I've found my check-raising range on all streets, but particularly the flop, is really unbalanced. It basically consists of full house, quads, draws, and pure bluffs. Sometimes I'll check a set if the board is super dry and I can't see my opponent having much, like 77 on J72. Maybe trips if my kicker is good.

But generally I have way more bluffs and semibluffs in my checkraising range than value hands. I prefer to bet TP, 2p, and sets, particularly if there are draws on the board. I also usually bet flushes and straights...might check-raise if it's the nut flush or nut straight but not often. I feel betting these value hands helps my C-bets work more often. Same logic with barreling the turn.

What should I be adding to my check-raise range? I'm thinking I could just randomly check-raise my leading value hands like two pair some percentage of the time, but I don't know about the percentages. I haven't worked out exactly how often my checkraises are bluffs and draws, but I figure it's like 80% of the time at least.

It's also worth asking if I should even bother balancing my check-raise range in 1/2 and 1/3 games...

You're thinking way too much

No, it's not really worth your time too much

I'd start off by thinking about how frequently you have a quad or FH on the flop. You get those 1.3% of the time when you have a pocket pair in the hole. You're going to have a pocket pair dealt to you about 6% of the time. So your value part of your c/r range is about 0.08% of the hands dealt. At a live table if you want have a 50/50 split of value/bluff, you'll want to c/r your bluffs no more than once every 40 hours of play or so.

To protect just your semibluffs, you'll need to x/r everything from 2 pair on up to remain remotely balanced. If you do that, your bets on the flop become capped at TP.

Therefore, I'd look at leaving your x/r tool towards the bottom of your toolbox. Use it for when you have great equity on a flop (FD and an over) along side with your sets.

You're saying I should checkraise sets + strong draws and that's it? What about when we check with little equity (e.g., bottom pair or a weak gutshot) and the PFR makes a smallish bet not particularly likely to have hit his range? I seem to get lots of folds in these kinds of spots, plus have some equity when called.

And I realized my flop raising range in position is not very balanced either. It's pretty similar to my check-raising range but a bit more likely to include sets+ if I think the bettor hit the flop hard and isn't just making a "probe bet" or C-bet. But I think my raising range here is also disproportionately bluff-heavy.

I guess it's a problem of mathematics. I can't possibly have a balanced range while also bluffing optimally since I'm going to miss way way more often than hit 2p+. Seems more of a mistake to pass up good bluffing opportunities though. On the other hand my check-raises and donk-raises need to have value hands some nontrivial percentage of the time, I would think, or a player paying attention can realize my raises are very disproportionately bluffs and draws. But this begs the question, is anyone at 1/2 paying enough attention to actually exploit me?

IMO, this thread (and this concept in general) is a prime example of how and why math gets overused in poker. Shai is clearly a math freak. I say that out of admiration of his math skill, but I think its often a hindrance in poker. You dont need to be a math prodigy to excel in poker. You need to know basic math, but IMO reading people and situations is much more important to crush poker. I have a friend who is a math wiz and I see it get in his way every day. Hes constantly talking about betting flops X% of the time because a villain will have a draw X% of the time or trying to get his check raise % to X% or whatever. That's totally overthinking everything.

More specifically, you dont need to be trying to find more hands in your range to check raise with for balance. You need to be finding more specific situations to check raise, or more importantly you need to target specific villains to check raise based on your read that they are over aggressive and will bet weak hands or they are weak tight and will fold to aggression.

Lets say its a limped pot 5 ways and you are first to act. You have 77 on a T73 board. Normally you should bet here. But if the guy to your immediate left bets flops religiously, then you can plan a check raise because you can expect him to bet and there are 4 more guys who might call before it gets back to you.

Lets say you have 98 on this same T73 flop. If you bet this flop first to act it will almost never get thru 5 people so you should not be betting. This time the guy to your left is weak tight. You check and he bets. Either everyone folds and maybe 1 guy calls. You can now check raise if you want to. You are repping 2 pair or a set and you are playing to your villains weakness of being weak tight. He will fold almost always.

So you are balancing based on situations and reads which is much more effective than balancing based on some predetermined percentage of your range.

Can't hurt, though. See what I did there?

I mostly agree with this but having a more balanced range isn't necessarily at cross purposes with targeting villains. I mean in situations where there's no clear reason to check-raise vs. value bet, it might be advantageous to check-raise for balance.

Agree and this is something I would do.

