Beyond Polarization: The Art of Pseudo‑Polarized Strategy in No‑Limit Hold’em

21 Jul 2025

Intermediate

This material is for medium-skilled players

Ever heard a player say they're raising a polarized range on the flop and something just doesn't add up? In this deep dive episode of the Red Ship Poker Podcast, сoach “W34z3l” introduces a brand new concept — pseudopolarization.

Good morning, and welcome back to another episode of the Red Ship Poker Podcast. My name is James Sweeney, aka “Splitsuit”, and I'm one of the co-founders here at Red Ship Poker. So what does pseudopolarization mean? It's a term he coined to describe something you see constantly in GTO solver outputs, especially in early street play, but that the classic definition of “polarization” fails to capture. If you're a serious player trying to align your strategy with solver-based insights, or you've ever felt confused by how solvers mix middling hands into flop raises, this episode is for you.

You'll learn why the textbook definition of polarization breaks down before the river, what a pseudopolarized range actually looks like, and how you should think about bluff combos in practice. And hint: it's not just about hitting a 70-30 ratio. And with that said, here's сoach “W34z3l” to break it all down. Enjoy!

So the topic of this episode is pseudopolarization. Now, I'm the first to admit that this is a completely made-up term. I created this term. It doesn't have a large amount of traction in the poker community as such, but I do think it's a very important term, and that one day it might actually stick as a standard piece of terminology.

I'm going to explain the reasons why, and also what is really meant by the term pseudopolarization, and why it's necessary to have a second description outside of the traditional terminology of polarization in poker.

What Does “Pseudo” Mean?

Let's start off by tackling the question: what is the meaning of the term pseudo? We've obviously taken a piece of existing terminology, polarization, and we've tacked pseudo onto the beginning of that word. Let's ask our friend, ChatGPT, who has the following to say about the term pseudo.

ChatGPT says it's a prefix derived from the Greek word, which means false or deceptive. When used as a prefix in English, it denotes something that is not genuine, but has the appearance of, pretends to be, or mimics something else. It's commonly used to describe things that resemble other things, but do not possess their full qualities or functions.

Revisiting the Definition of Polarization

Let's see what we mean by starting off with the definition of the term polarization in poker. Now, if we take a very, very clean definition of the word polarization, one of the potential meanings here is diametrically opposite camps. In other words, completely other end of the spectrum.

And the cleanest way in terms of a poker concept is a river situation. So if we think about how we're supposed to play the river in general in poker, especially if we've played the previous streets very aggressively, we're supposed to fire the absolute worst hands in our range as a bluff. It's usually going to be a lot of holdings without showdown value.

Now, GTO doesn't purely choose the weakest hands all the time because it thinks about the blocking effects. But in terms of which hands are candidates for being bluffs, it's overwhelmingly the weaker hands in the range.

Then in the diametrically opposite camp, we have our value range. That is the strongest hands in the range that can bet for value. And if we think about anything that's in the middle — anything that's in the middle of the value range and the bluff range — it doesn't generally play aggressively. It doesn't bet or it doesn't raise.

So when we fire the river, it's correct to say that we have a polarized range. Here’s a quick summary of the definition of polarized in poker, thinking about that river example:

• The middle of the range never, or at least very rarely, bets or raises.
• The only time we say very rarely is sometimes a holding could have showdown value, but as a result of exceptional blocking effects, it could find its way into a bluffing range. But generally, middle of the range doesn't bet.
• And the betting range is going to be the absolute worst hands.

Remember, we said not all of them, but the absolute worst hands in the range are the candidates for being bluffed. And whether they get selected is often going to be a function of their card removal effect.

So that's our description of polarization:

• The middle of the range doesn't bet.
• The absolute worst hands in the range do bet.
• Then of course, we have the strong value hands that bet as well.

Now, I don't know who the first person was to use the terminology polarization in connection with a poker range, but I would guess they were talking exclusively about a river situation and didn't intend for the term polarization to be used to describe ranges on earlier streets.

