value and polarized ranges

I assume most of you are familiar with the terms polarized and value. To give a short explanation; when you mostly bet the top of your range, you are betting for value and/or protection. The wider the range of hands you bet for value, the thinner your value range is (ref. G Bucks). When you polarize your range, you still bet the top of your range, but often not so thin. Instead you include the hands that are just a little bit too weak to check/call with, in your bet/raising range (gets a bit different on the river). The main idea of value betting thin is to protect and push your thin edges, while polarizing your range mostly is about pot-control; to not being blown of the best hand. In many ways you can say polarizing your range is a defencive idea. You will see many of the strongest players disagree in these marginal spots. A player like Brian Townsend is usually a proponent of pushing your value edges, even if you risk being blown of your hand, while Phil Galfond is more of the "pot-control" and "range balancing" school. We are of course talking about marginal situations here, but it illustrates that poker is a game far from being solved.

This post is mostly going to be about when to apply the two in general. I will just discuss the use at single streets, as it gets a lot more complicated with future streets of betting in mind. I will write about more specific situations, multiple streets and ways to misrepresent your range (range-merging) in later posts and hand analyzes. I will refer to value range and polarized range as VR and PR from here on.

Of course neither a VR nor a PR is superior to the other in principle, and you should usually mix it up according to game theory. I think there are some guidelines that direct the best course of action with your medium-strength hands in a given situation though. After all, our goal should usually be to play as exploitative as possible, not as optimal as possible (see a practical introduction to game theory). These criteria are based on how your opponent(s) is likely to think and respond. This has a lot to do with not just how the player usually responds, but also the dynamics of the table and the history between the players (the meta game).

The arguments for using a VR:
- Your opponent(s) is likely to respond loose  
- Your opponent(s) is likely to respond passive
- It’s dangerous to give away free-cards
- Your opponent(s) is likely to read you for a PR
- You want to isolate a player with a made hand
- You want multi-way action with a draw
- Against a low intensity player

The arguments for using a PR: 
- Your opponent(s) is likely to respond tight 
- Your opponent(s) is likely to respond aggressive
- It’s not dangerous to give away free-cards
- You can easily represent a wide VR
- Your semi-bluffs got high fold-equity
- Your opponent(s) is likely to have used a thin VR with his previous bet
- Against a high intensity player

There are probably more points to add to the list, but these are the most important arguments. Maybe not all of them make sense yet, and that you see some paradoxes. It's not unusual that you have a "conflict of interest" between two arguments, and the situation dictates which is the most important. There is also something to be said about position; often I prefer a VR oop, while a PR ip, but this is a more situational concept and doesn't fit in as a general rule. I will talk in greater depth about this later. This short article is by no means comprehensive, but I hope it at least will stimulate some thoughts around the topic.