2/5 how do you adjust your CO range vs btn caller?

Open a little tighter if the button is calling a lot and making your life difficult. It's hard to overcome the positional disadvantage.

Be sure to check some strong hands when you do end up in this situation, so you're not just check folding all the time. I would be looking to check raise with both bluffs and value hands.

Other than that, you're going to have to continue sometimes with some marginal hands. Poker is hard.

You havent really given any useful information since our only question is "what is his range?". We basically have to get through a street to help define it OOP. This is accomplished by checking the vast majority of flops regardless of our hand. Lets say you open AA and the flop is J92s. Check, because we dont know if he has a set, 2 pair, or monster draw. Let him essentially commit the first action allowing us to 'act last' against a bet. Flip positions for a moment and pretend he donked into us in this same hand, how good would you feel about raising with AA? Depending upon his sizing it woulda kinda suck right? Now pretend we have AsAx and we raised and then he 3bet, now it really sucks. So going back to the original hand we have to be careful OOP. Our range is always going to be somewhat obvious when we give action compared to his.

There's no one sized rule here about OOP play. We will always be at a distinct disadvantage. All we can do is try to uncover his range and then play accordingly. If he checks back flop it's pretty obvious he doesnt have a nutted hand. If he bets small it could just be a feeler bet. If he bets big he's probably just bad. But as I was saying we essentially have to give him some rope with nearly 100% of our range which often results in playing a 2 street game robbing us of crucial info.

1. Tighten up with your pre-flop opens.

2. Size up with your open size.

3. Don't range bet or range check the flop. C-bet polar with your strongest value and your highest equity draws, and check all your thin value, showdown value, and low equity draws.

4. When you do c-bet, size up.

5. When you check your weaker value and low-equity draws, over-fold when he stabs large, and check-raise the ever-loving $hlt out of him when he stabs small. If he stabs for a middling size, bluff catch with your SDV and mostly fold your low-equity draws, unless you've got good IO to continue.

Basically, make his life a living hell and punish him mercilessly for thinking he can make a light call whenever you raise and stab whenever you check. Make him fear playing with you, even when he's IP, unless he's actually got a hand.

Don't pay him off when he starts increasing his bet or raise sizes. Make tight folds. Don't show any bluffs when he folds. Don't muck face up when you fold. Make him pay to see your cards.

If you bluff-catch, and he says, "you're good", or "good call", don't fast-roll your hand. Wait for him to show first. Slow roll the f**k out of him. If you make a light call, and win, don't slam your cards down like you were nervous about it. Just look him in the eye and calmly turn your cards over, like you knew he was FOS.

He's a reg. You're in his house. He's comfortable. Make him uncomfortable. Tilt him. If he doesn't request a table change or rack up after a few orbits, you're doing something wrong.

I know we often chop, but this resembles the blind vs blind situation I face in tournaments.

This guy may have found what I discovered is to keep raising until villain gives up.

You’re likely wide vs wide, maybe it’s more like playing heads up. I often miss everything, but keep betting when the board hits my range. You say the board is bad for you, villain probably knows that too.

You may not find as many clues as you would like with a player like this, but keep looking for a sizing tell or some mistake they are making
You want a range just slightly tighter than v

At some point, you have to try out the strategy yourself and out-aggressive the aggressor. Until you do that - make a stand - expect it to continue.

Of course, all of that is unnecessary…
The simple answer change seats or change tables

This is kind of a zany thread.

First I want to ask the OP, what kind of range are we even opening from the CO that whiffs four flops in a row? Are we just card dead? Does it need to get deeper than that?

Also, why are we afraid to c-bet into a BB fish?

As for the responses:

Meh, ok. I guess the math checks out kinda. But we're talking about opening as the CO and getting called by the BTN. We're only in the CO once per orbit, 2-3 orbits per hour, and we're only raising maybe 35% of hands. For us to to integrate this adjustment into our game and tighten up to say 30% of hands, we need 1) to be sitting in the CO, 2) the action gets folded to us 3) we have a hand that's between the 30th and 35th percentile. And, then we fold. Is that really gonna help?

This is the best advice in the thread and its only partially correct. Polarizing is the way to go because a polarized range doesn't mind getting raised. You have great hands that can continue for value and trash hands you're happy to muck in the face of aggression. Therefore, DO NOT include your high-equity draws in your polarized range. Instead, use your lowest equity draws (e.g. Overcards + backdoor flush). Check/call with your good draws.