I could be wrong. Even if I'm wrong, the fact remains that the term polarization does not apply cleanly to earlier street play. It only really works on the river. As soon as we start stepping back to the earlier streets, we run into a number of issues. Let’s think about a simple example.

Applying Polarization to a Flop Raise Situation

I'd like you to imagine a flop raise situation in No Limit Hold'em. Now we don't need to be overly specific about this, but let's see how a typical flop raising range stacks up to our description of polarization that we've just considered.

Now we won't look at a specific solver example, but if you'd like to see an example of the types of hands that raise, why not check out the previous Red Chip Poker podcast episode with the title Check Raise Cross Section.

So let's think about our two definitions. Definition one of polarized: middle of the range never bets or raises. But when we take a look at solver output for a typical flop raise situation, we see middling holdings raising:

• We see mid pairs raising.
• We see weak top pairs raising that can't really extract three streets of value.
• We see bottom pairs.
• We also see very strong draws raising.

So these are clearly not bottom of the range. They are clearly bluffs slash semi-bluffs, but they're not the worst hands in the range. They're somewhere towards the middle of the range.

What was the second definition? The absolute worst hands in a polarized range are candidates for bluffs. But if we take a look at the absolute worst hands that face a bet on the flop in Hold'em, they're not candidates for bluffs. They just fold exclusively.

The worst hands in the range, there's no reason why they would continue in that situation. They are just straight up folds. So if part of the definition of polarized is that the worst hands in the range should be used as bluffs, well, this is absolutely not true in an earlier street situation, like a flop raise, for example. The absolute worst hands in the range fold.

Now we do sometimes see that some of the hands in the continuing range may be candidates for bluffs. But as we've also discussed, there are quite a number of stronger bluffs, including some fairly middling holdings.

And we often find in the situation where, for example, we face a bet on the flop, we often find that the worst hands in the continuing range are actually calls rather than raises. So it's not even really accurate to say that it's the worst hands in the continuing range that bluff raise, because the worst hands in the continuation range usually don't raise.

The Problem With Polarization on the Flop

So as we can see, we have a little bit of a problem trying to apply this concept of polarization to flop play. And despite this, it's terminology that you will hear all the time. Players are constantly talking about raising or betting the flop with a polarized range.

I have to be honest: anytime I hear a player talk about raising the flop with a polarized range or betting the flop with a polarized range, my initial reaction is simple — this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

What does that actually mean: “I’m raising a polarized range on the flop”. It certainly doesn’t mean you’re raising the worst hands in your range — or if it does, you’re playing very bad poker. And it probably doesn’t mean that you are raising the absolute worst hands in your continuing range exclusively, because again, if you were, you wouldn’t be playing very good poker.

We know that GTO raises some stronger draws, it raises some middling holdings. So what exactly does this term polarized range mean in the context of a flop raise? I would argue that it really doesn’t mean much at all — it’s just a buzzword that signals the player likely doesn’t understand what they’re doing in that situation.

Attempts to Apply Polarization to Early Streets

To be fair, there have been legitimate attempts to apply the concept of polarization to early street play. For example, in Matthew Janda’s book «Applications of No Limit Hold’em», there’s a flop‑raise example where the conclusion is that in that specific situation, about 70% of the raising range should be bluffs.

Applications is a fairly dated book now. And to be fair to Janda, he has almost always been ahead of the curve, talking about high‑level concepts before most players truly understood them. Because of that, the analysis in Applications still has a lot of theoretical value.

Problems With the Combo‑Counting Model

That said, there are serious problems with the model where we try to balance our range by enumerating bluff‑raising hands as a percentage of the total range — in other words, by counting specific numbers of combos.

The idea is: if you have this many bluff combos in your range, you now have a balanced strategy. But poker doesn’t work like that. You can’t just select a specific number of combos and suddenly be balanced. In reality, the number of bluff combos you end up with is usually a byproduct of playing balanced poker, not the starting point.

