Yeah I understand the basics of balancing but that is just ridiculous. :P

Yeah, I'm definitely not going to say I could've written a post anywhere near that good, but from a layman's perspective (like mine) if you look at the final range he produces, the bluff range isn't that far from intuitive i.e. bluff with a small number of hands containing reasonable equity/backdoor draws for barreling with.

At least that's how I see it as a mediocre micros player.

wow

just wow

ymu, do you have any idea how hardly you just intellectually punched yourself in the face?

Hey you, get off my avatar.

Why, thank you kind sir.

Best not to derail this thread any further. There's a recent thread in the micro-stakes fullring cash forum that is doing a much better job and putting some maths behind the ideas, getting optimal frequencies etc. Golden, so we should continue over there, I think.


COTW: Exploitative vs balanced strategies

Very nice post, thoroughly addresses ymu's points about balance.



As for the actual hand, meh, we have an overpair in a 3bet pot, I think stacking off is best. I don't play zoom or 10nl but unless that makes a difference I'd just be getting it in because I expect to see stuff like AQ/QTs here.

Nice spoiler- Alistair Overeem. Yesterday, the baddest man on the planet. Today, a drugs cheat- hows that for balance?

ymu, doubt anyones gunna follow you to that thread, we're trying to help you, you're refusing to accept any help and think that you're right and everyone is wrong.

7 pages? You're doing it wrong.

Sure. Post 'em up.

Can't give any guarantees on the quality of the advice, but I can tell you what I do and why. And I don't mind if you point and laugh, as long as you give proper reasoning.

why would anyone bother to give proper reasoning when its completely ignored?

you haven't addressed/responded to my post earlier in any meaningful manner

Well what range (that includes 33) do you bluff with vs. your value range?

I mean there's already a massive post explaining why a balanced range just wouldn't include 33 but maybe you can actually give us a breakdown of your ranges in this spot?

Also ymu I've read that thread before, and saw that someone replied to your post there saying exactly what we've been saying here.
And we have given you proper reasoning, GoonerCam literally broke it down entirely for you.

Yeah, as soon as you use phrases like "villain-dependent balanced" you're speaking in oxymorons.

the thing is alot of board textures interact with our ranges in the same way

for example a QJ8r board isn't super different from QJ2tt in terms of how we go about defending it

as somebody below you said after all the maths is said and done, what you're left with is continuing ranges that seem somewhat intuitive. it's also why in general we struggle to defend as optimally on bone dry boards like 853r compared to QJ8tt, and hence why we do better to have an entire flatting range on the first one

what i can't stress enough is you shouldn't be worrying about working out and sticking to these ranges in uNL/SSNL games because you will be sacrificing a bunch of longterm EV by not trying to exploit your opponents. that being said, i think it makes it much easier to adjust to your opponents exploitatively if you are aware of base unexploitable strategies i.e. it allows us to move hands between ranges based on our reads/stats very efficiently

The cbet size fcuked the whole hand up - end of story. (for reasons myself, ymu and maybe someone else have already explained)

It's a balanced strategy over all ranges that I find myself in that spot with. Some spots are good to bluff with air. Others are better to bluff with outs. Sometimes you need to turn made hands into bluffs, and all of them are giving you cover to bet your nut hands in the same spots. You're not looking to bluff everyone out of every pot, you're looking for spots where it is easy to convince certain types of players to fold with certain types of hand and easy to valuetown other types of players by taking a particular line (or the same player if they are capable of adjusting to your table image), or which help control the pot to get a medium made hand to showdown cheaply.

You can bet out far more frequently than you ever could with a legit hand on bluffable boards, and it's obvious what you're doing, but it's very hard for villains to know whether you have it this time. They can call you down lighter, which makes for a monster pot with your monster hands. They can rebluff you a lot, but then you are just free-rolling them by folding most air, calling great draws, and countering by rebluffing some draws plus nut hands.

This is what the A in TAG and LAG is about. cbet-folding is not TAG. The difference between TAG and LAG is in the frequency of bluffs and hand ranges, but not the moves themselves. In some positions they may be playing virtually identical game, depending on their exact take on the game.

Stop telling me crap that's irrelevant and tell me what your actual range is in that spot like I asked.

If it's a balanced strategy, you should know the range of hands in the same format that GOONERCAM posted in.

cbet size is perfectly reasonable, and in most cases should be close to your standard option

nothing you just wrote is relevant to anything

you're just amalgamating phrases into nonsenical sentences

I've played half a million real money hands since starting up bankrolls on two different sites from scratch playing freerolls. I'm $10k up and have never been down because I have never deposited.

I'm not asking you for help, I am explaining how I play my game so that you can work out how to play properly against players like me. I don't give a flying **** whether you're interested in thinking about something or sending out dim one-liners. Not my problem. I don't need more NL25ers understanding what I do and why I do it.

yeah I just think it's sad you've played 500k hands and still can't listen to anyones opinion, or understand why your still playing nl25 after that time.

Also the fact that everytime someone asks you something you don't answer, you just use complicated poker terminology and ignore the question.

I play the cards I'm dealt. If they're right for the situation, I go with them. If they're not, I fold.

I raise close to 100% of buttons and most of my SBs, and play about 30% in the blinds, 12% of that 3bet. I'm TAG in earlier positions unless the players to my left are easy to steal buttons from. If someone is raising over a limper every other hand, or stealing my button too often, I'll 3bet him with any two cards.

Situations matter more than cards. Check the situation first, then check if you have a hand that works well in that situation. If it does not, fold. If it does, raise. Once the flop comes, work out if there is a way to win the pot, and whether we want to maximise showdown winnings or fold equity or if we may be WA/WB, calling for another line altogether. If there is no line to take that would win more than it lost on average, check-fold is cool. If villains show resistance, we have to decide whether to continue with a bluff line or fold, or how to get it all in with the nut hand which is also in our range for that line.

It's about villains and board textures. When they match your cards, that's your hand range. You can't produce a chart. It doesn't work like that. It can't work like that.

Please stop man. You originally said that your range was balanced, they proved it wasn't and now you are proving yourself it isn't. They are not abusing your play or your way of thinking, just that your ranges are not balanced like you said they were. /thread

Yeah, here's the problem and here's why we know you have no idea what you're talking about:

a balanced strategy plays a set range irrespective of the villain type and history

None of what you have said is answering a very simple question:
what range of hands do you raise with in that situation?

If your answer is that it depends on the player and the situation and table dynamics, you're not playing a balanced strategy.

Balanced strategy is not about what villain you're playing against.