Most hands don't hit flops?
I was opening hands like J9s, KQo, pp etc.
3 way flops not in position you cbet bad boards or even good boards but you'll be in the dark when you're called??? Are you ready to fire the 2nd barrel with 0 equity? or are you cbetting one and done??? We'd be oop vs btn if btn calls our cbet.

Fish are more sticky in general, so you're ready to cbet 0 equity hands vs fishes and barrel off?? Sounds like losing play? Or you just fire 1 cbet and give up? Sounds like losing play vs fish again. They float wide.

Sure they do. Any unpaired hand will make at least a pair on 1 in 3 flops. You missed 4 in a row. Maybe this is just variance and you don't need to do anything differently at all.

You'll have to tell us what the flops were. KQo should be betting almost all flops. J9s should be c-betting loads of flops too. Again, maybe we're just card dead?

As for pp's: If you're raising those to "hit the flop" then surely you know you'll be check/folding 7 out of 8 times. Your results in that case seems consistent and normal. I'm thinking you don't need to change a thing.

Ok, I don't know why you post here if you're not going to even engage with reality. You're never "in the dark". It's called hand reading. You have a range, villain has a range, someone has an advantage. And you never have 0 equity either. Are your cards blank? What game are you playing?

More doomerism. Just play aces man

Allow me to clarify.

I'd c-bet combo draws, the best over-cards + a draw to the nuts combos, and the 1P + draw combos with the most equity. Basically anything that can continue if we get raised.

I'm not looking to do a lot of bet-folding when our nemesis is on our direct left. If he's stabbing a lot when we check, I'll fold the air and continue with the bluff catchers and lower equity draws.

Good luck to him if he can figure out what I'm doing and adjust accordingly before I stack him.

I really think you've got your ranges all twisted up.

Your combo draws have too much equity to bet fold, and not enough to bet/call. So check them.

Your Overcard + Draw hands have too little equity call a bet, so bet them yourself as the bottom end of your polarized c-bet range.

Your Pair + Draws have too much equity to bet/fold, and not enough to bet/call. So check them.

First, I disagree that some of the hands you mentioned can continue against a raise. Second, a polarized range is going to include bet/folds. If you're only betting with hands that can continue, then you're not polarized. And you want to be polarized.

This sounds like you're check/folding and check/calling a lot of hands that should be leading.

This may better be asked in the Theory section, but FR CO range of 35% for $$, and the larger opens we use, vs tourney or online, which means we should be tighter when opening, right? Seems really high. Am I just a nit? Even 30% seems higher than what I usually open. That's more my typical button RFI range.

Looking at 888's FR RFI charts, and I think they're going no bigger than 3x opens, they're using a modified 27% range for CO: (22+,Axs,K6s,Q-97s,86,75,64,54s; A-JTo)

Aside, what is it with solvers and their love of K6/K7s? Pair coverage? Polar ranges need to start somewhere?

I totally believe I'm way too tight, or constructing my ranges incorrectly. If I think I can win pf, I'm throwing in a ton of Axo RFI. Dumping many of them in Dango's stated case, where the BU + Blinds just won't fold pre.

Anyway, curious about the ranges and great discussion.

In light of Pres Deuce's responses, let me try this again...

In this example, you raise, he calls, the BB calls, you whiff on the flop, BB checks, you check, he stabs...and?

You didn't say what happens next. I'm guessing BB called and you folded, or BB folded and you folded, or BB raised, and you folded, or BB called, and you called, and you didn't know what to do on the turn.

First question - if you whiffed, why is it a problem when he stabs? Why can't you just check-fold when you miss?

My hunch is there's more going on. I'm guessing that when you c-bet, he's making you nuts by either raising or floating, rather than folding like a good boy when you show aggression. You're folding a lot, either to his flop raises, or on later streets when you slow down and he takes aggressive action. It feels like he's got your number.

Second question - when you raise pre and he calls, are you range-checking, range-betting, or mixing checks and c-bets? How are you structuring your c-betting range?

If my guesses above are correct, it probably feels like he doesn't "respect" your c-bets, because he's frequently raising or floating. Adding to the frustration is that when he calls your pre-flop raise or c-bet next to act, it starts a call-train behind him, and he always has the advantage of acting last post-flop.

