I have been thinking about this for awhile. I am not sure if there are any SSNL articles on this I couldnt see any in the master sticky (if there are point me to them). But I am a member of some of CR/Stox and I notice they often talk about making plays to 'balance your range'. I am wondering if there is any in depth explanation as to what this means, why it is beneficial and where to apply it.

I understand on a basic level that it relates to not playing a hand the same way every time so you don't become too exploitable but I am torn as to when to deviate. The trouble is, I only play 200NL and a lot of the players are fairly awful, so the 'optimal' play is going to be best a hell of a lot. Is there any point even trying to balance your range at 200NL or is this more of a higher stakes thing?

Here is a hand example:

Usually here I would just bet and call a shove v my TAG opponent.

Instead I choose to check-raise all-in (well I meant to, hit pot rather than max :P), often when I check on this board I will be giving up or maybe CRAI on a draw, have I 'balanced my range' by playing JJ this way or is stupid? I am confused.

Full Tilt Poker, $1/$2 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BB: $209.45
UTG: $220.85
CO: $235
BTN: $197
Hero (SB): $205.40

Pre-Flop: J J dealt to Hero (SB)
UTG raises to $7, 2 folds, Hero raises to $24, BB folds, UTG calls $17

Flop: ($50) 8 T 9 (2 Players)
Hero checks, UTG bets $37, Hero raises to $161, UTG raises to $196.85 and is All-In, Hero calls $20.40 and is All-In

you should balance against good players, you definitely shouldnt against bad players. you kind of balance your range here, if you give up a lot when you checked. in uncommon spots the need to balance is much lower anyway as people won't get a good idea of your range anyway.

blind reckless aggression to balance ranges is def +EV

what he said

Depends against who, and it's wildly overrated at most SSNL games. People who make a bad play and say 'We'll it's OK, I'm vbetting 90% of the time and bluffing 10% so his call is bad' are pretty lol.

Yeah, massively overrated by soo many people on this forum. tbh it only really becomes a big issue at 400NL+

If you know villain's gonna call all the time then bluffing 10% of the time is bad. If he doesn't call all the time, then you should be bluffing some % of the time.

exactly. it would be a lot better to vbet some villains 98% of the time and only bluff them 2%. balancing ranges should not be used as an excuse for poor adjustments.

I can't figure out what the first sentence has to do with the second. If you vb 98% of the time and bluff 2%, you're balancing.

if youre bluffing someone 10% of the time, when they will rarely fold, youre doing it wrong (making poor adjustments) and you should probs only bluff them like 2%.
so when someone says "but i only bluff there 10%" they're making poor adjustments to a villain, b/c that villain will hardly ever fold.

edit: if that makes sense. i rarely do, lol.

Bulb the whole point is that against the vast majority of opponents you should be doing X in situation Y 100% of the time. I think the further into the hand you are the more this statement is true (like, mixing up PF stuff is often OK)

The argument is that if they're not adjusting to you, why the hell should you change anything?

i find it very hard to consciously "balance my range", not that i've ever tried, but if I ever tried this consciously, i would probably totally mess up my game.

I would suspect most good players sub-consciously balance their ranges, using different plays for different situations, against different players.

severely overrated imo. nh op. Your flop check balances well with the other times you check the flop and fold. For the most I wouldn't worry about it unless you have LOTS of history with a reg. Def. don't consider it against bad players who aren't thinking about your ranges.

just play well, balancing is for thinking regs.

i can safely say 90% of 1/2 regs are not thinking players, ie people you "need" to balance sht out against

Ok most of this has confirmed what I suspected.

I certainly don't ever try to balance my range against the fish, it has only ever got me thinking against the tougher regs. But I think I am a lot like Nicky in that whenever I do make a play that deviates it is not so much a conscious effort to balance my range but something that occurs because of the current table dynamic, history and the whole I know he knows stuff.

I am going to take a shot at 400NL, does it become more of an issue there (some of you hinted at that)? Can anyone explain in depth or know of any articles that talk about the conceptual reasons for balancing your range at higher stakes and when to use it? If I can appreciate why and when people are doing it then perhaps it will put my mind at ease at why I should NOT be doing it at 200NL. I am keen to learn about this even if it is only to avoid making idiot plays in the name of balance.

wot it dew?

the way i play against competent players isn't exactly balancing, but just generally doing unexpected things that mind**** them. so bluffing in spots where you are never bluffing, and betting when you should have nuts or air, wheras in fact you have something in between

i just play every hand the best i can against every player, so obviously against thinking players you cannot do the same thing every time, but this isn't really balancing, it is just using table dynamics and reads and using them to your advantage

there is some real balancing you have to do when you play someone alot, but almost all of it is the best thing to do in that instance so isn't balancing at all.

The problem with not balancing is something Big_Jim alluded to once, which is that a lot of the time you don't know how your opponent react to a certain move. If you check/raise a dry flop with a set, will he go nuts with just about any one pair hand (meaning we should check/raise dry flops with sets a lot)? Or will he just fold everything except TPTK+ (meaning we should bluff a lot)? A lot of the time we just don't know. Balancing our ranges by sometimes bluffing and sometimes having a great hand in that spot keeps us from making huge mistakes, because if it turns out that he goes nuts in those situations then a decent amount of the time we actually have a good hand. If it turns out he's a stupid nit then a good amount of the time we're bluffing. Whereas, if we do one thing 100% of the time and it turns out we're wrong in how we think he reacts, you're gonna get ****ed in the ass.