Balancing your range

[Outlaw]

Could you pros please explain what it means to balance your range?

Why is it important?

What stakes does it become important or is it something we should do from micros on?

What the heck does "merging" your range mean?

Or if this has already been covered, can someone please direct me to the thread?

Thanks!

O

[Micro2Macro]

hah..i was just about to ask stacks this exact question

[AFchung]

in poker you balance your range to have a strategy thats hard to exploit. you play your nut hands (top of your range) similar to your bluffs and lower parts of your range. i'm sure someone else can explain it better than i can, but thats the jist of it

as for what limit you need, i'd probably say 50nl+. at the micro stakes no one's paying attention to anything but their cards

[amir is cool]

Here's an example:

Phil Gordon says:

"Players who only raise with premium hands and limp in with their suited connectors and small pocket pairs are giving away too much information. If i raise with 65s and with pocket aces, I very effectively conceal the strength of my hand"

[oskar]

Let's take a simple situation, you're raising on the button, the bb calls, everyone else folds.
Flop is 67K

He bets.
If you raise only with AK or better, and he is able to realize that, then he can fold any worse K or underpair without thinking twice.
If you do it with any flushdraw, 89, 45 and AK+... then you can make it harder for him to fold QK or worse.
- As you can probably guess, this is not a vitally important concept at the micros.

Let's say you raised him with 98, turn comes a 8 and you both check and river comes an 9 and he checks or makes a smallish bet. You could just call and take it down... If you raise you're really representing a T. 45 you probably wouldn't have checked on the turn with. You're really representing better than 2 pair by betting and shouldn't get called with worse. However your hand looks like a bluff, so he might call with just a K here just to look you up. That's what merging your range means. You have a hand with some value, but you choose to take a bluff line. This way it also becomes harder for him to call your bluffs with small pairs in the future because you might just have something that is half way up your value range. Or it's maybe better to say it becomes more complicated. When your ranges aren't all that clear then instead of dividing it into bluff and value and looking for his EV, he has to consider the times you're bluffing with a hand he can't beat.

However... don't try to run before you learn to walk. The best plays at the micros are usually the ones that assume a level-0 opponent, which means betting when you got it, folding if you don't with the exception of c-betting.

[XTR1000]

Guys, don´t bother "balancing" your ranges anywhere below 200NL and even there you should only do it vs a person who can read your hand (those are few!)

The idea of balancing simply means to have a range made up of different kinds of hands, for the sake of being less "readable" and to gain from a game-theory pov (if u haven´t yet, read this)

This whole balancing thing plays on the second level, so as long the villain is only concerned about his cards and which button to click on, you´ll actually own urself. Also note, that it´s all about, what the villain perceives to be your range, so u could flip it upside down and exploit a villain who perceives u to be balanced by being not.

For example, I 3bet a 20/16 CO´s open in position. On level one, I´d 3bet all those hands, which happen to have 50% equity+ vs his range when called. "Balancing" would mean, that I add hands like A4s or 56s to that range, which don´t play particularly well vs his continuing range, but are part of a range which is perceived to be at least moderately strong and can gain a profit from folding equity. After 1k hands vs me he looks at his HUD and thinks "OMG hes 3ballin me 10% in position, thats not that strong a range" and has to adjust his former call 3bet/4ball ranges. Until he properly adjusts, we gained a lot from the mistakes he made, due to us being balanced, ie not calling a hand like KQs or AQo, not 4balling JJ or whatever it may be.


"Merging" a range refers to having ur range made up of hands, that are located on a steady interval over ur pot equity (??) {88+,KQo, KJs+, AQ, AK} would be a merged range to say 3bet from the blinds, opposed to a "polarized" range, which looks like {QQ+, AK, 22-44, A2s-A5s}.

We merge our range, to have more hands for value, we polarize a range to gain folding equity on the weak part and stimulate action for the stronger ones in that range.

[oskar]

balancing in a way that you're not only raising the nuts is fine at some point. I pretty much nutcamped all the way to 50NL and I think it's the best you can do profit wise... starting at 25NL you can mix it up a little short handed.
Bottom line: if you can't give a really good reason why you're deviating from ABC poker, don't.

[Outlaw]

Guys, don´t bother "balancing" your ranges anywhere below 200NL and even there you should only do it vs a person who can read your hand (those are few!)