When you bet for value, he either folds, or he floats, and then the run-out stinks, and you slow down, and check-fold when he stabs. When you semi-bluff, he floats, you give up when you brick, and just check-fold when he stabs. When you try to trap him by checking thick value, that's the only time he doesn't stab at it.

Am I close?

I think the problem may be that you're probably VPIP'ing too many hands pre when this guy is sitting to your left. You're probably unbalanced on the flop, mostly checking when you whiff, and mostly just c-betting with everything from thin value to thick value, but checking with some weaker value, and trapping some with your nutted value. This guy is turning your aggression against you, and pouncing whenever you take your foot off the gas.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Tighten up a bit pre. You don't need to over-adjust by becoming a nit. Just avoid playing some speculative hands that look playable but become difficult to play from OOP or multi-way.

Like, don't VPIP suited gappers below KJs, or low suited connectors like 54s/43s/32s, or up-and-down suited combos like K5s. It's okay to pitch ATo.

2. When you're opening a tighter range, and this guy likes to start the call train on your left, raise bigger.

First off, at 2/5, a $15 open is likely to get people from other tables calling you. That's part of the problem you're having. At least make it $20. If you open to $20 and he's always calling, make it $25. Keep increasing the size until he looks annoyed at your raise sizing.

You'll know when you're making him uncomfortable.

3. Tighten up on your c-bets. Bet hands that want to build the pot and don't want him to check back. Bet hands that don't mind getting raised. Bet hands that would be happy to get called and barrel for 2x pot on most turns. Check hands that you don't mind folding to his stabs, or that can check-call when he stabs at it.

4. Size up with your c-bets. You don't need to go crazy. If you'd usually c-bet 1/3 pot, c-bet 1/2 pot. If you'd c-bet 1/2 pot, make it 2/3 pot. Don't be afraid to pot it when the board is draw-heavy.

5. When you check and he stabs for a small size, check-raise aggressively with the top and bottom of your continuing range. Over-fold when he stabs large. When he stabs for a medium size, continue with your bluff catchers and your 8 or 9 out draws to the nuts, and just fold your worse draws.

6. When you c-bet and he floats, over-bet on brick turns, and size way down on nut-changing turns. Use stupid-annoying sizes on the turn, like 2x-3x pot or 10%-20% pot.

Don't worry about it when you c-bet and he folds. Don't worry about it when you c-bet and he calls. Don't worry about him raising. Don't worry about it when you check and he stabs.

The point is to make it unprofitable for him to call your pre-flop opens light, unprofitable to float when you c-bet, and unprofitable to stab wide.

When it's your action on the flop, before you c-bet, think about whether or not you'd be happy calling a raise, or if you'd be happy getting called and 2x pot over-betting on most turns. If so, go ahead and bet. If you're not sure, consider checking.

If you raised pre with AA and the flop is 982 two-tone, that sucks, but whatever. Check, and see what he does. If he stabs for a small size, raise. If he stabs big, fold. If he stabs medium, call, and play some poker on later streets.

If he's annoying you, annoy him back. Don't muck face up or show a bluff. Just slow roll him. Remember that he's probably stabbing a ton of garbage hands, and you're bluff-catching with the middle of your range. Make him show first. Make him feel like an a-hole for calling your $25 pre-flop raise and stabbing $25 when you checked the flop, and for punting off another $150 or more on the turn and river with a pair of napkins.

Everything you posted seems mostly fine and logical. In #5 you seem to have identified a bet-sizing tell from villain without any real basis for it, but I'm splitting hairs at this point. What I really wanted to communicate is that you need some bet/folds in your range, and I still don't see that mentioned in your analysis. So, just give that some thought.

Beyond that, I think you're trying way too hard to help someone who doesn't want to be helped. The OP here is some kind of fancy-play nit who raises J9s but only continues when he flops the nuts. He'll never play "in the dark" (i.e. out of position) without a strong made hand, but also wants to open tons of speculative junk because that's what the cool kids do. He assumes that missing the flop means he has "zero equity" and wants this forum to tell him what adjustments will make his cards be better. He seems to believe that the villain in this thread is some kind of exploitable, leaky, maniac who will give up all the money if dangomango can just make the right pre-flop tweak. Poker just doesn't work like that.

