The So Called Balugawhale Theorem - Page 3 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

But the strategy is exploitable: If you know someone is following the theorem, you can profitably bluff raise them on the turn all the time. That's assuming they do not pot control the turn with one pair. If you're heads up against the suspect villain and they bet pot and turn, the majority of their range is one pair, probably around the 60-80% area. Therefore, bluff raising turn is profitable.

If the player betting ott (whether or not he knows baluga or knows you know baluga) sees you constantly raise his turn bets, he'll continue lighter though. It might be exploitable for 2,3 hands.

In limit there was a rule, I forgot the name, that if a 4flush hit otr, you were supposed to lead regardless of if you had the flush. Most of the time the V won't have it and he'll fold with anything smaller than a flush because those bets are valuable in limit. Then people on 2p2 started reading about it and said, well if you know the guy betting knows this rule, always raise him and the situation's reversed.

So it's not exploitable forever.

Quote

12-07-2013 , 06:39 PM

#52

spikeraw22

The Situation

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 8,741

I think it's pretty ridiculous to think that a significant percentage of the 1/2 2/5 player pool knows anything about the Baluga theorem or could implement it properly if they had. Still super relevant. The only caveat for me is that a lot of these guys are still check shoving worse into me so I'm constantly having to evaluate their competence.

Granted I play 1/2 in a circus, but I don't think I could get the best player I know in that room to fold tptk to a turn cr.

Quote

12-09-2013 , 12:20 PM

#53

donkeyfhish

centurion

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 117

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTJO

Since this is a forum, in which debate is encouraged, I need more convincing. I read the Balugawhale Theorem a while back and my first response was 'huh'? I mean, I've read parts of Easy Game and watched some of Balugawhale's DC videos and rate his thinking on strategy highly, but why on earth call this a theorem? It merely is a specific way of playing a certain type of player on particular boards with when our range is capped at one pair.

Maybe five years ago, this type of player constituted a significant portion of the playing pool at LLSNL. But today? Where's the proof? What is this player exactly, apart from being a non-2-2er-TAG? Is this player type more a straw man fantasy than a reality? Or to be more forgiving of the theorem, might we say this player type is now just a significant minority?

I'm not saying I'm never folding AK to a c/r on a A468r board; however, advocating that I should default fold, to me, is merely a way of encouraging auto-pilot poker, which even at LLSNL shouldn't be encouraged. If we we're talking about 5NL, such a theorem might be more applicable, especially if multi-tabling, but I can't accept the value of such thinking in a live setting. We have so much time at the table in live poker to study and profile our opponents. Why not individualise rather than generalise? Why not look for specific tendencies in betting patterns on particular board textures? Why not look for signs of frustration and fatigue? I mean, what are we saying here, that we should just ignore this rich field of information in favour of assigning a stable meaning to a generalised betting line?

Doesn't the "theorem" sugest that you "reevalute" rather than take a default, insta-muck line?

I agree that the use of the word "theorem" is a little loose here-btw. I think the word "play" or "line" applies to such a specific spot.

That play is where it's at though, in LLSNL, most of the time.

Sent from my DROID4 using 2+2 Forums

Quote

12-09-2013 , 11:09 PM

#54

iraisetoomuch

banned

Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 37,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by spikeraw22

Must be nice..

Quote

12-11-2013 , 04:03 AM

#55

DK Barrel

Concept of the Week author

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 6,797

yeah, I got three streets of value with TPTK the other day and honestly couldn't remember the last time that happened lol

... of course that probably means I should just be triple barreling every single hand...

Quote

12-12-2013 , 01:12 PM

#56

axess30

enthusiast

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 82

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenT07891

GRUNCH

I find the Balugawhale Theorem to still be accurate against the vast majority of live villains.

But the strategy is exploitable: If you know someone is following the theorem, you can profitably bluff raise them on the turn all the time. That's assuming they do not pot control the turn with one pair. If you're heads up against the suspect villain and they bet pot and turn, the majority of their range is one pair, probably around the 60-80% area. Therefore, bluff raising turn is profitable.

The problem is in real life, it's tough to tell whether someone is following the theorem. In higher stakes games (2/5+), with good players I think it's fairly reasonable to say a larger portion of the player pool is following the theorem, therefore it's exploitable.

I agree with this, especially if you are in a deeper stacked game (i.e. max buy-in of 200BB or more). Most 2/5 players I've played with live aren't stacking off with TPTK unless they've got a shallow stack that warrants it. With that being said, our opposition will adjust, so you can't bluff turn/raise that frequently. We wouldn't want our deep stacked villain following the theorem to feel bullied and stand up for himself, would we?

Additionally, underestimating the skill of your opposition is a very costly mistake. Don't do it.

Quote

12-12-2013 , 02:01 PM

#57

bwslim69

I'm a Diva, Bruh

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24,927

Quote:

Originally Posted by DK Barrel

Just posted a hand in my PGC where I simply willed the opponent to have a bunch of draws in a simple b/f turn spot where he simply never has said draws and like a fish I played for stacks with TPTK. Can't remember the last time I did that and then I thought of this thread and I just felt like a ****ing fish.

Quote

12-12-2013 , 02:04 PM

#58

spikeraw22

The Situation

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 8,741

Oh I did the same thing the other night with a 2+2er watching at the table. I said "I misplayed this hand" as I pushed a stack across the table.

Quote

12-12-2013 , 05:47 PM

#59

Buster65

The Situation

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,240

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldiesel

In limit there was a rule, I forgot the name, that if a 4flush hit otr, you were supposed to lead regardless of if you had the flush.

Clarkmeister Theorem. Works for NL too, but you are right, was initially proposed for limit.

Quote

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last