The idea of balancing simply means to have a range made up of different kinds of hands, for the sake of being less "readable" and to gain from a game-theory pov (if u haven´t yet, read this)

This whole balancing thing plays on the second level, so as long the villain is only concerned about his cards and which button to click on, you´ll actually own urself. Also note, that it´s all about, what the villain perceives to be your range, so u could flip it upside down and exploit a villain who perceives u to be balanced by being not.

For example, I 3bet a 20/16 CO´s open in position. On level one, I´d 3bet all those hands, which happen to have 50% equity+ vs his range when called. "Balancing" would mean, that I add hands like A4s or 56s to that range, which don´t play particularly well vs his continuing range, but are part of a range which is perceived to be at least moderately strong and can gain a profit from folding equity. After 1k hands vs me he looks at his HUD and thinks "OMG hes 3ballin me 10% in position, thats not that strong a range" and has to adjust his former call 3bet/4ball ranges. Until he properly adjusts, we gained a lot from the mistakes he made, due to us being balanced, ie not calling a hand like KQs or AQo, not 4balling JJ or whatever it may be.


"Merging" a range refers to having ur range made up of hands, that are located on a steady interval over ur pot equity (??) {88+,KQo, KJs+, AQ, AK} would be a merged range to say 3bet from the blinds, opposed to a "polarized" range, which looks like {QQ+, AK, 22-44, A2s-A5s}.

We merge our range, to have more hands for value, we polarize a range to gain folding equity on the weak part and stimulate action for the stronger ones in that range.

Yeah that Shania post is one of my favorites..

I just never realized that's what balancing your range is.

Hmm I think I got it.. so basically we occasionally add 34s etc to our early range which polarizes it and in doing so increases the value we get out of hands like AA/KK. The amount our big hands make increases and even though our weaker opening hands aren't necessarily profitable(even if we do win some monster pots occasionally with them), our AVERAGE profit theoretically increases because we get paid more when we have the nuts.

Is this right in a nutshell?

So typically we want more of a merged range against weaker players and a polarized range vs thinking players?

[XTR1000]

In a nutshell it´s about giving your opponent more opportunities to make a mistake in the meaning of sklansky´s fundamental theorem of poker.

The narrower (is that a word?) your range is at any given given point in a hand, the easier it is for your opponent to take the correct action in response.

If you want to merge or to polarize your range is primarily not depending on your opponents abilities. It´s the nature of the specific action you take and what your opponents most likely response will be. Imagine a villain who folds 80% of his buttons to a 3bet and another who folds only 20%. Vs whom would you rather merge your 3balling range from the blinds?

[jyms]

Stop thinking about the hard stuff that will never go noticed by micro stakes opponents anyway. You need to be playing much more straight up until you have at least players that will notice. Raise good hands, check bad hands and make big pots with monsters and small pots with mediocre hands. If your opponents are playing level 0 (what have I got?) why are you bluffing, why are you slow playing and why are you betting the same amounts with monsters and semi bluffs?

It's been said before, VALUEBET, VALUEBET, VALUEBET!

[bigspenda73]

Guys, don´t bother "balancing" your ranges anywhere below 200NL and even there you should only do it vs a person who can read your hand (those are few!)

this is one of the reasons ppl get owned when they try to move up in midstakes. I really dislike advice like this, there are many reasons to balance your range in a lot of spots. There are, however, spots where you don't have to have a balanced range at all. Identifying which spots need balance and which don't can help, but you cannot say don't bother balancing, that's just wrong.

[Outlaw]

Stop thinking about the hard stuff that will never go noticed by micro stakes opponents anyway. You need to be playing much more straight up until you have at least players that will notice. Raise good hands, check bad hands and make big pots with monsters and small pots with mediocre hands. If your opponents are playing level 0 (what have I got?) why are you bluffing, why are you slow playing and why are you betting the same amounts with monsters and semi bluffs?

It's been said before, VALUEBET, VALUEBET, VALUEBET!

Good points.

I only ask these questions not for use right now, but because I want to be ready once I do get out of micros.

[jyms]

Guys, don´t bother "balancing" your ranges anywhere below 200NL and even there you should only do it vs a person who can read your hand (those are few!)

this is one of the reasons ppl get owned when they try to move up in midstakes. I really dislike advice like this, there are many reasons to balance your range in a lot of spots. There are, however, spots where you don't have to have a balanced range at all. Identifying which spots need balance and which don't can help, but you cannot say don't bother balancing, that's just wrong.

