Polarizing your ranges-

I was just wondering if anyone has ever pre flop raised with trash cards, or limped in with premium starting hands to keep the table guessing... if you could explain how you polarize your ranges, and why, I would appreciate the advice.

Balancing your limping range will take care of itself if you never limp. In hold'em there is rarely a reason to limp. I've been playing PLO a lot and there are some times when it makes sense to limp, intending to call. But, even then the default should be to raise first in. In hold'em, though, there just isn't a good reason to have an open-limping range.

Now, adding trash to your raising range to polarize it, that is another mistake. Your raising range will already be polarized, in the sense that it will have hands that you intend to fold to a reraise. And, as you progress through a hand, your betting range will stay polarized if you are bluffing correctly with your complete misses. You don't need to add garbage to your range to make things happen. It happens naturally.

There are times where a squeeze is very valuable though.
I saw Dario do it at WSOP this time. He put out around 4 people away with 63s from the BB
In cash, it may not work that well I guess

Yeah, tournaments and cash are going to be very different beasts in this respect. But, the same ideas still hold true. A squeeze is just a play made because you have a lot of fold equity. It is sometimes the case that you believe you have enough fold equity that you can literally raise with any hand. Tournaments have more fold equity that cash games, due to stack considerations and the fact that you can't just reload with more chips.

There are spots in cash games where you will widen your range. If you are on the button and the blinds are playing with VPIPs of 10% and 8% (very tight even to button opens), you can open any cards. You will get two folds about 82.3% of the time. So, when you open 3xbb, you make an instant profit even if you never win when called or raised. Still, you might not want to make it too obvious, so you might not want to open 100% of your range even if you could. In that case, I will raise anything even remotely reasonable (6-3s would probably count it is suited and slightly connected) and fold my absolute trash like 9-2o.

But, I am not really adding these cards to my range to polarize it and confuse my opponents. This isn't a deception tactic. That's what I was addressing in my original response. This is pure exploitation of a weakness in an opponent's play. Much like a squeeze where you know the original raiser is likely too weak to call a reraise and the callers are progressively less likely to call because they would have raised themselves. You aren't raising 6-3s to confuse them and keep them guessing, you are raising it because it is an immediately profitable spot against a weakness in their game.

If i have decent stack I open raise with suited connectors no matter how low they are, like 2-3 or 4-5 suited cards. If I feel like the table is soft I sometimes can put a 3bet with those types of hand.

Do you use tracking software? If you do, can you filter for the times you open-raised these hands and see how you are averaging on them?

I don't play "trash" hands online because of the "shuffle" in live poker cash I play the entire deck.

If you get into a hand with low cards, realize that if you get caught, you lose the credibility of the table and you will have a loser image. OK

😎👊

+1 for vinnie. He had the essence captured very well about this actually very hard consept I'm forexample just starting to figure basics.

And JoseF yes it's fun to 3bet with those but if you do it with the range it suggests our 3bet range is too wide or alternatively your calling range is going to be too wide. Not to talk about losing value because you could pick better hands to 3bet if call/3bet range are valid.

I am one of those folks who are capable of playing anything. My response is about cash games because most tournaments (especially early) require a very strict set of hands. Running a bluff for 100 tournament chips is foolish when 45 minutes later the blinds will be more than that whole pot. But I digress ...

There is a reason to do anything in a cash game. I wouldn't advise flat calling the BB with AA or KK but I've done it in situations where I'm playing with madmen who are raising all of the time. It's still not really a good idea though and overall I would much more prefer a massive raise in a vacuum.

Now, what might surprise you is that I believe there is a TON of value in playing total crap from good positions CHEAPLY. If I can get into a pot for only $2 with 9 2 in the button I very well might. But ... and this is VITAL ... I'm only doing this to obtain an under the radar 2 pair. I'll get one about every 10ish hands so effectively I'm paying $20 on average for a chance at a monster pot that I'll win $100+ on. Only do this if you have the discipline to fold a ton of mediocre pairs on the flop. If you don't then stick to the basics.

You will flop two pair about 2% of the time, not 10% of the time. It's closer to 49-1 against, not 9-1 against. That is a massive difference in expectation. If you are playing 9-2 in order to flop two pair and win a big pot, you are making a big mistake. This is even more true when most players won't build a big pot unless they can beat top pair. If they can beat top pair, they will frequently also be beating two small pair. That means the times you build a big pot, you don't win as often as you need to.

Poor wording on my part. You are right. It is about 49 to 1. The chances of making a 2 pair after the river are about 10 to 1 when it's all said and done.

If I'm in the button, and I've called a flop with crap and get just a piece in 1 in 3 to eventually get better than 2 pair. If it's a limped pot a round of checks on the flop is a frequent occurrence. In that case you'll see free cards.

