You are probably correct and I'm probably overthinking it.

I always have this feeling that because of my tight image, I need to balance.

I just tell myself, If I had AQ/AJ here, would I really make a big bet.

If I make a big bet, I'm telling everybody I have KK+ and they can play perfectly against me.

I need to try just playing value hands aggressively and see what happens.

You could also try thinking about it this way...

If you expect $25-30 to frequently get through on this flop against 4 players wouldn’t it be correct to bet that with basically any two cards? Even if it only worked half of the time in this exact scenario you would be profitable in doing so. But of course, you shouldn’t do this, because somebody will call you too often and that’s why it’s correct to bet bigger with your best value hands (and semi-bluffs imo).

Sometimes you are going to flop middle set and people will fold to your flop bet, you can’t expect to win a huge pot every time it happens. You should just be doing your best to put yourself in a position to do so.

One thing to keep in mind regarding balance is often your sense of commitment will help throw people of the scent. For example, compare playing an overpair on a drawy board in a HU SPR pot of 4 versus a multiway pot SPR of 10. You'll end up showing down the same overpair both times, one where you fastplayed it, and another where you perhaps played it a lot more passively; this alone might confuse some reads on you.

GcluelessNLnoobG

If you usually get all folds when you bet $25 on this flop, then you must be bluffing your entire range here, right?

Edit: too slow

^hahahaha. Nailed it.

Not convinced we should be bluffing OOP 4way hardly ever.

Gno?G

That’s kinda the tongue in cheek joke here.
Illustrating the point as it were...

This game is too complicated for my tiny brain.

The thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to be the best player in the world to beat it. So long as you're in the top two or so players at the table (more feasible?) then you have a fighting chance.

Gstep1:tableselection;step2:seatselection;step3:st ep3doesn'tmatterG

^oh, step 3 matters a lot GG. Step 3 is actually more important than step 1 and 2 (which are indeed both important).
Step 3: Run good.

In the long run (whatever that is) you'll likely have just as much run good versus run bad versus run breakeven as everyone else.

Gplayatgoodtablesingoodseatsandeverythingwillworko utfine,imoG

I x/f AK/AJ and x JJ/TT, usually calling one street if we get HU.

I have zero bluffs in this situation, too many callers.

Beluga whale doesn’t apply since we beat plenty of raises he has for value. If he only has J9s, QJ, and KT then we still have 49% equity. Then if we add in the fact that he can have some 22 and Q9 that trapped flop we have an easy turn call or reraise. Of course he can also have some bluffs as well.

Beluga whale doesn’t apply since we beat plenty of raises he has for value. If he only has J9s, QJ, and KT then we still have 49% equity. Then if we add in the fact that he can have some 22 and Q9 that trapped flop we have an easy turn call or reraise.

One pair is a bluff catcher and that’s why it’s part of the beluga whale theorem. Bluff catchers suck vs LlSNL raises. We beat value.

I urge you to re-consider your river opinion. We are heads up against the SB who is the only V who is not described as passive or nitty. Almost the opposite. We have the 4th nuts behind 3 combos of QQ, 3 combos of JJ, and 1 combo of 22 (7 total combos!). If we can't raise river for value here we need to either work on our reads (a lot!) or work on our MUBsy mindset. It bears repeating that QQ / JJ is going to 3 bet pre at least some of the time or raise flop vs our tiny sizing so I wouldn't even look at this as having all 7 combos in Vs range, maybe 4 is a more fair estimate.

The reason to raise river is to get value from the waaaaay more than 7 combos that will still call. There are 16 combos of KT alone thanks to our tiny pre, tiny flop, and tiny turn sizing. Add some combos of Q9, QJ, 22, and some flushes and we are good so incredibly more often that we are beat that it's a significant leak IMO not to raise this river against described V given described action.

If we're conservative and give V this range: All KTx16, QJ x 9, 10 flushes (AQ, AT, A4-A8, KQ, KT, T8) = 35 combos we beat vs 7 we lose too (again giving him all 7 unlikely combos). Note this completely ignores combos like Q9 that a cock SB could think are "priced in" for that sizing. That's literally 5 to 1. That's like me saying I'll write down a number from 1-6 on a piece of paper and if you roll that number on a six sided die I win, otherwise I'll give you $110. And you replying, "no I don't want to take that bet because I might roll that number".

Let's take out 5 flushes (AQ, AT, KQ, KT, T8 only) and a few unsuited KT and make it 28 combos. It's still 4 to 1. You should want to take this kind of edge if you have the opportunity. You wont win every time but that's not the point. The point is over the long run you will win so much more often. And the river is when the bet sizes are the largest so this can have huge impact on your win rate.

It sounds to me like you're playing into your Vs hand by "balancing" with tiny bets for all 4 betting rounds. As others have noted the correct adjustment to getting too many folds is to bet more often (if you're card dead there's no law against opening your value range a little in position or adding some bluff combos in selective spots), that would provide some "balance" as well and without giving all the draws great odds to catch. Your Vs are also playing perfectly against you when they call tiny bets correctly and catch then put you in a tough spot with a huge hand and have you going to the forums asking if it's ok to fold your sets. Eventually Vs will come to the realization that "he can't have KK+ this often" and you will get paid with your value hands.

To summarize: Bigger pre, bigger flop, bigger turn. AP I like the turn flat and the river shove.