Spenda, I do agree but I think things go the other way as well. People focus so much on some of these "concepts" for lack of a better word and start trying to do too much vs micro donks. Understanding is fine, but we really need to be honest with our assessment of the players at the table. There is a reason why there are so many people that seemingly should be able to beat micros and are stuck for months or years at $5NL and $10NL and I don't doubt it's because of things like thinking about "ranges" and "balancing" without a sound knowledge of the more important things at their stakes, like position, pot control and value betting. Even things like fold equity and implied odds seem to escape most of the people posting here judging by the HH questions and reads we are given.

[Robb]

Guys, don´t bother "balancing" your ranges anywhere below 200NL and even there you should only do it vs a person who can read your hand (those are few!)

this is one of the reasons ppl get owned when they try to move up in midstakes. I really dislike advice like this, there are many reasons to balance your range in a lot of spots. There are, however, spots where you don't have to have a balanced range at all. Identifying which spots need balance and which don't can help, but you cannot say don't bother balancing, that's just wrong.

Spenda, I do agree but I think things go the other way as well. People focus so much on some of these "concepts" for lack of a better word and start trying to do too much vs micro donks. Understanding is fine, but we really need to be honest with our assessment of the players at the table. There is a reason why there are so many people that seemingly should be able to beat micros and are stuck for months or years at $5NL and $10NL and I don't doubt it's because of things like thinking about "ranges" and "balancing" without a sound knowledge of the more important things at their stakes, like position, pot control and value betting. Even things like fold equity and implied odds seem to escape most of the people posting here judging by the HH questions and reads we are given.

I agree with Jyms, but to a point with Spenda. I'm one of those who "got stuck" at 10nl, and I will say that a steady trend toward playing my cards face up was helpful in beating the micros. Virtually no version of "fancy play syndrome" is ever helpful below 50nl, imo. And it's rarely helpful at 50nl.

But Spenda is also right - at 50nl there are lots of guys who can spot the set hunter lines. Limp/call pre, for example, is a huge tipoff that isn't going to stack many folks at 50nl like it does so often at 10nl. Considerations of balance (or basic disguise) can be useful, yet a deep discussion of the entire subject could be harmful to one's profits.

[bjsaust]

I like to think of it as, the higher up you go, the more situations need balance. If you're playing any stakes and only raise AA/KK/AK UTG then you have a real problem. At 25nl though, you dont exactly need a balanced "call flop, raise turn" range for instance. Balance can be applied to any line basically, but at lower levels you only need to pick the most obvious ones.

Merging is when your range includes hands other than very strong and weak/draws. If you look back up as Oskars example, a merged range might be raising flop with any KX hand, not just AK. Now if your opponent holds something like KT its no longer a WA/WB situation for him, making his decisions more difficult.

[bigspenda73]

there are spots where your opponents exploit your unbalanced range with out even realizing it guys.

I'm not saying that these players can pick out the fact that you're unbalanced and exploit it, but their tendencies (whether correct or incorrect) will exploit the fact that you range isn't balanced, with out them even trying to do so.

[jyms]

In the series of videos I am watching now WiltOnTilt is doing a very good job of explaining to his student how to play exploitably vs players that don't notice (not exploiting their play). Bet sizing, C/Calling and playing obvious face up lines vs opponents that won't notice anything but their cards may be exploitable vs better, more alert players but then we play them different anyway. The big difference in the play vs two different opponents at the table is huge and it can make a huge difference in winrate. Our best bet is really watching our oppponents and our Hud stats. Knowing a guy goes to showdown 40% of the time and wins 40% at showdown means we really should be playing him much different than a guy that shows down 20% and wins 60% of the time. Your bet sizes, bet lines and hand values really can and need to be different vs these two opponents. Why bet the same on the flop vs both these opponents. Concurrently, don't 3 bet a static amount of hands in certain positions vs both types either.

[Micro2Macro]

Something I was told yesterday and it became a bit of an ah-hah moment:

Our ranges are balanced without us consciously being aware of it.

(unless of course we make sure to take the same line in every sitation every time)

[kfaess]

See Renton's ABCD theorem (too lazy to link it)

Also agree its very unnecessary at micros.

[mormannorman]

Even though most micro donks are only thinking about their own hands, isn't it true that there might be quite a bit of value to taking down a big pot at showdown with 65s, esp. if it cracks AA or something equally impressive preflop?

The whole fishy table will think "that guy is a donk" and play you accordingly. In my experience, while they ignore pots that don't go to showdown many microplayers do pay attention to people's hole cards on big pots, and then overgeneralize.

[Outlaw]

I've noticed tables at micros don't stay together long enough for anyone to really get a read on anyone else anyways. It is rare to make it past 30 hands before the table breaks or I realize there aren't enough donks to justify sticking around.