This is also something I would do. However, these hands kind of illustrate the problem--when I check-raise, I am much more likely to have a draw or bluff than a strong made hand. An observant opponent can realize I never have two pair here. On this board he can pretty much assume I have the OESD, a flush draw (if applicable), a set, or nothing. And if my checkraise frequency is too high then I don't have a set often enough, especially since I typically lead with a set on a board with draws. So villain can reraise or float with impunity.

I know observant opponents are rare but I look for this kind of thing. Tons of people posting on this forum are also looking for reads. I must encounter such players at least occasionally. And of course I hope to move up in stakes, so it surely can't hurt to think about things I'll encounter later?

Why can't I do both? The first would have more priority, but there is some value to being seen showing down a more balanced check-raising range also.

So occasionally check the 77 and occasionally lead out with the OESD. Doesn't need to be very often. Just often enough to be noticed by those that are paying attention. If you rarely play with the same people it could be never. If you have a small player pool could be as much as 33% of the time. You just need to create doubt in your opponents mind.

+1

I couldn't agree with this whole post any more, including the exact examples given.

I play in a very small player pool and I still don't really worry about balance. I also LOVE to bluff-raise very strong draws when deep stacked v. scared money opponents. I still don't worry about balance. What I do is pay attention to the Vs that I think are paying attention to me. For instance, there's one tight V I play with that I've done this a lot against and I think he's noticed based on table talk. So I've adjusted and continue to adjust in several ways:

1. A few sessions ago, I had a very strong combo draw (think it was JTss on a Qs9sx board). V lead out $50 in a $75 multi way pot and I was pretty sure he had an overpair. He had about $200 left and I had position. With the flush draw out there and not a ton of money behind, I was pretty sure he was going to call a shove (which isn't a disaster given how many outs I had, but isn't ideal either). I was also pretty sure he'd either check turn or bet small enough to allow me to continue and realize my equity. So, I just flat. Turn gives me the straight, he bet $50 again (meaning I was right and would've been able to flat turn had I whiffed), I shove, and he calls with AA. He was very surprised I didn't raise turn.

2. I now raise bluff my straight draws more than my flush draws against him. For instance, I raised him with 78s with a BDFD on an A65r board and got a fold from AQ. A lot more fold equity here, because V is more likely to put me on a draw on a FD board than a rainbow board.

3. Next time I get 2 pair+ on a wet board v. him, I'm check raising big for value.

The key thing though is that this is a guy I play with every week, he's paying attention, and I'm only adjusting against him. I'd happily shove with A5ss on a Ks9s2c board against another V who I think folds too much, even if I wouldn't against this V because I don't think I have enough FE. Similarly, the other day I flatted a flop bet against a different V and shoved turn, and he correctly put me on a set after the hand (because he thinks I'd have shoved my draws on the flop), so in his mind he has a read on me now, but I'd have played it different against him. I'm also not really balancing from a math perspective, as I'm pretty sure I'm still "over" bluffing v. this V, but trying to do enough things to keep him guessing.

All this said, if you're playing 1/2 or 1/3 in a big room with a rotating cast of villains, I wouldn't worry about it at all. I worry about it only a bit, and I play in a one table room with probably 30-40 fill that table at any given time, so a lot of regs.

Lets look at this from a math perspective.

At the 1-2, 1-3 games you play, how many players on average both play you enough and are good enough to notice that your range for this play is unbalanced, and find a way to play profitably based on that knowledge?

As to the specific question, are you talking about when you were the last preflop aggressor, or not? Because X/R would be may more common (and way easier to balance) for the former than the latter. If you raised or 3 bet pre, situations where you check-raise the flop ought to be rare enough (and shown down rarely enough) that it would be shocking if someone picked up on your lack of balance.

I like this. I can just figure out some percentage to randomly check-raise 2p+. I think even occasionally being seen check-raising the straight or flush etc. will give my check-raise bluffs a lot more credibility, since most players can't tell if you're running hot or just running over the table. If I have a specific reason to check-raise or not against specific villains I'll do whatever makes most sense, but when I could see myself leading or check-raising I can check-raise like a third the time.

Thanks for the post and examples. Makes a lot of sense and goes with what mikestarr was saying.

It's a large room with 46 tables and often 20+ 1/2 tables going, so I agree balance isn't very important for these specific games. But I'm trying to establish good playing habits for moving up to 2/5 where there are more like 4-5 tables going most of the time, and presumably more and sharper regs.

I'll try to look at it mathematically.

Let's call A the event a given player is good enough to exploit me theoretically and is in a given hand, and B the event they have played enough to notice my range and exploit me, and X the intersection of A and B.