It’s not something that we are specifically targeting. Simply knowing that 70% of our raising range should be bluffs is nowhere near enough information to understand what a truly balanced strategy looks like.

One of the core problems — and this is something Janda himself points out in his book — is that not all bluffs are created equal. Some bluffs are much stronger than others. Compare a completely trashy hand with almost no equity to something like the nut flush draw. Both might technically be considered “bluffs,” but the nut flush draw is a very strong semi‑bluff that sits much closer to the middle of your range than the outer edges you’d expect with a strictly polarized approach.

Janda even suggests workarounds for this issue. Certain types of bluffs shouldn’t be counted as full bluffs. If you’re using a very weak, low‑equity hand as a bluff, that’s one bluff combo. But if you’re bluffing with something that has a lot of equity — like a nut flush draw — you’d need more of those kinds of semi‑bluffs to balance out, because each of them is less of a “pure” bluff.

For example, you might treat a nut flush draw as only 0.6 of a bluff combo because it’s fairly strong. To hit your target ratio of bluffs, you’d need more of those strong draws than you would weak ones.

Why That Model Still Breaks Down

But this approach creates its own problems. If you tried to fill your raising range entirely with strong semi‑bluffs, you’d need to pad it out with even more combos — and the resulting range often wouldn’t make strategic sense.

On the other hand, if you tried to hit your numbers by throwing in very trashy hands — hands that really should be folding on the flop — you end up forcing in bluffs that are outright losing plays.

Imagine deliberately bluff‑raising with the absolute worst hands in your range, simply because you’re trying to reach some arbitrary target like “70% bluffs”. Even if the math fits the percentage, many of those bluffs would be so weak that they’re directly minus‑EV as raises.

And that leaves you with a fundamentally bad range. We might, in theory, hit what looks like the correct number of bluff combos on paper, but that doesn’t mean the range will actually perform well in practice.

What if we tried the opposite approach and filled our raising range with only the strongest draws, then compensated by semi‑bluffing much more often? Even then, the resulting range wouldn’t necessarily be any good. In fact, that kind of range tends to be too strong, which opens the door for opponents to exploit us — for example, by hero‑folding far more often against our raises.

The key takeaway is that you can’t define a range purely by a number of combos. It’s not as simple as “if 70% of your raises are bluffs, you’re fine”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if you look at flop play through a polarized lens, knowing the bluff‑to‑value ratio doesn’t magically give you a strong strategy. You need a lot more context than that.

In fact, when we look at solver outputs for flop raises, the resulting ranges don’t really match the classic definition of polarization anyway. So why force ourselves to think in terms of polarization in a spot that doesn’t truly fit the concept?

There’s a reason people keep reaching for the word polarization here, even though it doesn’t quite fit. What they’re often trying to express is this:

• A solid raising range on the flop includes both strong and weak semi‑bluffs;
• We need powerful draws like nut flush draws, but we also need some much weaker semi‑bluffs mixed in.

If you look at something like the Red Chip Poker episode on check‑raise cross‑sections, you’ll see examples of dominated gutshots or backdoor‑equity hands showing up in the raising range. Those weaker hands coexist with stronger draws, creating a mix. And that mix creates an interesting trait: some bluffs in the raising range are actually weaker than some hands you’d only call with.

That does resemble polarized play to a degree — but only superficially. It’s not true polarization in the strict sense. It’s more like a pseudo‑polarization: a range that has some polarized characteristics without fully matching the definition.

So how should we approach flop play when using a pseudo‑polarized strategy? The key is this: we need both strong and weak semi‑bluffs. If we don’t include enough weak semi‑bluffs, our raising range becomes too strong — and that makes us easy to exploit. An opponent who realizes this can simply over‑fold against our raises and print money.

Rather than getting lost in abstract math and trying to calculate an exact bluff‑to‑value ratio, it’s more useful to understand the concept: your raising range needs a healthy dose of weaker semi‑bluffs. Without them, the range skews toward strength, and your opponent can hero‑fold without risk.