Back to balancing.. I was thinking of a hand that Arnold Snyder brings up in his book "Poker Tournament Formula where early in an MTT a traditionally very conservative player, Mark Seif, opens UTG.. is reraised.. the author folds his normally playable hand because he thinks Seif must have a hand like AK, QQ+ and will likely felt PF here. Seif smooth calls.. the board is two-tone with low cards.. Seif ends up calling (correctly) an all-in and flips up something like 24s, having SD and FD... the other guy had QQ and the whole table was shocked at Seif's hand.

Is that balancing?

[bigspenda73]

All of your ranges are like a see-saw with jyms on one side and the anorexic 14-yr old you never had the balls to ask out on the other.

[jyms]

All of your ranges are like a see-saw with jyms on one side and the anorexic 14-yr old you never had the balls to ask out on the other.

Yes. Because it makes sense to only 3 bet QQ+ AK at the micros and everyone thinks that you have QQ+ and AK. So why not 3bet A9s once in a while vs someone who folds to 3 bets a ton. Don't 3bet A9s, A3s and 79s because that will fuck with Spendas see saw example, but don't start 3 betting JJ, TT and AQs without the reads. This becomes merging and will be totally unnecessary vs an opponents calling/4betting ranges.

[Stacks]

Just a few things. First off, get this "Don't do ... at the micros because it just won't work there" mentality out of your heads and off FTR. In general, it might not be the best play, but as we all know everything in poker is situational dependent. So if based on the information we have been given and the assumptions we can make (if we make the correct ones), then there is no shame in balancing your range if the case need be, just as there is no problem with 3betting light, 4betting light, 5b bluff shoving. But only do so if you have the ability to process the information given correctly, and have determined that it will be profitable (and the most profitable) to make that given play.

Now that the above is out of the way, and we know that even at the micros there is times when you should balance your range, next we need to think of when. Balancing your range sometimes plays a hand that might not be the most +EV play for that hand in particular, for the sake of strengthening/weakening your entire range in a given situation. Because we are thinking about what our range looks like in a given situation in order to coherently balance our range, in order for the need to actually consciously balance our range to arise, our opponents must be thinking about our possible range of hands. That is, we don't really need to balance our range against players that aren't thinking about our potential holdings.

As an example, If you are playing against a good table and you only raise QQ+ UTG, then when you raise UTG you will obviously get a ton of credit. And therefore, you likely won't get people to put any money when they are behind your range. However, at a bad table, many of the players will not recognize your range, and will still put money in with the weaker range. So against good opponent's it may benefit you to open a bit of a wider range. Not only will this give your more value when you do have a big hand, but it will also give you more credit when you are raising one of your weaker hands.

And to address what micro2macro said about "you are balancing your range even if you aren't consciously trying to". This is true in a lot of cases, if you are playing sound poker. For instance, the majority of players know that cbetting is profitable. And that you don't always have to have a real hand to do so. So most players bet when they do hit a good hand, and also bet when they miss (if it's profitable to in this situation). It's a really common thing, yet this is balancing your range for betting the flop. Instead of a player being able to say "he has the nuts" when you cbet the flop, now your range is much more blurred in this spot and he doesn't know if you have the nuts or are betting air.

This is also the reason why a lot of people advocate not 3betting a good player's UTG open often, and therefore they even flat call with hands like AA, KK, AK, etc. The reason is because if you aren't 3bet bluffing UTG's opening range, then if you do 3bet it will only be for value. If it's only for value, then a competent UTG will be able to assign you a proper value range, and play perfectly against that range. However, you will be calling a lot of other hands besides KK+, AK, therefore when you just call his open you still have a fairly wide range.

Cliffnotes: There isn't a real need to balance against bad players. However, against good players that are thinking about your ranges, and could potentially exploit you if you aren't balancing, then a need for balance arises. To go along with what XTR stated about the fundamental theorem of poker, a player makes a mistake when he plays a hand opposite from the way he would have played the hand had he known our cards. The more transparent our range is, the easier it becomes for him to assign us a proper range and deduct our actual holding. Therefore, the easier it becomes for him to play perfectly against our holding and therefore play mistake free. By balancing our range we are playing in a more deceptive manner, which will make it harder for players to deduct our holding, and therefore increase the chance they have of making a mistake.

[kfaess]

wow nice post stacks, you always explain things very effectively.