Tbh, the Villain in this hand seems to be doing everything right. He's calling raises in position with a strong range of playable hands and betting when the action checks around to him. That's basic ABC poker, nothing special. He's having outsized success because the Hero here is raising second-tier hands and giving up without a fight. We don't have to "annoy him". We don't have to "make him feel like an a-hole". We can just stop handing him stacks of cash on a silver platter. That's the adjustment.

so much useless text. study w solver, play online, get good. otherwise continue to lose vs regs

it is that simple

all the advice in here probably comes from good place but end of day they are not beating midstakesish regs. if there was some magical 3 sentence aphorism you could read to make you competitive without work, everyone would be elite and edges wouldnt exist

for a more feel good answer co open vs btn call is a spot you are going to get run over by anyone remotely reasonable oop because they are playing significantly less hands than you while ip. also multiway button gets to stab a ton, so likely some amount of this is all in your head. but really the truth is just get better

if your method of improvement is posting on here probably youre destined for failure, but at least post specific hands. there isnt really much to do with the op

I never cbetted, I only check/folded 3 times, check/called 1 time to bluff catch which didn't go well. As for bb, he check/folded each time. So I was probably wrong assuming BB was a fish, maybe preflop he is, but postflop from these 4 times, we can assume he's a fit/fold player somewhere along this line.

I found myself leaking in this specific spot vs villain, hence this thread.

My strategy is villain dependent. If I think bb is a fish, I only cbet my draws+value hands.
If I knew bb is a fit/fold player, and btn is a reg, I might range bet small on good flops.
Btn has to float alot less when bb has yet to act.

As for sizing, I usually open to 20 for normal sizing in 2/5, which is similar to everyone else. Then I found myself getting 3bet/squeezed frequently(different players). I folded each time. The adjustment I made was tightening up my open range and going for smaller sizing.

You never c-bet. You only check/folded. You only bet made hands. You kept getting blown off your raises pre-flop and your adjustment was to start using a weaker bet size. You also tightened up your range to something that still includes J9s apparently. And you think the BB playing fit-or-fold is somehow not fishy.

You just said all of those things Dango, and they are all the hallmarks of an archetypal loose-passive.

Just play a stronger range and learn to bet-fold.

I'm not assuming this specific V has a sizing tell. Much of the player pool will betray their hand strength with their bet sizing when they stab, especially in multi-way pots, particularly on draw-heavy boards. I'm just advising OP to be observant and watch V for such a sizing tell.

Regardless, if we're to understand that V is practically range-stabbing whenever action checks to him, we have to think he's often stabbing with air, probably for a small size, and we can aggressively x/r him, most especially if we notice that he splits his sizes.

I believe OP is sincere in wanting to improve. I don't know if everyone went through a similar phase, but I remember going through a stage in which I was trying to improve but didn't yet realize what my personal "blind spots" were.

I'm willing to be patient and keep trying to help as long as someone seems receptive to it. As soon as the effort seems unwelcome or utterly futile, I'll give up trying.

If you're check-folding a lot as the PFR, my guess is you're opening too wide, and may be over-folding to his aggression post.

Say you raise with KQhh check the 9dTd2h flop. He stabs for 1/3 to 1/2 pot. Call. Make him barrel. If you pick up equity on the turn, you can check-call again.

If you're opening a tighter range, and checking when you miss but have equity to improve, and he's stabbing wide, you'll often have a profitable call.

He's painting himself into a corner when he always starts a bluff on the flop and barrels turn. Sometimes you'll get there. Very often he'll give up on the river and check back. I'd expect him to get greedy and size up with his thick value, letting us off the hook when we're bluff catching.

Doc, I'm reading a lot of "if this then that" in your analysis and it's suggesting to me that you're thinking one street at a time rather than making a plan for the whole hand. You're also re-evaluating at every decision point without necessarily accounting for what happened previously which leads you to recommend some seemingly wonky lines.

Here's an example:

So we have a hand, it missed the flop, we don't expect V to fold, so we don't bet. Then when V bets, we decide he has nothing and raise him hoping he'll fold. There's some circular logic here that has us throwing out the biggest bets with the worst hands against the strongest range. I'm not loving that equation.

We need to just bet the flop. That's the real answer here. (Kinda crazy OP refuses to even say what they were.)

Doc, I like you. But you're killing me here.

BET THAT FLOP!

Not looking to get into a protracted back-and-forth debate with you or anyone else. Responding generally to this and other posts you've made, as a courtesy..

Re, my conditional (if-then) logic - yes, I do a lot of that when analyzing hands, both in game and here in the forum.

I'm not only thinking one street at a time. I'm generally thinking about various lines I can take on later streets, starting on the flop.

That said, I've found that our time and mental energy is best spent trying to make the best choice we can make facing the decision in front of us now, and not getting too bogged down thinking or worrying about what might happen on a future street. We'll have time to make those decisions if and when we get there.

Re, considering what happened previously - if you mean prior hands we've observed our opponents play, I tend to think I'm more observant than most in that regard. If you mean prior actions within a hand, there again, I think I'm probably more attuned than many others, such that I've been accused by some here as making super-specific reads.

The thing is - those reads are very often correct.

Call it a by-product of growing up in dysfunctional environments where effective people-reading was a critical survival skill, a lifetime spent as an amateur student of psychology, and a career spent in sales.

Re, wonky lines - I mean...as opposed to what? GTO? If you know enough about what your opponents are doing that you can replicate it in a solver with correct node-locking, a solver will take some wonky lines.

Compared to what the crowd think? I never really cared, honestly. Again, I'm probably better than most at quickly developing solid reads on my opponents, and I'm faster than most to use those reads to begin exploiting them. So, yeah, I'll do some wonky $hlt, but always with a firm foundation in ruthless logic.

Re, having bet-folds on the flop (bear with me) - my default setting is to check range from OOP as the PFR when HU. If I'm checking range, I don't have any bets, so I don't have any bet-folds.

Yes, I'll sometimes deviate, but typically as a hard exploit, when I have thick value. So, it's almost never a bet-fold.

When a pot is multi-way and I'm the PFR, I'll have more c-bets in position when it may be 3 to the flop. But generally, when it's multi-way, I'm only betting my good hands and good draws, and if I'm monkey-in-the-middle, I'm often checking when I think an opponent behind me is likely to stab at it when I check.

My overall flop strat just doesn't have many bets from OOP, so I just don't have any bet-folds, because when I bet, it's for value or with a good draw.

Now, if I bet for value or with a good draw and an opponent does something that makes me 100% certain I should fold, in that case, I'd fold. It just doesn't happen often at low stakes. Like, if I raise pre with AK and the flop is A72rb, and I c-bet 1/3 to 1/2 pot, it's pretty unusual for an opponent to raise huge, if they raise at all.

Re, my flop x/r strat - if I'm checking range from OOP, I'm going to have check-folds, check-calls, and check-raises. But what I'm doing is less about what my hand is and more about what I believe my opponent's range is, and I'm pretty good about ranging my opponents effectively.

So, yes, I have check-raise bluffs. Don't you? Or do you just have bet-folds? My experience has been that the x/r-bluffs tend to add more to my win-rate than the bet-folds.

It's not circular logic, it's inductive logic (where the conclusion is probable but not certain, as opposed to deductive, where the conclusion is certain if the initial premises are correct).

Specifically regarding the advice given to OP in this thread - my observation leads me to think that English likely isn't Dango's first language, and a likely result is that many of Dango's posts are brief and lack detail, which leads to a lot of inference.

Having read a number of Dango's threads, I feel like I have a pretty good read on how Dango plays, and we play in the same room, against some of the same characters, so while I certainly wouldn't claim a high degree of confidence that my inferences are entirely correct, I think they're reasonable.

From the OP, and as I've pointed out, it doesn't make much sense to worry about check-folding flops when we whiff and V stabs. So I figured there must be more to the situation, and filled in the gaps drawing from Dango's other threads. For example, this one.

In that thread, where the positions were the reverse of this thread - Dango was the BTN and the PFR was monkey-in-the-middle, Dango initially expected the PFR to range-bet the flop, but also apparently thought V was splitting his range into checks and bets, and checking would cap him.

Here in this thread, it seems like Dango is also range-splitting on the flop, and struggling as a result, likely due to what I suspect is basically guessing when to check and when to bet, either for value or as a bluff.

Ordinarily, I'd tell Dango to just range check from OOP, but if our IP opponent is stabbing at a higher frequency than the rest of the player pool, there are specific adjustments we can make as a hard exploit of that specific player tendency.

My hunch is that Dango would actually prefer to employ a split strategy on the flop. I'm just suggesting improvements for implementing that strategy against this V.

If I knew the player sitting to my left was effectively range-stabbing whenever I checked, I'd split my range the way I've recommended Dango split, because I think it leads to the highest EV outcomes.

You are of course free to disagree, and if you wish, you may argue otherwise.

