Let's Talk Balance

Got a request for this one, so I'll start a discussion and hopefully I'll be able to add it to the digest at some point. In a simplistic view, there are three types of ranges: strong, weak, or balanced. If a range is strong or weak, it makes it easy to play your borderline hands. If a range is balanced, it makes it difficult.

Here's a 3-betting example. Suppose you open AQo in middle position, and the button 3-bets. If he only 3-bets a very strong range, then you have a very easy fold. If he 3-bets and 5-bets a weak range, then you have a pretty easy stack-off. If he 3-bets some well-balanced range, it's difficult to figure out what to do.

Here's a c-betting example. Suppose some guy opens in MP and you call on the button with 98s. The flop comes A94r. If he c-bets a very strong range, then you have an easy fold. If he c-bets a very weak (and wide) range, then you have a pretty straight-forward call. If instead he c-bets a balanced range (and barrels as a bluff with some frequency, etc.) then you have a hard decision to make.

If you are trying to take direct advantage of some tendency your opponent has, then you generally will want an unbalanced range either towards being very strong or being very weak. Suppose someone opens the button to 3x with 35% of hands, and folds to a blind 3-bet 85%. Then you'd want to take advantage of this by 3-betting with a weak range. On the other hand, if he opened the button to 3x with 35% of hands, and folded to a blind 3-bet 25% of the time, you would want your range to be fairly strong.

Keep in mind that the adjectives strong and weak are relative to your opponent's range too, even though we're sort of throwing them around a lot.

So here's an example of a spot where balance is nice. Suppose in a 100bb deep 9-handed game, UTG opens and it folds to us in the CO. If we 3-bet only something like {KK+, AK} here, our opponent could very easily pick up on this. I mean after all, we're supposed to have a pretty strong hand to 3-bet against a UTG open on a 9-handed table. So his strategy would probably be to fold a whole lot. We could answer by balancing our range a bit and adding in some semi-bluffs like a few suited Aces. Now it's not so clear what he should do with a hand like QQ.

There are basically two ways to change the strength of a range. First you can add hands to it, or you can remove hands from it. If you add strong hands, it makes the range stronger, and if you add weak hands, it makes the range weaker. Similarly, if you remove strong hands, it makes the range weaker, and if you remove weak hands, it makes the range stronger. Adding hands makes your range wider, and removing hands makes it more narrow.

Adding semi-bluffs with a lot of equity makes your range wider without sacrificing much strength. Adding air without much equity makes your range wider while sacrificing a lot of strength. This is a big part of why barreling with equity works so well.

There's another part of balance that is really cool, and a lot of newer players think they get it but either they really don't or they never apply it in their games. Let's say you have a really strong range in some spot, and then you add one break even semi-bluff to your range. By adding a break even hand to your range, it might seem like you aren't changing the EV of your range at all. However, you actually do. This is because your opponents will have a non-zero chance of weakening their range against you after seeing your semi-bluff, so all of the strong hands in your range will gain EV. Thus, by adding a break even hand to your range, you actually increased the total EV of your range.

Here's an analogy that a lot of guys can relate to. Let's say your wife is giving you some once a week. Now let's say you pick up some half-decent flowers somewhere for free because you know a guy. You bring these home to the wife, and it would seem like even though you're adding a break even component to the situation. However, she's going to be more likely to give you some more than once a week, so you have increased the EV of your overall situation. Again, you've increased your total EV with a break even play.

Okay so you guys have at it.

sad world where you gotta buy flowers to your wife to get some more than once a week, imo... lucky enough they're free!

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

...your opponents will have a non-zero chance of weakening their range against you after seeing your semi-bluff, so all of the strong hands in your range will gain EV. Thus, by adding a break even hand to your range, you actually increased the total EV of your range.

Fucking awesome. This needs emphasising.

So I'm looking to add hands to my 3bet range pre flop, because my 3bet range is currently too strong. Based on what I've been reading on this site over the last week or so, I'm left with the impression I'm better off adding hands like Axs and Kxs, rather than hands such as 89s etc, due to blockers decreasing the probability villain will continue. Is it correct to think about blockers when looking to balance a range?

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fucking awesome. This needs emphasising.

So I'm looking to add hands to my 3bet range pre flop, because my 3bet range is currently too strong. Based on what I've been reading on this site over the last week or so, I'm left with the impression I'm better off adding hands like Axs and Kxs, rather than hands such as 89s etc, due to blockers decreasing the probability villain will continue. Is it correct to think about blockers when looking to balance a range?

