Balance has its place. It all depends on what your opponents are doing and how frequent certain spots come up.

Sometimes checking the flop OOP with an overpair and sometimes betting, etc. Other than this, and things like bluffing the turn or river when a draw comes in. How many similar spots come up that much in any one session? Not that many. And after a few days, your opponents will forget how you played hands and only be focused on what they observe from you in today's session.

Online 6max is much more similar to online heads-up cash games then live low stakes full ring, especially considering the fact that everyone is playing with a HUD that shows your opponents stats. But also, more hands being dealt to less opponents means certain spots keep coming up time and time again. This makes balance much more imperative than it does in slow live games without a HUD.

Other posters made the point that in live games, we simply won't be playing enough hands and facing enough situations with opponents to worry about balance. This is a true fact.

That's why people start with the flaming. It's not because people don't understand it or are even against learning it. It's just a lot of it simply doesn't apply to a live game, due to the factors I've mentioned.

But I respect your opinion and the discussion.

I think HU is a totally different beast. But I play anon tables, so not a lot of players have HUDs. I don't think actually being perfectly balanced is optimal at all in most games. I dont advocate it, neither do I do it myself.

I didnt advocate being balanced in this spot. It's just that the most optimal line imo just happens to be the balanced line.

Exactly this, and as you mentioned earlier i believe the point about GTO/proper balance knowledge isnt to necessarily execute it yourself in live low stakes games- but the fact that its alot easier to identify weaknesses in opponents and their biggest leaks with that knowledge aboard.

The reason youre able to do that is because you have good fundamentals of how a solid balanced overall strategy approach looks like. Basically if you know how GTO strategy approach looks like, you also know extremely well how an unbalanced player looks like in game- and how to abuse his weaknesses.

For example in my game i have a tight nitty villain who is probably breakeven in the games or a small winner. On the surface it looks like he is good, many believes he is a big winner. But when i dig deeper into his game (wich i find myself to do extremely fast these days when it comes to identify leaks/imbalances to abuse), i found some huge leaks.

Things as never C-betting when he misses the flop, and that his preflop 3 betrange pretty much consist of exactly two hands regardless of the spot,stacksizes and number of villains in the pot: KK/AA.

Those are just two easy and simple examples- my main point is that my ability to quickly identify such leaks in other players games skyrocket through the roof after i studied more on balance/GTO strategy approach.

thread went from some interesting discussions to a dick waving dumpster fire. i think we should do less of 'i bet you never even cash out' here in llsnl.

Is this serious? You are saying that hero can never have say of those hands you listed after opening and calling a 3 bet from a pro? You listed just about every suited connector and gapper expect the one I actually do have and I could have any and all of the ones you listed as well.

Also, if hero can never have any of those listed hands, then why isnt leading the turn correct? Hero can never have a flush here according to you so villain should not be folding if he has anything at all and should be raising the turn bet a lot of the time.

It's a massive leak to be calling OOP vs a 3-bet with A2s-A5s, 86s, 97s, esp vs a player who is better than you. Yeah sure if you like to gamble and light money on fire, flat those hands OOP vs a pro who has a skill advantage and positional advantage on you. If you really want to be a spewtard, 4-bet pre. That's much more +EV, and what I'd do if someone were getting out of line with 3-betting

And when I said "you," I didn't mean you. In general, the LLSNL population defends very narrowly against 3-bets OOP, which isn't wrong for live poker. It's correct.

I never said we dont have a flush. I said the 3-bettor has way more flushes in his range than we do.

I've been on LLSNL for quite a while, and the majority of the times when either of the above happens (esp the latter), it's in OP's thread.

This may be but you are the one doing most of the arguing. I said betting or checking the turn has merits. Its the only reason I posted the HH.

I think his point though, is that sometimes, basic thoughts are there for a reason. In this case, the reason why it's called a donk bet for a reason (fun soundbite). I don't play as much as I should, and everytime I read one of these threads, and the H describes a V donk betting the T or the R, community comes to the consensus it's either complete air, or he has the nuts. And for the most part, it holds true.