I am free to choose not to argue further. Please don't consider me rude if I'm happy to accept that we may not see eye-to-eye, and don't care to try to persuade you towards my view any more than I care to be persuaded towards yours.

I think you're just making things up as you go along man. Nothing you just said makes a lick of sense.

You seem to have some good poker insight, but what good does a comment like this do? I'm just saying, your comments might be more well received if you tried to focus more on your constructive poker knowledge.

Doc, I do think you may have a leak where you bet with a linear range in some spots where you should be betting with a polarized range. OOP as the preflop raiser you should be checking a lot, and you're correct there. When you do bet it should often be strong value hands (although OOP you have to check sometimes with them too), so again you're correct.

However, you should typically balance your value hands with "bluffs, " and it sounds from your post like you're not doing this. Your bluffs OOP will often be the hands that are not quite strong enough to check call, but stronger than your "trash" hands that are just looking to check fold. So good bluffs could be gutshots, over cards plus backdoors, etc. Basically hands that you can continue bluffing/barreling on many run-outs, and that have some potential to improve to a value hand by the river... I'm doing a lot of generalizing here but this is often true, other than for example if you have a massive range advantage and are doing something different like range betting.

To the OP, I feel fairly confident that I know what your problem is. You're likely over folding.

If I had to guess I would say you're probably not barreling off aggressively enough (whether starting with a bet or check raise), and also you're likely not playing sufficiently sticky when you check and face aggressive actions.

If you look at solver outputs CO vs BTN call is a relatively wide range spot, and you have to continue with more hands than is intuitive. What you're dealing with is a very common leak, even amongst good players.

Unfortunately there's no easy fix for it. The solution is to study more all the myriad boards, preferably with a solver to learn what the weakest hands are that have to continue on each street.

To be clear, I said I'd c-bet my best value hands and best draws as a semi-bluff against this V, if it seems like V is just range-stabbing whenever we check.

Contrary to the notion that I'm not thinking about future streets, I actually am, which is why I'm advocating for splitting our range this way.

If a "normal" opponent is only going to stab sometimes, but generally use bigger sizing with vulnerable value and smaller sizes with weak value and bluffs, then we gain info by checking, info that we can use to decide what we want to do next.

But if this V is just stabbing with everything, and not telegraphing his hand strength with his bet sizing, we're not gaining that info, and potentially losing value when we have a good hand and he checks back the turn.

If he's also floating us wide whenever we bet, I want to bet our stronger hands and higher equity draws, and keep some of our weaker value hands and lower equity draws in our check-call range.

Like I said, I'm mostly just checking range from OOP. If I deviate by betting, I'm doing it as a hard exploit of my opponents. As an example, if I think they're loose-passive and sticky, such that they're more likely to just flat call when I bet for value, but not stab when I check, I'm more likely to just c-bet, particularly when the SPR is low enough that my hand doesn't benefit from going for a check-raise, and we can get all the money in if I just start betting on the flop.

Am I unbalanced in those spots, by betting too linear? Maybe, but I'm exploiting opponents who call way too much and don't fold nearly enough. I don't need to be balanced. I should just be betting linear. If you knew your opponent was super-sticky, are you going to focus on being balanced, or just value-bet him to death?

I think you're looking at it through the lens of someone who's playing against better opponents. I mostly play 1/3 and 2/5. OP is playing similar stakes. The player pool isn't full of opponents who are capable of figuring out what I'm doing and adjusting quickly enough to exploit me.

If her V is truly range-stabbing when action checks to him, we don't need to have c-bet-folds in our range to exploit him, we need to have a lot of c-bet-calls, c-bet-raises, check-folds, check-calls, and check-raises.

can you blame me? I tried pretty hard with this guy. But he's just not engaged with reality here. So I vented. It's whatever.

Look at his response to your post. It's completely off the rails. I can't believe he's still allowed to post here. every post is a wall of text saying that the answer might one of eight different things depending 12 different conditions, but only if four out of thirty six subconditions are also aligned with his decision tree matrix. He clearly doesn't know the definition of the terms he's using. Most notably, "polarized". He has 30 different excuses for why any advice you give him doesn't fit his strategy. And he contradicts himself every six or eight sentences. He's inventing bet sizing tells out of thin air and inferring villain's range-bet tendences from a sample size of three hands. And if you try to confront him on this, as politely as possible, he comes back at you with another diatribe explaining why he's constructed a whole new set of kooky ranges based on 80 different what-ifs and a myriad of maybes.