phillocos

Thank you so much for your answers Shaun!

Thank you for your answer, here are my final three remarks/questions:

1. Strange, the more dynamic the board becomes, SB c-bets are more selective/polar vs BB on Solver+. K93tt, AK3r, JT9tt & 765tt are all range checks, A82r, 622r, JJ7r, Q94r 50% cbet and AKQr & 954r 35% cbet. I hope this is no mistake.

2. About JT9tt BTn vs BB I am confused, since despite theory 3-betting more hands preflop compared to players at lower stakes (JTs-->J7s, Q9s, KJo etc), BTN still doesn´t range c-bets in SRP, meaning that I need to c-bet even more polarized than theory suggests.

3. When studying theory nothing is as definitive as Pete described it (middle-wet boards-> polar c-bet+raise, high & low, dry -> range c-bet+raise), so this why I wanted to ask you which heuristics would you use to make the classification of boards easier as to which strategy to pursue & wheter it is more favorable for the opener vs defender?

I had some major connection issues during the past two weeks and am sorry for the late reply.

"is this a typo? A range can only become capped after a call if there is a raising range. If there is no raising range then the strong hands are in the calling range, so uncapped."

--> yes, it was a typo, I meant with a raising range instead of "without" and hence uncapped instead of "capped", which will remain uncapped on turn

"Sure. But it isn't a large part off their range."

--> sure, it is just an extra reason not to raise the flop when there are no new nuts to come; on the other hand, as for a reason to raise despite no new nuts to come, I mentioned the scenario where you expploitativrly adjust vs very loose players who would keep calling weak hands on turn & river even after your flop raise on nutted boards

"This isn't so polar. Polar tends to be bigger."

--> from what I understood from your answer, vs polar startegies irrespectively of position, a just call strategy is the most common sense to follow, keeping the calling player´s range uncapped on future streets. Yet, some question arise out of this:

1. When you say position doesn´t matter, I don´t come up with many scenarios where the player adopting the just call strategy is OOP: merely SB in SRP (assuming he is not playing raise or fold), CO vs BTN, LJ vs HJ 3BP and BB vs BTN 4BP. Would you argue that in all these scneraios (except the BB vs BTN 4BP where the SPR exception applies) OOP players will have an uncapped range due to their just call strategies on the flop?

2. I initially thought that when the c-bet is larger than 33%pot, it indicates a polar strategy, if a 50%pot c-bet isn´t polar, do we look at at least 75%pot to calissify it as such? On Solver+/in theory I barely see 50%pot c-bets, merely 33% or 75% at 100 bbs (in this case this observation would make sense).

3. Is SB vs BB a polar or unselective c-bet strategy in theory? From what I saw it tends to be a polar one.

4. From the videos in the FTUNL course I understood that middle-wet boards which equalize opener´s advantage are polarized c-betting & raising boards. But when I put it in Solver+ it isn´t always as clear, though some patterns emerge: one could say that on JJ7r, Q94r, 954r, 622r & 765tt type of boards BTN vs BB SRP BB raises flop more with GS & low pairs than on AKQr, AK3, K93tt & A82r types provided the c-bet is 33% pot. About JT9tt I am confused, since despite theory 3-betting more hands preflop compared to players at lower stakes (JTs-->J7s, Q9s, KJo etc), BTN still doesn´t range c-bets in SRP, meaning that I need to c-bet even more polarized than theory suggests.
   When studying theory nothing is as definitive as Pete described it (middle-wet boards-> polar c-bet+raise, high & low, dry -> range c-bet+raise), so this why I wanted to ask you which heuristics would you use to make the classification of boards easier as to which strategy to pursue & wheter it is more favorable for the opener vs defender?

5. I thought that LJ vs BB c-bets are much more polar, since BB range is tighter. Theory though suggest range c-betting on all mentioned boards except of765tt & K93tt.

6. Compared to these boards, which are 1-2 more that appear often enough and are different enough strategy-wise, so that I could take a closer look at?

I really hope not have any further questions as to this course and if you would manage to answer those final ones with as much clarity as possible, I would really be thankful to you. I can wait as long as you need and you find some free time for this.

Thank you very much for your detailed answers – they helped me a great deal. The main source of confusion was that I assumed the Villain would always have the option to raise after calling. This led me to believe that when he called, he was always capped. Consequently, when he actually has a raising range and chooses to raise, his range is uncapped, whereas when he just calls, it is capped. If there is no raising range, then a call will always be uncapped. Therefore, the blank/game changer criterion applies only when calling without a raising range, because this is the only scenario in which a capped range can become uncapped (and not vice versa). These are my new understanding - are those correct?

Regarding the second exception – calling while still being uncapped due to "new nuts": Based on the premise of maximizing EV, you would normally be raising with the nuts (even in the absence of the possibility of new nuts), especially if you believe the Villain will call with one-pair hands, for example. In my understanding the “no new nuts” exception only makes sense if the reason for raising includes no need for protection and a belief that Villain would fold alls worse combos. Different point, which makes me understand more the "no-new-nuts exception": while it's true that no stronger hands (than ours) can appear, Villain can still improve to two pair or better. This may serve as an additional reason why a call-only strategy might maximize our EV in this spot and thus justify this exception. So in this case, we remain uncapped despite only calling against an (un)selective range (i think on monotone it is more a selective=polar one). Are there other exceptions – for example, facing a polar range where our strategy dictates never to raise?

Now to your exercises:

Example 2

The first exception does not apply. Even though the HJ c-bets more than 33% pot and there are more than two players in the pot, it is still a single-raised pot (SRP), and the stack-to-pot ratio (SPR) is still small. This alone gives BTN an incentive to raise.

The second exception also does not apply. Even HJ's strongest hands can weaken on the turn, as there are many possible game-changer cards and stronger hands that can develop. Therefore, BTN has an incentive to raise his strong hands (purely based on this exception).

It seems that the (possible?) third exception applies here: BTN is facing a polar range from an OOP player, who would usually not range-c-bet against a tighter, condensed IP range. In such a situation, BTN will likely adopt a call-only strategy (?), which leaves his range uncapped, even though he is calling. The presence of the BB still being in the pot is an additional reason to adopt a call-only strategy. The fact that HJ bets 50% pot, indicating a polar c-betting strategy, reinforces the likelihood of a call. Therefore, BTN’s range remains uncapped despite not raising. Since an uncapped range cannot be capped, the nature of the turn card – whether it is a blank or a game changer – is irrelevant.

Example 3

The first exception does not apply. The SPR is small, which theoretically gives the BB an incentive to raise. The second exception also does not apply. There are many stronger hands still to come, giving BB an incentive to raise with his strong holdings. For these reasons his range tends to be capped when calling.

What confuses me though: The SB bets 50% pot, suggesting a polar betting strategy. This implies that BB should primarily respond with a calling strategy. But now that I think again, not necessarily: Pete described in the course that polar c-bets can be tackled via polar raises (and merged c-bets with merged raises).

Now, since the turn is a game changer (a bad card for SB? Though not necessarily!), BB’s capped range (based on the first two reasons and assuming that one can raise vs a polar range) becomes uncapped.

What I don’t fully understand is the type of game changer in your Qh 8c 4d example: some cards favor one range more than the other. You mentioned that board pairing and mid-rank cards are good for the caller – but these mid cards could also favor BTN’s range just as much.

Thank you very much for your effort and your previous answer, which helped a lot!!!

where can I find those videos suggested?

hey,
I am interested in having a studying community, while I am playing NL2 for 6 days a week/6 hours/4 tables. My discord is phillocos#2290. Feel free to add me, best, phil