Amid all of today’s complex poker terminology, it’s easy to get caught up in misapplication or misinterpretation of terms. People have been misusing the word ‘polarized’ for a long time, but its antithesis, the word ‘linear’, is strangely under-used. In this article I hope to explain the differences between the two as they relate to 3-betting, and outline a couple of baseline strategies for applying these concepts.
Defining the terms
First, let’s define the term polarized. Merriam-Webster defines ‘polarize’ as ‘to give polarity to something’, so we need to now define polarity as well. Polarity is defined as ‘the quality or condition inherent in a body that exhibits opposite properties or powers in opposite parts or directions’. To establish how these ‘opposite properties’ apply to discussions about ranges of poker hands, imagine a range displayed visually on a diagram.
At the top we have the parts of the range that exhibit the property or power of being strong (i.e. having high equity and/or high EV in a particular situation), and at the bottom we have the hands which exhibit the opposite property or power, being weak (again, in terms of equity and/or EV). This division of properties is what creates the polarization of a player’s range.
Now, let’s look at linear. This one is a little tricky – the best definition as it applies to poker is, ‘based or depending on sequential development’. This sequential aspect is covered by the fact that a linear range only includes hands that are next to each other in the theoretical ‘list’ of hand strengths – a fully linear range may not simply start with AA and progress from there, but it does progress from each hand to the next hand below that in strength.
We use words like ‘capped’ and ‘bounded’ to describe where the top and bottom of a linear range might be located in terms of strength, and oftentimes a linear range may be both capped and bounded to the point where it contains almost exclusively middle-strength hands, but a range cannot simultaneously be both linear and polarized.
3-betting small and linear in position with variable frequencies
When it comes to 3-betting, there are big differences between how we should approach the practice in position versus out of position. In position we have a host of advantages – the ability to make easier postflop decisions, an increase in opportunities to flat-call a 4-bet if we need to, a reduced likelihood of players behind us playing back at us, and some others. This should make us keen to 3-bet in position where we can, in order to capitalise on these advantages.
Since we would prefer to have hands in our 3-betting range which are more playable postflop in the event that we get flat-called or face a 4-bet, we would be well suited not to include many trashy, unplayable hands in our range. There’s no real advantage to picking a hand like 84o for an in-position 3-bet – you’re in trouble if you get flatted, you’re in trouble if you get 4-bet, and you have no blockers to anything significant. In contrast, 3-betting a hand like AJs (often just below most people’s value 3-betting thresholds) gives you the opportunity to play very comfortably in position when you get flatted, you have good blockers to strong parts of your opponent’s range, and you may even be able to flat a 4-bet in position if your opponent makes a sizing mistake.
Of course, the main disadvantage of 3-betting a hand like AJs in position is that it can’t be in our flatting range any more, which means our flatting range gets weaker – this is why we need to vary our frequencies to some extent. We want to protect our flatting range by sometimes flatting fairly strong hands, but we don’t want to negate our ability to extract value with small 3-bets that entice our opponents to flat-call OOP. This strategy of extracting value with a protected yet unpredictable range will pay dividends against weaker regulars.
3-betting large and polarized out of position with more stable frequencies
When we’re thinking about 3-betting out of position, that means we’re in the blinds. When we’re in the blinds, that means we’re getting slightly better pot odds than we would usually get facing a raise, especially if we’re in the big blind. This implies we should be happy to do a little more calling than otherwise, since we’re getting a better price. In reality, most people tend to fold more OOP because they’re worried about playing postflop, but I don’t necessarily think this is as big of a deal as people might imagine – the reason they give up money when they flat preflop is to do with mistakes in their postflop game, not because flatting is a mistake in itself.
So when our flatting range (also known as our defending range if you want to conceptualize ‘blind defense’ as a separate idea) gets wider, what happens to our 3-betting range? Well, it by necessity has to tighten. We can’t widen our linear, capped flatting range without expanding it to the point where it overlaps with our value 3-betting range, so we have a choice. We either continue 3-betting the same range and simply flat less often, or we allow our flatting range to consume the weaker part of our 3-betting range, and substitute some hands from our folding range into our 3-betting range to compensate.
This strategy makes more sense than simply 3-betting less often, because when we 3-bet less often, we unbalance our 3-betting range. We make ourselves predictable. If we go back to tightening our flatting range, we may miss out on good opportunities to make a profitable flat-call. So we end up in a situation where we 3-bet a fair number of hands for value, we flat a very wide range of hands just below those hands to take advantage of the profitable flat-call spot, and then we 3-bet bluff with the best of our folding hands.
When it comes to sizing, a bigger bet sizing is appropriate on occasions where our range is more polarized. We make it harder for our opponent to flat-call, thus minimizing the need to play out of position postflop, and we give ourselves the maximum opportunity to include bluffs in our range to balance our value hands. A sizing of 2.5 or more times the original raise is often appropriate – perhaps as big as 3.5 or 4 times as big in the right situation.
Is it possible to go somewhere in between?
Yes, of course. There’s always a middle ground. But the problem ends up being that you find it difficult to capitalize on the advantage of being in position, because you 3-bet slightly larger and get flat-called less often, while finding it doubly hard to play postflop because your hand selection may not facilitate postflop play. Or you 3-bet more linear out of position, and the playability of your hand is offset by being out of position, while your flat-calling range is weakened by the presence of more strong hands in your 3-betting range.
In short, I think the strategy outlined above is what you will see many regulars moving towards over the coming year or two. It covers as many bases as possible while allowing for adaptations within a solid strategic framework. It doesn’t get you into too many tough spots, and it makes your decisions as easy as possible. It does require a little more flat-calling out of position in order to make it work, but the benefit of this is that it prevents late-position opponents from seeing you as the kind of player who folds their blinds too often, and thus reduces their opening frequencies in late position. In short, it makes you harder to play against, as long as you’re working on your postflop game.
If you decide to implement this strategy, let me know how it goes. It’s hard to generate a sample size of data from my own hands that allows me to test it, but if you guys feel comfortable with it, that’ll be a good enough barometer for me.
Sankkaros
Hi Ginger,
Thanks for the calorie dense food for thought.
So are you saying that it would be appropriate to add a few more hands to our 3-betting bluff range (suited connectors/ 1 gappers) in position instead of adding the hands we would usually flat in position i.e A/J in order to balance/maintain our range?
With regards to 3-betting OOP. Are you saying that we should increase our polarised 3-bet sizing to much greater than we would in position?
Thanks for the insight albeit still trying to get my head around it.