But yeah, in a vacuum it would take 49ish hands to flop 2 pair. It takes way less hands than that to make 2 pair cheaply and if you only hit top pair I'd much rather hit top pair with 92 then to do it with, for example, J10.

I looked it up. You're 32% to flop any 1 pair with any card. If you've done this you still have 5 outs to work with. Using the rule of 4 that leaves you with roughly a 20% chance of eventually making 2 pair. There is also a crazy gray area of straights, flushes etc that can be back doored raising your odds.

Essentially you're going to do a bunch of drawing and it requires a table with a lot of call stations and limpers, but they exist.

If you only play great cards you're going to limit how many huge pots you can get and be subjected to all in suck outs. Doing what I'm saying limits all of the huge damage of getting the second best hand and is a recipe for turning a limped pot into a mega pot.

Well, you're 32.4% to flop a pair or better. That includes your 1 pair, 2 pair, trips, full house, and quads flops.

After that, I just flat out disagree with all your conclusions. This is just bad logic. The fact that you can improve, does not mean you will improve to the best hand. And, poker is a game that is very unkind to the second best hand. This is even more likely when big pots are built. You are going to be up against very strong hands, and you don't want to develop a habit of starting with the worst of it in those sorts of races.

If you only play great cards, you aren't going to limit your huge pots. They will happen. You will get sucked out on, which is a good thing. If you are constantly getting sucked out on, it means you're putting the money in on the right side of the equation and your opponents are putting it in on the wrong side. If you're the one doing the sucking out, you're paying a high price for that opportunity.

And, nothing you have said stops you from suffering huge damage when you have a good but second best hand.

Sure it does. How am I going to get the 2nd best hand with crap? I'm not gonna be heads up because I would have folded pre flop to a raise. If a bunch of people limp I'm either going to smash the flop or end up clearly in last place in which I would fold.

Playing things like QJ in the button is a recipe for total disaster. Playing 9 2 o in the button is a recipe for a $2 loss at worst.

If you want to give away $2, there are better ways to do it.

Edit: If you play online and have actual tracked hands, I would love to see your statistics for limping the bottom 20% of hands on the button. I am willing to bet the results don't align with your theory.

For what it's worth I was only advocating a reason to do it. I've certainly done this on occasion, even last night I won a $170 pot with 10-7 suited in the button, but it's just one play in many. I am certainly not donating chips.

Here's the deal, in order to be a good player you need to learn the basics like second nature. If you want to be an excellent player you need to know that there is no such thing as a rule for how you should always play a hand.

Yes, I certainly prefer to get my money in as a heavy favorite, who wouldn't? But still, I'm not talking about playing my whole stack. I'm advocating playing 1/100th of your stack against a specific table makeup for an exceptional chance at doubling up.

The 10-7 hand, for what it's worth actually involved me raising in an unraised pot to $10 purely in a "check the temperature of the table" situation. I was lucky AF to hit 2 pair and crushed the guy.

Two days ago I played a 9 4 o in the button for $2, flopped a 9, had it checked around and popped a 4 on the turn. Then I took 100+ from a guy who had god knows what that he mucked before swearing and walking away.

It's certainly not something you should do a lot. I'm just pointing out that there is a reason to do it.

One last thing ... Ichiro is going to the baseball hall of fame because he has been successful on about 32% of his attempts. 1 out of 3 when the 3 are for $2 each with the possible reward of $200+ dollars is exceptional value. If I was 1 out of 3 while risking my whole stack I'd be broke in short order. All bets, pots and how you choose to exploit your opponent's hand ranges are far from equal.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. There's some truth in the idea that an excellent player is going to find profitable exceptions to the standard rules for good play, but they are excellent players because they have mastered good play. A couple positive results only works to convince you that it's possible to turn a profit from this -EV play. It's like sitting at a slot machine and winning on your first pull. Yeah, you played a bad spot and turned a profit that one time. This is the thinking that makes good players a lot of money at the tables.

To extend on your baseball reference, you might hit the flop 30% of the time. That's true with any two unpaired cards, but if you are playing QJ you're more likely to flop top pair when you do hit compared to 9-2. On a Q-9-5 flop, guess who hit their hand and is still in a whole world of trouble? That's right, the person playing garbage. Are you just folding those flops? If that is the case, you can't talk about hitting 30+% of the time, since it isn't a hit when you can't play it. How about when you have 9-2 and the flop comes A-9-2, you're going to donate a stack of chips to the moron who limped A-9.

Yeah, sometimes you will get lucky when you hold garbage. But, these hands are defined as garbage because they are not profitable to play. There's no magic trick to make limping 9-2o on the button a profitable move. If it folds to you, attempting to steal with it against tight blinds may be profitable, but it's probably close to break-even at best, even in that spot.

You can continue to play these hands. Actually, if you play in any of the state run card rooms in Florida, I beg you to continue this style of play. But, if you are looking to become an excellent player, this is not the path.