If the V views not just you, but the whole table as weak because of where he comes from, he is going to see a fishy player donking into him, basically flipping your hand over. And that's where I think most of the debate is coming from: how do we think the V is ranging us. Are we making a strategic poke targeting sets and smaller flushes, or are we flipping our hand face up and giving him free fold equity?

Without being results oriented, I understand where you are coming from. I would find it really hard to not bet here,, especially if the guy has a hand like AcQx and hopes to see a free river to realize his equity. I don't think there is a right answer here, unless you know for sure or with good odds what V does if you check here. One of the awkward spots of being in position.

This is the crux of the entire HH. On the turn we have to really try hard to figure out what villain has and figure out the best way to proceed against his more likely holding.

If he has air, checking is best
If he has a big club, betting 1/2 pot or so is best if we think he will check behind
If he has a big club and will blast away, checking is best.
If he has a good sized pair with a club, betting is best
If he has a Q betting or checking could be really good depending on what villain tendencies are, but we have no idea.

People talk way too much in absolutes. Anyone saying betting is terrible is closed minded. Anyone saying hero can never have XX hand here is stubborn and hard headed.

+1 fyp

I think what he is saying is a lot of your replies to your HH's are implying you believe you made the correct play, and it's correct because that's how you've been playing and it's been working for you, etc. and you don't take constructive criticism very well. The hands sometimes end up being borderline brags (such as "I beat a tough player from OOP [after binking a flush ott]"

IMO there is not much to this hand except what is in my opinion (and a lot of other winning players) a huge leak of flatting a 3bet pre from OOP with ten high. The question of whether to donk out or check the turn after hitting a flush is not that big of a dilemma.

Really? Then why are there 8 pages of people arguing strenuously about it?

Because that was the line you took. Regardless of whether these players agree or disagree with donk or check, a good chunk feel like you should have folded pre to a 3 bet OoP because right now, you got one of the nuttiest hands you can manage with your holding, and we don't know how we stand in this hand which is why you are getting so much debate.

We know where we stand. We are are way ahead almost always. We just dont know the best way to proceed, probably because there isnt a best way. It all depends on what villain has. Debate is a good thing. That's what we are here for. Ive heard valid arguments for both sides. It gives me more to think about for future hands.

The only thing Im arguing about is the fact that there IS valid arguments for both sides.

If we are almost always ahead, why the bet then? Only drawing hands he has against are QxXx and AcXx. The bet was because we want to see where we are at, and are fine taking the pot if we are ahead. If we know we are ahead, we should be checking more often than not.

The next step is to estimate V's range, count combos for each of these possibilities, then decide on an optimal strategy. This will give us a definitive answer to what you should do on the turn. People are arguing, but showing none of their work.

There's no such thing as "having no idea" what villain will do - we guess based on player profile and history. Make some choices and follow through with the math.

Not to derail this thread but...

What about leading this flop?

Weren't 8 pages already written about how terrible terrible terrible it is to donk into the last aggressor because their range is always super duper strong and uncapped, and they'll always just rip our line apart?

Being sarcastic.

If we are calling 3bets OOP with T8s, we 100% need to be prepared to take an aggressive action at least some of the time post. This could mean donk flop, x/r flop, donk turn, x/r turn, or lead river.

If we never take an aggressive action, we either fold at some point and lose money, or get to showdown and let our equities speak - but we got there allowing villain to 100% control the pot size. If we do take an aggressive action, we gain EV from the times they fold, and we give ourselves more opportunity to control pot size.

Takeaway here is that calling medium PPs and SCs OOP will always be marginal at best, and is usually a big leak (especially SCs). The only possible way that we have any chance at all of making it a +EV play is if we have some aggressive action lines to match to our range.

So yes, donking flop *sometimes*, donking turn *sometimes* - I think is completely 100% reasonable.

By far the easiest line to exploit that a villain might take is:
x/(call or fold); x/(call or fold); x/(call or fold).

Yet this line keeps being promoted - here and in other threads - as the nuts for like 90+% of hero's range.