Why the Worst Hands Shouldn’t Continue

Another principle of a pseudo‑polarized approach is that the very worst hands in your range should give up early, well before the river. This is where terminology often causes confusion. 

In a classic polarized strategy, some of the worst hands can become bluffs — you keep them in your aggressive range because they have no showdown value and fit the polar ends. But in a pseudo‑polarized framework, we’re usually on an earlier street like the flop, and it doesn’t make sense to push forward with hands that are pure trash. Those hands should simply fold. Instead, you focus on continuing with the top slice of your range, however you define it.

The Role of Middling Hands

There’s another key difference: middling hands. In a traditional polarized strategy, middling hands are rarely used as bluffs — they’re neither strong enough to value bet nor weak enough to bluff. But in a pseudo‑polarized strategy, it’s common to mix in some middling hands as semi‑bluffs.

That might mean turning a mid‑strength made hand into a raise, or using a strong draw that isn’t quite premium as part of your bluffing component. This flexibility is part of what defines pseudo‑polarization: it borrows characteristics of a polarized structure, but it’s adapted for earlier streets, where you need a more nuanced mix of hands.

Another interesting aspect of a pseudo‑polarized approach is how middling hands are treated. In a strictly polarized range, the middle portion of your range tends to play passively. Those hands almost never mix; they’re almost always calls. But when you examine a pseudo‑polarized range, you see something very different: a lot of mixing.

It’s not as simple as saying: “The middle of the range should just call”. If you look at solver outputs, many of those middling hands that mostly call are also mixed into the raising range at some frequency. That neat separation between pure value at the top and pure bluffs at the bottom begins to fall apart. The range becomes more fluid, with hands crossing over between calling and raising depending on the situation.

Another subtlety is that some of the weakest hands in a continuing range often appear as calls, not raises, when facing a bet. This runs counter to the traditional view of polarization, where the weakest hands you continue with tend to become bluffs. In a pseudo‑polarized strategy, the dynamics on earlier streets simply don’t fit that pattern.

Why Exact Ratios Aren’t the Key

All of this brings us back to a broader point: chasing an exact bluff‑to‑value ratio isn’t the key to strong play on earlier streets. Yes, in theory you could try to calculate the precise number of bluff combos you need to balance your value bets, but in practice that’s overly math‑intensive and unrealistic mid‑hand. And even if you hit those perfect numbers, your range might still be poorly constructed.

Instead, focus on hand types and strategic purpose:

• Which hands make good aggressive candidates?
• Which semi‑bluffs are worth including in your raising range?

When you get the overall structure right and your play is conceptually balanced, the correct ratio of combos tends to follow naturally. Balance leads to the right numbers — but the right numbers don’t automatically lead to balance.

Let that sink in for a moment: chasing the perfect number of combos isn’t the goal. What matters far more is having a clear picture of what your range should look like overall and which types of hands you want to play aggressively.

When books like Applications of No‑Limit Hold’em were written, Janda didn’t have access to modern GTO solvers. That’s a big advantage we have today. Instead of painstakingly engineering everything from scratch, we can study solver outputs, iterate, and develop a strong conceptual understanding of how balanced strategies actually function.

On early streets, the key is to have a rough idea of proportions — not to try counting exact combinations in your head:

• If your range lacks enough weak semi‑bluffs, opponents can exploit you by over‑folding;
• If you’re bluffing too often or with hands that are too weak, that can cost you directly in win rate.

Think of pseudo‑polarized ranges as ranges that borrow some elements of polarization but don’t fit the classic definition. Pull up a solver output for aggressive flop play and you’ll see pseudo‑polarization in action. Another clear example is the Big Blind’s 3‑bet ranges preflop — they’re not purely polarized, yet they show those same mixed, semi‑polarized traits.

This was a deeper dive into poker theory than usual, but I hope it helped clarify the concept. Thanks for reading, and good luck applying pseudo‑polarized strategies in your own play!