Yes because it changes fold equity. However, in situations where calling with, for example, A2s is +EV, you should call with it and choose some other hand to 3-bet with. Check the examples in my combos and blockers post in the digest for an in-depth example of how it changes fold equity.

shania!!!!!!!!!!

I hope I can word this correctly. If we are trying to balance our range and already have a very strong range does it matter if our opponents know when we are bluffing? In other words is their actual knowledge of our range change the fact of it being balanced? Or just the mere fact that we are mixing in something outside the norm makes it more balanced?

Hope this makes sense?

I hope I can word this correctly. If we are trying to balance our range and already have a very strong range does it matter if our opponents know when we are bluffing? In other words is their actual knowledge of our range change the fact of it being balanced? Or just the mere fact that we are mixing in something outside the norm makes it more balanced?

Hope this makes sense?

Your range is balanced only if your opponent is aware of it. It is not necessary to balance your range against an opp who only thinks about his cards and not yours: just value bet him. That's why it is often advised not to bluff at the micros: there is less need for balancing, since your opponents are less aware of your range.

Originally Posted by daviddem

Your range is balanced only if your opponent is aware of it. It is not necessary to balance your range against an opp who only thinks about his cards and not yours: just value bet him. That's why it is often advised not to bluff at the micros: there is less need for balancing, since your opponents are less aware of your range.

So would we then show a bluff if we take it down on occasion? I never show ever but I could see there may be an occasion when it would be beneficial.

Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13

So would we then show a bluff if we take it down on occasion? I never show ever but I could see there may be an occasion when it would be beneficial.

No, I don't think you should show your cards -- do not give away free information. Don't forget that your bluffs are +EV when they take down the pot by forcing a better hand to fold.

Showing a bluff (either because it failed and you lost the pot, or because you showed your cards when you didn't have to) forces you to make an adjustment decision: (a) will this opponent adjust and start calling wider? or (b) will he just continue to play his robotic game?

Unnecessarily showing your bluffs forces you to make these adjustment decisions more often then you normally would. Plus, the smarter your opponent, the more they are going to realize that you have a bluffing range simply because of your betting frequency, so there is no reason to confirm their suspicions. Let them make a call/raise and find out for sure (hopefully when you're betting for value).

Originally Posted by daviddem

Your range is balanced only if your opponent is aware of it. It is not necessary to balance your range against an opp who only thinks about his cards and not yours: just value bet him. That's why it is often advised not to bluff at the micros: there is less need for balancing, since your opponents are less aware of your range.

The bold is wrong, but the rest of it is right. You're thinking of our perceived range.

For example, in the AKQ half-street fixed-limit game, if we're playing unexploitably, it doesn't matter if our opponent knows we're playing unexploitably. Fwiw, a perfectly balanced range is, by definition, unexploitable.

Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13

I hope I can word this correctly. If we are trying to balance our range and already have a very strong range does it matter if our opponents know when we are bluffing? In other words is their actual knowledge of our range change the fact of it being balanced? Or just the mere fact that we are mixing in something outside the norm makes it more balanced?

Hope this makes sense?

Whether your range is balanced or not depends only on what's in your range.

With that in mind, I've tried to put emphasis on the fact that you shouldn't always have balanced ranges in every single spot ever, particularly against players who are not capable of adjusting to exploit you. Hell I'm willing to say the times where you should have a balanced range at the micros are relatively few and far between.

So if someone calls down three streets with any piece of the board, and won't adjust to you value betting the dog shit out of them over and over, then you don't need a balanced range there at all.

weren't there a couple of strong articles written on balance for that essay competition a while back?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Fwiw, a perfectly balanced range is, by definition, unexploitable.

in before people start thinking that unexploitable=most profitable

two spots to think about a lot when trying to get a handle on balance
1 - raising flop c-bets in position on various types of boards vs TAG-stat regs
2 - checking flops oop after raising pre.

Originally Posted by daven

in before people start thinking that unexploitable=most profitable

Yeah no joke. I guess I should throw in using a very large font that

being unexploitable also means

you're not exploiting your opponent

at all.

Very cool thread.

What I like most is that this discussion of balance also helped me to understand adjustments/exploitative strategy better.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Yeah no joke. I guess I should throw in using a very large font that

being unexploitable also means

you're not exploiting your opponent

at all.

This! I used to think too much about it. Now I pot it when I have it and bet smallest amount I think i can get away with when bluffing. Works great.

Might make exception vs regs.

The way I understand it, most profitable strategy = maximum exploitative (until your opponent adjusts and exploits back).