I would guess P(A) = 1/20, P(B) = 1/5, so P(X) = 1/100.

Definitely seems like I should ignore balance, but this player might be able to crush me if I'm unbalanced. So 99% of the time I'd be playing exploitatively and 1% getting crushed. Let's suppose I make $3 extra per hour ignoring balance against the fish, but I lose an extra $50/hour against this particular player (these numbers may be way off, just getting an estimate) since he can exploit me very well.

EV(unbalanced) = .99*3 - .01*50 = 2.47

In this scenario either P(B) needs to be much higher or I need to lose more against this player to justify balancing my range against the other players, assuming $3/hour is anywhere close to the value of playing an unbalanced range against players incapable of exploiting me, either due to lack of skill or not enough data. Over time I would expect the $3/hour to drop, P(B) to go up, and $50/hour to go up. At some point it may be unprofitable to play very unbalanced, but not yet.

Both, but more the former. I'm the last raiser more often than not since most people like to limp/call, except the maniacs who raise way too much and whom I 3-bet light, but both cases, I'm more likely to be the last raiser.

------------------------------

Here's a related question--since these hands are rarely shown down, should I show my cards in the rare cases I check-raise a monster and everyone folds? This might give the illusion of balance without having to actually balance anything. But I generally hate showing....

Bro, you will increase your winrate a ton more by focusing on fundamentals rather than balancing, which is borderline FPS for 1/2 and 1/3.

And this is coming from a player who studies a lot of theory/GTO

I do prioritize fundamentals but feel I have them down pretty well, so I'm trying to work on things I haven't mastered like reading tells and more advanced theoretical concepts.

FPS = ...fancy play syndrome? At first I was like "first person shooter"???

Your example is WAY off.
A good player crushing you for $50 an hour is going to be unheard of (and borderline impossible) at a 1/2 table when there are other people in the hand.

You're also forgetting the fact that you have a variety of tools at your disposal to counter this.
A) Seat change
B) Table change
C) Switch up your play against that specific opponent

Yeah...in retrospect it does seem way off. P(A) and P(B) are probably also off. I was just guessing as I don't have actual data, which just goes to show math isn't much use without accurate assumptions. Still, even with the mega-crusher my example still suggested I should play exploitatively. The one crusher had little effect on the hourly--and you're saying it would be even less. So...guess I can just continue with my checkraises 80-90% bluffs and draws and hope nobody notices.

And if anybody reading this happens to play at the same place...THIS IS ALL A DREAM. MY CHECK-RAISES ARE ACTUALLY 90% VALUE HANDS.

Last question first. It's been beat to death but certainly not necessary to be theoretically balanced at these stakes live. But I personally feel that response tends to be thrown around too loosely... imo of course.

I personally feel that understanding what a balanced range might look like and understanding our own imbalance is part of becoming a better player. Even when that imbalance is correct for the situation.

Sometimes looking at our range and seeking combos to add can lead to better lines with some hands that perhaps were out of our comfort zone. So as an exercise I see nothing wrong here.

Also I believe "pseudo balance" or perceived balance is quite valuable in many games where there are a mix of regs and somewhat aware players. In other words I can have a mixed strat and only show up with a particular hand rarely but in a live environment it can have a lasting impression with somewhat observant players even though I'm not really balanced.

But sure at 1/2 balance for the sake of balance would be a leak.

As for the main question, I have some spots that I have been traditionally quite unbalanced as well. X/R as the pfr is one and flop donking is another.

As for x/r specifically the one spot I actively have looked for is hands like TP on dynamic mideling boards where the top pair is vulnerable and x/c would be difficult. Obv as a pf caller such as blind defend spots this has dangers vs strong ranges that include a lot of overpairs. But vs wider openers capable of dbl barreling over cards it has merit when we deny v his 20% or so 2 street equity and any barreling equity in spots. I was in fact interested to see Janda specifically covered this in his latest book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this goes to what other people are saying. It is going to be villain specific. If a player has a sizing tell, you want to exploit it.

As for is anyone paying attention at 1/2, the answer is that it is divided into two parts. The first is that the more unusual you are, the more people will notice. If you are raising every hand, it won't take long for the entire table to notice. The second part is whether they know how to react. At 1/2, many won't know what to do about it. Others will go into a shell. Only a few are going to adjust properly. I've been at several tables where a maniac was raising every hand. When I've taken him out, I actually had people thank me for doing it to return to "regular" poker. Rather than wonder why I picked up the BIs.