My focus of study is small stakes MTT, but I think this is more a general question.

Assuming we have 50-100BB eff. We flat a CO open on the btn with 14% flatting range that does not include TT+ (which we raise).

The flop comes AT3r, and CO c-bets.

The top of our range is very narrow. We have 12 out of 162 combos that could be considered strong enough to raise for value, namely ATs, ATo and 33.

As a default play against an unknown do we raise for value or do we keep these strong combos as part of our calling range in order to protect said calling range?

Thank you in advance for any advice

Yes

I’m doubtful. Maybe for 50bb eff.

ATo not the best flat depending on blinds

I would rather flat ATo than 33.

Why maybe for 50bb eff ? How does this differ from 100bb eff in this situation.

The range, and situation is taken from the Upswing Lab. My question is not really specific to this specific hand, or wether we flat pre with this range, but rather about when we are in situations where have such a narrow range that could be considered strong enough to raise, should we consider not having a raise range, in order to protect our calling range?

That just doesn't sound right in theory or in practice. We're playing a single raised pot in position, our range shouldn't be so narrow (and in effect, transparent). Flatting AKo, AQ, AJ sometimes preflop on the button should help widen your flop raising range in this spot.

I agree with orogokusaki. Flatting ranges are really different for every player and I was wondering how is your 14% and dont feel comfortable answering this question.

Is it just me or is all of this talk about “balancing your range” kind of overblown because it presumes that individual opponents will ever see enough (and remember enough) of what you do to really make use of the information? Poker hands are all so specific, and the vast majority of them end without your cards exposed, it seems you shouldn’t worry so much about the future impact of other players seeing what you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just you because a balanced range doesn't gaf what the opponent sees or remembers.

Isn’t the point of a balanced range to make your hand less readable by your opponents?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No

lol good talk

Yup

The bigger effective stacks are the stronger hands you need to get all in.

If villain bets 100bb all in for a pot of 10 we can afford to fold a lot of hands because villain must get folds so much for his bluffs to be profitable. Because we can fold a lot, villains value range must be smaller.

If he only bets 50bb all in our odds are better and we have to fold less since villain has a better price on his bluffs. Because we fold less villain can value bet a wider range.

But fletcher, you must understand that when you 'balance your range', meaning that you take a different line with the same hand, you only do it if the EV of both play is the same. If not, you just take the +ev play. You re not going out of your way to get -ev. Some hands will only have one good play. But some other hands in similar spot may be mix.

Example : opening AA from CO is +EV. You will always open it. Open KK is less EV than AA but still always open. If you go down like this, you will find a hand that is 0EV opening. These are the hands you must balance just to balance.

It just may get complicated sometimes. Sometimes checking back the flop with a strong hand May be equal EV than betting. You must think hard every spot...

But you are right balancing the range just to say you balance it.... it s more about comparing EV and realizing the spot where EV are same

Sometimes EV is just the same if you take a low frequency approach.

Thank you for a thoughtful answer (cough cough).

My theory is this: every hand has so many variables that make it unique that, if you simply make your decisions on the characteristics of that specific hand (position, style of opponents, board texture, stack sizes, etc.) that your actions will naturally show enough variance that you don't need to consciously make decisions for solely the sake of "balancing your range."

Especially since most players aren't paying attention, and for those who are, they are still seeing your cards so infrequently that the sample they are getting is small.

No no then I think you are wrong. What you sre saying is kind of : there is no reason to bother because opponents may not be strong enough to notice.... so let s be careless with our play ? Let s not care if we re unbalanced or not... for no reason, without thinking of EV...

how can we say you are right ? If you get only 1+ev play, you take the + ev play. Right!

If you get a mix play (2options have same EV). You re saying let s not care ...

Of course if you get a read, then you get a 1+ev play. The cool thing with a exploitative strategy is you change a x% frequency to 0 or 100% frequency.

But if both are same EV, i dont see no reason to be lazy. The thing is all poker concepts are related. If you get why you balance, you see your ev. Then you realize the reasons the hand play this way, but not another, then you realize which blockers are good, etc etc....

Maybe if you think you 'balance just to balance' you are missing something. But you must balance to play well, unless of course there is other factor to consider. But tell me what you consider in order to avoid balancing ? The way you put it is just lazyness saying it s not necessary.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying there is almost always going to be another reason you can find, based on the specific hand, to push you one way or the other, before you get down to making a decision based on balance.

If you get down to "these two moves are equal, so I'm going to make a decision for the sake of balance" then I think you've overlooked another factor that makes the moves not equal.

Sort of how there are so many tie-breakers in the NFL they never need to get to the coin flip.

Reason based on info... usually don't have enough info to push us fully in one direction tho

I was wondering this exact same thing a few weeks ago. The answer that someone gave to me that made sense was this: Balanced play is like your default mode if you have neither a specific read on your opponent, nor failing that, a read on the population pool. If you don't know how to exploit the situation then you play in a balanced manner.

Ok then yes i agree just take the +ev play all the time.

Because you post in theory section. It s fine with me. Theorically there are mixed lines. But it s true in practice, players will usually find a reason chose the favorite line for exploitive reasons. But it is in fact not different from deviating a non-mix play for exploitive reasons.

So in other words yes you can deviate frol gto for exploitive reasons but this was discussed already too much.

A balanced range isn't a fish you can catch, it's just the byproduct of taking the most +EV line every street of every hand.

Whether or not players are paying attention you still want to take the most +EV line, don't you? I mean, if you're a fan of leaving money on the table that's another story.

Software has already proven that multiple options in the same spot can be the exact same EV. In live poker there's perhaps something to that, and maybe if you put enough stock in your instinct you'll reach white magic level.

I feel like we're actually saying the same thing. I'm saying if you make the best +ev decisions (based on all the tangible factors of each individual hand) your range will naturally be balanced. You won't have to think about balancing it at all.

It's just like a PF raise percentage. You don't start out saying "I want to raise X% percent of the time because that's optimal." You decide which situations you want to raise, and you see where that leads you.