Thoughts on beating micros #7
Have put off posting this because I expect some heated disagreement, but then I'm not purporting to be an expert just sharing my own thoughts/conclustions.
Balances is hugely overrated at micros.
There I said it. I know its fun to pretend we're high stakes ballers balancing our ranges in every conceivable way, but frankly I think that costs you money. As a general rule I think you should play every individual hand on its own merits to extract the most profit (or lose the least) in that particular hand (or spot).
Hmm, it gets more complicated when I try to explain it and I'll probably come off as contradicting myself at times, but like anything poker there are exceptions. Firstly when I say play a hand to win the most on that hand, I still think its best to make the most +EV play over time for that spot. Like the classic, 50bb called 50% of the time and 20bb called 100% of the time, then bet 50bb rather than guarantee some profit, but thats different than balance anyway, so just clarifying that.
Maybe its easier to explain some reasons why I think its overrated and therefore some exceptions.
To my mind, balance matters against opponents who observe enough hands and pay enough attention for your balanced ranges to affect how they play against you. At micros you dont tend to play the same people enough for them to see enough hands. At micros most people arent paying much attention to you.
Now the exceptions are somewhat obvious when you think about it. They're the spots where people will see your moves a lot of the time and take notice, even in a somewhat smaller sample of overall hands. So to me, one glaring exception is your EP raising range. Even a complete drooler will eventually work out you only play AA/KK from UTG if thats your range, but even that is kind of an exception anyway, since not only does balancing your range there add value to your monsters, but they bring their own value with them (done right), so its profitable quite apart from balance considerations.
Another concept I believe in is what I call session balance. Whilst I dont think its that important to balance your ranges over 1000's of hands over 100s of sessions, I think it is important to be aware of your ranges and plays at a particular table and against specific opponents, because you can balance there to make additional profit. If you take a certain line with a monster, then you can take it again on that table as a bluff. Likewise if you take a certain line with a bluff, then you can take it again with a monster.
Anyway, just something to think over. Like anything its a general, not an ALWAYS kind of thing. I do think newer players use "balance" as an excuse for FPS or otherwise retarded lines. Just take your hand and play it in the most EV way possible.
Re: Thoughts on beating micros #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
Balances is hugely overrated at micros.
agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
Even a complete drooler will eventually work out you only play AA/KK from UTG if thats your range,
disagree
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
I do think newer players use "balance" as an excuse for FPS or otherwise retarded lines. Just take your hand and play it in the most EV way possible.
agree. For quite a while one of my major leaks was what I thought of as "range polarisation". This meant playing too many shit hands out of position and in inapproprate situations...
Re: Thoughts on beating micros #7
I totally agree with your balance is an excuse for Fancy-Play-Syndrome.
However, it is good to balance a few things for OUR OWN GOOD.
1. balance our 3betting range
--Some would call this polarizing, either way I think of it as balancing because we're 3betting hands we aren't willing to stack-off with so easily postflop, making it more difficult to play against us.
2. balance our UTG/UTG+1 opening-range
--Again, it's important that there are hands in these ranges that make cold-calling against our opens -EV.
Now, in terms of balancing our flush draws with our sets, etc... I totally agree with you Ben. Like since when has anyone bet/3bet all-in with a FD at 50nl or lower and actually gotten a fold? Seriously, this line is so stupid, but people go, "well I would have done the same with a set". These people need to be beaten with a stick.
Take lines that have FE (i.e. c/'ring FD's against a wide-cbettor) with your draws and take lines that get value (i.e. b/3bet against a passive station) with your 2pr+ type hands.
Re: Thoughts on beating micros #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
ike since when has anyone bet/3bet all-in with a FD at 50nl or lower and actually gotten a fold? Seriously, this line is so stupid, but people go, "well I would have done the same with a set". These people need to be beaten with a stick.
ouch
but i'm learnin'
:facepalm:
Re: Thoughts on beating micros #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
Now, in terms of balancing our flush draws with our sets, etc... I totally agree with you Ben. Like since when has anyone bet/3bet all-in with a FD at 50nl or lower and actually gotten a fold? Seriously, this line is so stupid, but people go, "well I would have done the same with a set". These people need to be beaten with a stick.
I prolly completely misunderstood this post... something I'm prone to do...
But at $25NL, bet/3bet AI w/ FD+ top pair or FD + 2OCs is a big winner for me over about 40K hands. It's big when it hits (obv...), but I do get a sh!tload of folds esp. against LAGs, which make for a big part of the profit.
and Spenda... I actually learned this move from your Grinderschool vids about selective aggression with draws... again, prolly out of context from the OP 'cause I'm missing something, but my 2 cents anyhoo... :shock:
