understanding balance is about understanding cause and effect:

cause: different hands contribute to the ev of a strategy in different ways and the three major hand groups: draws, showdownable hands, and junk, these groups overlap each other like this:



effect: the hand groups(and individual combos that comprise the groups), help each other earn ev. the showdownable hands allow some draws and junk to bet(without value hands there would be no bluffs). the draws add value to the value hands, and aid in keeping the junk safe(without draws in the checking range, there would be too much folding). junk represents hands that never reached potential because junk misses the board by definition. junk doesn't benefit us on this board, but instead junk benefits our strategy on different boards by hitting flops turns and rivers when other hands cant.

result: ev is maximized when your strategy can't improve the way the different hand groups help each other. this is true balance imo.

I'll say this about balance: if I'm at a table with more than one player that can calculate how many bluff to value combos I could/should have in my range, I'm at the wrong table.

Even if you have a 100 vpip fish on the table?

So I’m assuming from your thought process you never expect to play at any level above the micros online or anything above the smallest stakes live with any decent frequency?

I think that with 3 competent players at a single FR table the house will be the only winner.

I somehow screwed up my reply...

Hopefully/maybe one day I'll have the skill to sit at 5/10+.

Maybe I've been extremely lucky with the tables I've sat at for 1/2, 2/5. I've never sat at a table with more than 1 opponent that displayed a good understanding of the fundamentals. I've never sat at a table that I felt the need to repeatedly ask myself if I'm being balanced from street to street.

Sorry for the late reply for some reason I don't receive an email notification there's a new reply on this thread.

Something I read a while back that still makes sense today: https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/s...d-em-28898.htm

if you have a small edge over regs then you don't need fish to be losing at a huge clip (maybe as little as 30bb/100) to win even in high rake games

LLSNL is a rake trap though, if you can calculate rake in bb/100 it's probably in the double digits depending on structure, so you do need some massive steamers at the table for it to make sense to play

Bob, I am still trying to digest what you wrote (very thought provoking), but I think I disagree with you that there are three types of equity (fold equity, showdown equity, and draw equity). In my thinking, there are only two ways to get value from a hand, and that is fold equity or showdown equity. A draw can get value from either bucket, which is what makes aggressive action on a draw into a semi bluff. A bluff is 100% fold equity. A nuttish hand is 100% showdown equity, and an aggressively played draw is a combo of fold equity and showdown equity (a passively played draw is 100% showdown equiy).

To me, there is no such thing as protection. You never want to protect a made hand, you want to extract max value from that hand. Does that mean that sometimes a player will draw out on you? Yes, but you are still maximizing EV as you are extracting max value for all the times that they do not make their draw. I think you never want your opponent to fold when they are behind, but you want them to pay the maximum amount they will pay to chase their draws.

Balance is achieved when your opponents cannot discern whether your are getting more value from showdown equity or fold equity, and are therefore unable to exploit your plays.

spewy, you're correct that there are only two ev sources, being (non showdown winnings) and (showdown winnings). however, classification of hand groups isn't the same thing, and it's not all about the betting nor raising ranges. checking ranges count too, and any individual combo fits into one of the segments on the diagram. it breaks down the way it does because of the ways you can win the pot:

a) win unimproved (showdown value)
b) improve a hand that was already ahead (dominant draw)
c) improve a hand that was behind (draw value)
d) make the opponent fold the best hand when you have no chance to win unimproved (fold equity)
e) make the opponent fold a hand that might have improved to a winner (protection)
f) make the opponent fold when you have good chance to improve (semibluff)

if talking strictly no limit holdem, then the cost of protection is much higher and thus protection bets are correct much less often. however i think that protection bets(not defined as made hand, but instead any hand that is currently best yet vulnerable) are most certainly a part of equilibrium in any poker game.

the problem i have with the bold is that they don't always have a draw. we can't just base our betsizes such that the draws we're targeting are losing money, as this would benefit the stronger hands in the opponent's range. also, not all forms of poker allow variable betsizes. If we're being comprehensive, then protection most certainly deserves a spot on the diagram.

This is good stuff. Imma gonna have to take a bit to digest this. This is something that has been kicking around the back of my head for a while (mostly in terms of classification of bet types, and can they be simplified into a smaller number of fundamental types of action....but that dovetails into your thoughts here nicely) Thanks for starting a thoughtful thread here.

I will acknowledge that my framework of evaluation is 100% NLHE, so that may skew some of my thinking.

Moved from beginners forum for more exposure.

I think Modern theory of Poker has a really good chapter about this.

I don't know about the terminology you're using, but in general if we assume the opponent should call our air, raise our draws, and fold to our value, then your diagram would loosely correspond to the aforementioned quote.

Thanks but that quote only addresses the betting range. I think the op here is more comprehensive, if not entirely comprehensive.

Also I wish to dedicate this thread to yadoula. Rip.

This is the first post I’ve seen at 2+2 in years and it’s been dedicated to me! Thanks Bob. Perhaps it’s pure coincidence that I happen to see this post soon after the implicated idea flashed through Bobs mind. Perhaps it’s coincidence, however, my new theories lead me to believe that we may have all been guided here by God...

There are two sets of laws that govern all things: Those that belong to the past and those that belong to the future:

In the PAST all things are measured. Anything measurable must exist in the past, otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to measure it. Following these measurements leads us to believe that cause and effect gives us the current state of things.

However...

All the laws related to the FUTURE are immeasurable for the future is infinite. In the future all paths lead to God. Perfection.

It is both these sets of laws TOGETHER that determine how we progress through existence. The laws of the past push us through measurably boundaries, and at the same time, the laws of the future pull us toward our inevitable God-like state.

... I’m not dead yet Bob! I’m still the most advanced game theorist ever to live. I’m miles ahead of the competition now.

In a bid to rid the world of GTO I plan to start a financial revolution. To that end, I designed a completely new type of currency that you acquire anytime you provide goods or services free of charge. My plan is to turn all charity into a monetised capitalist exchange system, effectively doubling the worth of our economy overnight. A prototype E-commerce marketplace that houses this new exchange system is nearly built.

Mentally unbalanced opponents are often good to play with!

Maybe I am crazy, but then I think you’re crazy. Why don’t we compare poker winnings at we’ll know who’s more crazy!? By your own logic this is a good way to determine our mental prowess.

Nowadays I just play part time after my kids gone to bed. I made $3000 profit this week playing cash games online. I played a couple years as a pro too, during which time I won $200,000 or so.

Now it’s your turn Torro?

Ooh yay, who doesn't love a good **** measuring contest.