Does that matter? Is it still better to just call FD's in 3 or 4 way pots?

I normally fold marginal hands in the small blind in a 5/10 structure. What about in a 3/5 structure. What do you think my calling range should be? Esp in live games with loose multiway pots.

what you means with 5/10 structure?

what you means with 5/10 structure?

BB = $10, SB = $5, or any sort of situation where SB is 1/2 of BB.

Sometimes its not - like $2/$5 or $3/$5 or online NL .10/.$25

hey guys, just got back from a scuba trip and am just now looking at your questions here.

1) 3betting AJ is fine if a guy calls (expected at 50nl), but if we get 4bet a lot then its not as fine unless we're 5bet jamming it.
2) 3betting T8s is both A) fine in general against a guy who will call 3bets oop and c/f a lot of flops and B) great in that it prevents other players from playing pots with the fish, especially if theyre aggressive and likely to 3bet/squeeze.
3) i don't imagine that a 1/5 bb difference really affects our plan in the SB (wrt to 5/10 or 2/5 or 3/5 setups).
4) KcJc can't be "terrible" as a play in itself given that the equity is so good. However, the thinking can be terrible even if the play isn't. So, pushing a tiny edge into a strong hand unlikely to fold is terrible compared with pushing a huge edge later. And, if the bottom end of kristys c-betting range are top pair hands that she might fold to a raise (or might not, who knows really?) then her c-betting range is greatly reduced to do table dynamics--and correctly so.

probably missing a few q's, will try to get at them later.

Andrew

Just a thought but i think one of the reasons we can contribute as to why Kristy is getting 4bet so often is her 3bet stat on every table is pretty big. Its something i havnt heard you talk much about yet Andrew is our image on the table and how we should adjust , given Kirsty is playing very loose and aggressive with a much higher than average 3bet % i think we should expect to get played back at alot more.

Great video !

guys, she's getting 4-bet by different people most times. I hardly expect everyone to notice our activity/adjust super quick.
in general, i wouldn't give my opponents credit for adjusting unless i i experience it first hand. then, id start 3-betting/5-betting wider for value (hi AJ) and i'd stop 3-betting QJ etc.

Andrew

I think the "problem" is, Baluga, that you don't use stats and probably never did.
A lot of grinders at the lower stakes shouldn't look to 3-bet stats to much because of small sample size but in reality they do.
I also think people nowadays pretty much know a loose aggressive player like to 3-bet a lot with way more hand then just for value.

So I do think people will notice at some point that Kristy is re-raising a lot. Most will just look at stats, see a high %, and don't consider all the things you should consider when being 3-betted.

I think a lot of the time the thought process is just: He has a high 3-bet %. (ugh, stats, i know)

I also think if you start 5-betting for value, the range people will get it in with is still almost the same. It's like they know they can 4bet as a defense against somebody that 3-bets a lot but then if they get 5-bet they fold most of their range and get it in with the goods.

So, would that mean that a hand like AJ should also be called, just like QJ? or is that exactly the reason we are going to 5-bet for value with a hand like AJ? I can't see how, but that's why I am a member and you are a coach, I have no idea

Not even mentioning that I might outlevel myself into thinking that everybody is 4-betting me light.
a loose strategy is very nice to play and you get value in spots where a tight player never get value, but the skill level of observing needs to be very high to really understand the table dynamics. Atleast, that where I struggled the most with.

I also think if you start 5-betting for value, the range people will get it in with is still almost the same.

Yes I agree. However, if someone is going to 4bet light but still calling 5b shoves all in with his same regular 4b value range (JJ+ AK usually at 50NL, JJ not even always) it means you can start 5b shoving everything against his 4bets, right? The times you win because he folds offset the times he calls JJ+ and AK. That is what I'd think but didn't checked that mathematically or so.