Hi Antonio,

I think in practice what's gonna happen on such turns is we will face two player profiles: a) The Polarizer and the b) Tricky Guy.

a) Will bet 100% or close to 100% AT+ and bluffs, check middle strength hands, some draws and giveups.

b) Will think that broadway turns are very good for the 3bettor (and will have a high bet freq) and medium/low connected cards are decent for IP, so he will understand he can't barrel that aggressively and will develop an overly strong checking range.

Now, this doesn't mean that players will either 100% bet or 100% slowplay: it just means that in practice we will see either a capped checking range or a stronger than equilibrium checking range. Against the first one (usually typical of weaker regs or good recreational players) I would play the turn as pure bet; against the second one I would lean towards checking.

In equilibrium we have a mixed strategy, so I think this is the most practical way to approach these spots in medium (and bigger) pots.

Also, I'm much more inclined to bet T9, T8 for the protection reason against overcards you mentioned, and tend to check JT QT, as these hands contain an overcard to the ten and such rivers can improve some of our opponents giveup to a top pair (and give us top 2) or might induce a bluff from our opponent.

Disclaimer: I didn't PIO it and just scrolled through the video to see what the action was so I don't know what FL's reasoning was yet, but I'd like to share my thoughts based on the action.

(1) My default play would be around $400 here, but I think all-in looks okay too.

(2) I think the only reason to use 1/3 sizing is if you're worried that we have no bluffs. Villain is almost never going to have a slowplay here, he's quite capped to a weak T. That said, he does have quite a lot of "showdown" bound medium strength hands (Any hand like JJ (or say AT/KT) or better will want to bet the turn at a very high frequency because they're still quite vulnerable and there's just a ton of value to be had off of our rang). I don't think we're pushing a huge range v. range advantage and want to just play a tiny bet for that reason either.

I think the moral is we're up against a range that's really bluff catcher heavy and won't struggle vs 1/3 at all in my opinion. I'd choose 1/3 if I didn't feel like I had many bluffs, but given this action we should have quite a few combos of hearts, some random overcards with a heart, and some 5x.

Hopefully this makes sense!

I agree with what you are saying, but a medium strength hand, doesn't seem to really fit into a polarize range to me. I think Hero should have two sizings on the river instead of just 1 all in sizing. If Villain is capped at say QT or less on this river, for 1 pair or worse, then why does hero want to blow him off his hand? I am not worried about using 1/3 to give villain a difficult time, but using 1/3 to get value with my 9x+ hands. Using a polar sizing vs a capped range, mainly only makes sense to me if hero is trying to bluff.

Developing a strategy around 9x is a reasonable play if you feel like you don't have very many Tx+ in your range here.

That said, I sort of disagree that QT is a medium strength hand here. I think it beats pretty much all of villains range.

"Using a polar sizing vs a capped range, mainly only makes sense to me if hero is trying to bluff."

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Of course you will have to bluff sometimes to have a polar range, but you will also have to bluff sometimes to have a 1/3 of the pot range. The value of betting bigger doesn't actually come from bluffing more, though. The EV is all gained by your strong hands. (If you're saying you think QT is being used as a bluff in a polar strategy, I think that's definitely wrong -- it beats pretty much all of villains bluff catchers, so I think it's fine in a polar strat for value.)

I agree with this. I am not saying QT fits into a polar range though. I was thinking more a long the lines if villain over folds to to all ins, why would hero want to waste one of his strongest value hands making villain fold. That is all. That is why I thought just using a smaller sizing 33%-66% would be better in general. Then have more bluff combos for the all in sizing.

I treat it like AA when you 3 bet btn vs CO and then CO 4 bets you. CO calling all in range is QQ+ and AKs, but his 4 bet range is wide. Why would you want to force him to fold majority if the time here? This is a spot where I would 5 bet more A10s+ hands as bluffs and flat call more KK and AA hands to trap.

Thank you for the discussion.

I expect players to pure 3bet TT preflop here. Let's say we are against a 5% preflop call, it makes a lot of sense to raise the flop with TT as well (way ahead of my range and needs a lot of protection). Let's say we're against a low frequency call and we get to the river with that action: yes it's a snap shove. If we never call worse hands we're making a huge strategical mistake (even if our opponent is underbluffing) and we allow him to print money with any A high hand turned into a bluff.