I would have replied yesterday but they have a 24 anti spam posting limit for noobs.

I think you've lost the forest in the trees. I'm not advocating doing this all the time. I'm not even advocating doing it some of the time. I'm only stating that there is a specific time where this strategy can be employed and you better have the right table make up for it.

And, for what it's worth, you peeked my curiosity and so I decided to go to a minimum table online last night to see how doing this almost every hand would work. As you suggested, it didn't.

Lastly, I'm not in Florida. I play in NJ and Philly. If we ever sat at a table chances are exceedingly high that you'd think I was the tightest player in the room which is usually my default gear. Depending on table make up I'll decide within the hour to push the gas or the brakes.

If you do not have various gears, and be willing to try anything then you will never really grow as a player. That's the important thing to know.

You'll be over that posting limit in no time. No worries.

My main criticism is that this thread was originally about adding garbage hands to your raising range and premium hands to your limping range in an effort to polarize them and confuse the people at the table. I would argue that both of those are money losing choices. If you aren't raising your premium hands, you are leaving value on the table against the weak players. If you are adding weak hands to your playing ranges, you are likely going to make your overall range too weak. It is hard to hit a flop in hold'em, even playing good cards. There will be plenty of "nothing" in your range after the flop, even if you stick to opening good cards.

There will be situations where the cards literally don't matter. I would still argue that raising is how you would play those spots, and not calling. If you are first in the pot, you might as well raise and try to win it right there or increase your chances of winning it on the flop. If you are not the first in the pot, say two people limped in front of you, then this isn't a situation where you are likely to easily steal with any two cards. You can safely let your junk go, and limp behind with hands that do well in multi-way deep SPR spots (connected hands, suited aces, small/medium pairs, etc.). I would still raise my premium hands to build a bigger pot that I am likely to win at showdown or when everyone misses and gives up.

I vary my game, but I don't think I have an open-limping range in hold'em for any of them. I have some "limp behind" and "call behind" hands, but I don't limp first in. The problem with limping behind 9-2, or other bottom 20% hands, is that your profit (if any) from that hand is mostly going to be from stealing. It is a lot harder to steal when you are in a multiway pot and don't have the initiative.

There's a great book on this sort of thing "Small Stakes No-Limit Hold'em" by Ed Miller. He talks extensively on taking hands that have little showdown value, but often have good stealing value in the right spots. I'll quote some of it.

Here's a relevant quote:
If you're going to play those hands, profitably, you are going to want to have at least some steal equity. Also note, he isn't even talking about the pure trash hands, which require even higher dedication to steal. Your game plan should be around stealing with those hands, and that starts pre-flop with raising them. You probably won't be able to steal every time. Sometimes you will just give up. But, your default plan should be to steal.

If your opponents are just going to see the river most of the time, as happens in live games, tighten up and just play your value hands. Your steal equity is too close to zero for junk hands to show a profit.

Edit: If we ever did sit at a table, you'd probably not mistake me for the tightest player there, even though it might seem so from this post. I generally play a fairly loose game, especially from the Highjack, CO, and Button. I also have little problem moving my stack around when I feel like the spot is right.

Hopefully this one creeps through the 10 posts in 24 hours shield. You make a lot of good points. One of the problems with Internet forums is they aren't very good at showing the nuance you can get from a fully formed conversation.

Your statements have a lot of validity. I think we can find a middle ground of "there's a really good and profitable reason for playing only good starting cards in good position but NL Hold Em is a detailed enough game where literally anything is possible under different circumstances."

You would really like that book I mentioned in my previous post. It's got some great information about how to analyze spots to find what is possible in certain circumstances.

One thing that I will continue to do is advocate for solid tight aggressive play, as the default advice on here. There are other options, but the post-flop skills required are likely not there for most people here. The majority of players who are seeking advice on forums will likely suffer from playing too many hands and playing them too passively. Once someone has a baseline of tight aggressive pre-flop play, they can deviate from that when they find profitable spots. But, first they need to develop that base strategy.

have seen it a few times. and ussualy you are in a bad situation after that limp.
say you limped in with AA I call check wi 75o bord goes two ways a flopp good, say 468 and now your AA is beaten and most likely we are p-laying for stacks or bord goes bad say 7QT I check-youbet-I(maybe,call for 1 street and even then most likely no) fold. your AA just stole a blind,congrats =)
the ONLY reason I can see limping is when you know your op is a uber station but gets scared esy PRF so you wantto lure him in and if the bord is not too conected get paid of buy some top pair 8 with T kicker.

I think you might be a bit annoyd buy some "recriational" palyer who plays 60% of hands and manages to be the big stack, but worrie not he is on a up swing... I mean it's not hard betting if you are constantly hiting TPTK or flop an OESD with a flush dro