Far more important than trying to 'figure out what V has' is figuring out what Vs perception is of your own range and choosing a line that maximizes against that perception. Having a rudimentary understanding of balanced play is a crucial factor in determining how to choose that line. As a result, standard (or absolute) plays are often locked in for us as long as maximizing profit remains our objective. There is some misconception that standard play = predictable play, but it's very much the opposite, and the crux of your hh is actually understanding the relationship between perceived range and balance as a way to maximize. You then might accept the hard fact that there are absolutes in NLHE and deviating from standard play is counterproductive to profiting.

The most basic way to illustrate this is to consider one of the absolutes when you elect to play your range aggressively by donking this turn:

You are immediately perceived to narrow and be too heavy value:bluff which consequentially will narrow your opponents range and allow him to play much more straightforward against your actual hand. While there are merits upthread to donking that do generate value, you cannot reasonably expect to be maximizing against good players by announcing your range - especially when you can always eliminate this circumstance by making a better choice.

I think we should 205/f pre

I like 4bet/fold pre. With our stack sizes, I don't think we need to go so big though. 165-175 looks like we have a hand we're just always going to go with. I guess we risk more flats from villain going smaller than when we 4bet to 205, but whatevs - we still have a decent amount of flops to ship. I personally would just throw in the money (maybe 260/gii) on any K high or A high board (yeah sucks when he flats with AK, but if flop comes K or A high, he's only got 12 combos of that and a lot more combos of underpairs and stuff he whiffed), any time we flop top pair, and any FD or OESD.

Tbh both checking and leading turn without reads is fine. There are good arguments for both. Given a reasonable 3betting range to V and a reasonable defending range to hero, hero has a 60/40 equity advantage on the turn with about the same frequency of nut hands as V.

The important thing is to realize the pros and cons of each.

Checking gets more value from hands that V would semi bluff with such as AK w/ A or K and also lets him catch up and possibly call a bet on river with zero equity hands. The downside to checking is letting V see a free river where a Q or club can roll off which could kill our action or allow V to bluff with hands that weren't profitable bluffs on the turn. Another downside is possibly missing a street of value from AA-KK, JJ that are planning to check back.

Leading lets us a street of guaranteed value from Qx, AA-KK, JJ w/ J. The downside to leading is that if we're leading this hand we're also probably leading Qx and bluffs which would leave our checking range to only underpairs and very exploitable.

If leading turn I'm pretty sure leading small with entire range is best. This is because you'll have a lot of underpairs in your range and a large bet splits your range into Qx or better and bluffs, which makes your checking range vulnerable.

4bet/folding over 33% of your stack pre is horrible.


Sent from my SM-G930V using 2+2 Forums

Thank you! A voice of reason for once ITT.

I don't think we should necessarily balance in this specific spot, but I do think we should act based on how we're most likely perceived, which in the long run creates balance.... Like if hero has x/c flop, led turn two other times this session, we probably don't want to do it a third time with small pairs on this specific turn. But hero might want to keep doing it for value, knowing that we'll get played back at at some point.

Theoretically, the GTO solution I am quite certain, but not positive about is likely to have both a donking range and a checking range. The GTO solution could very well be a mixed strategy where with many of our specific hands we do one thing X% of the time and another thing Y% of the time.

We should *not* play GTO, we should exploit if possible... But say we're playing rock-paper-scissors. We don't expect our opponents to just keep throwing rock, so we shouldn't just always play paper. And it actually is possible to get better at anticipating who's the type to change to scissors (because we keep playing paper) and who might change to paper (believing we'll switch to rock to attack their inevitable change to scissors). In the long run, we will end up playing all moves at their GTO frequencies, but we do it in a smart hopefully exploitive way.

The same situation applies here. No we shouldn't just assume donking or checking is better than the other, nor should we try to play completely balanced. But if we're being as smart as we can be with our range and villain's range and our mutual expectations about how each of us is going to play our ranges and adjust to the other, then for a lot of situations, in the long run we will have played in a way that very closely resembles GTO - especially against the better players.

This means, IMO, that we *will* find ourselves donking in spots like this, at least sometimes, if we're playing the best game we can.