Just a few things. First off, get this "Don't do ... at the micros because it just won't work there" mentality out of your heads and off FTR. In general, it might not be the best play, but as we all know everything in poker is situational dependent. So if based on the information we have been given and the assumptions we can make (if we make the correct ones), then there is no shame in balancing your range if the case need be, just as there is no problem with 3betting light, 4betting light, 5b bluff shoving. But only do so if you have the ability to process the information given correctly, and have determined that it will be profitable (and the most profitable) to make that given play.

very good point sir. However, the likelihood of a situation arising where we need to do these things in the micros is so small that I think they can, for the most part, be ignored. Yes, everything in poker pretty much depends on the situation, but considering every possible situation may cause confusion in the important and fundamental aspects of the game. (see the footnote on page 5 of PNLHE for a good example)

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

For example, sometimes you'll flat with a flush draw on the flop when the standard thing to do is raise. This means if you hit it on the turn, an opponent that pays attention to the fact that you've raised a flush draw before will not put you on the flush and pay you off lighter.

When you have a polarized range your range falls into two different subsets. So for example, when you raise a two tone board if your range is polarized you might have flush draws/nuts in your range and not much else.

Merging your range means it's not polarized. So for example, cbetting middle pair would be merging your range. If your opponent is starting to call a lot of your cbets because he realized your initial strategy of betting top pair/air only and checking behind weaker hands to go to showdown, you might start betting middle pair because he's calling a lot of your cbets instead of c/r or folding.

[Stacks]

As a general assumption, given you have no other information on the opponent, then yeah I agree. Obviously your assumptions and "tells" on other players are going to spew over into your schema of what unknown players tend to do. If you have never played poker before and sit down with 7 players and everyone of them is a complete maniac, when another player sits at the table your going to clump him together with the other players, until you get information to prove otherwise.

So since the majority of players at the micros are passive and calling too much, you aren't making a big mistake against an unknown in playing in a manner designed to exploit loose/passive tendencies. However, when you do pick up enough information to alter your schema about that individual, then you should obviously alter your game against that player to best exploit him. For example, to go along with the above example, once you notice the new player isn't playing absolutely erraticly, and instead is a total nit, you should change the manner in which you play against him.

[bigspenda73]

This thread is tilting me, props to stacks for at least not being as oblivious as the rest of you.

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

This is precisely what is wrong with this thread, this thinking is incorrect. You can be getting exploited with out even knowing it, even from players who don't know they're exploiting you. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp but it seems as if most of you just don't realize it.

[Stacks]

This thread is tilting me, props to stacks for at least not being as oblivious as the rest of you.

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

This is precisely what is wrong with this thread, this thinking is incorrect. You can be getting exploited with out even knowing it, even from players who don't know they're exploiting you. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp but it seems as if most of you just don't realize it.

Ouch.. It burns... But actually, I am 100% sure that I do not understand balance completely, and have much to learn on every subject, and balance is no different. So yeah, I'm sure there are things in my post that are slightly incorrect, very incorrect, retarded, and slightly okay. So no worries.

I think I understand what your getting at Spenda. For example, an aggro villain (not maniac) who is frequently double and triple barreling is going to put you into some tough spots on the turn and river. That is if you aren't adjusting to his tendencies in a manner that is designed to exploit this tendency of his. So if you just continue to raise your nuts/air on the flop, then when you simply call the flop, not only is your range somewhat weak, but you are often going to be faced with a bet on the turn and/or river from villain. Therefore, you need to adjust in a manner that will exploit this.

This adjustment you make can come in a few different forms. You could begin to call down lighter, as his range for betting all 3 streets is going to be weaker. You can simply call some portion of your nut hands on the flop (think bottom A range, upper B range type hands), which will strengthen your flop calling range (which will obviously spew over strengthening your turn and river ranges as well). This second adjustment will allow you to raise more on later streets or call more, as your have a stronger range. That is, your bluffs should get more credit because you have more nut hands in your range, and your calling range on turn/river will be better equity wise on average than if you don't make this adjustment and eliminate some of the nut hands from your flop/turn calling range.

So, even though the villain might not be thinking about your range of hands, his continued aggression is exploiting you IF you don't make an adjustment.

[bigspenda73]

well I was paying you a compliment...

see, even my sarcasm is so balanced you guys have no idea where I'm at!

(seriously, wasn't meant as a slight at all)

[bjsaust]

I dont get what you're getting at Spenda.

[XTR1000]

This thread is tilting me, props to stacks for at least not being as oblivious as the rest of you.

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

This is precisely what is wrong with this thread, this thinking is incorrect. You can be getting exploited with out even knowing it, even from players who don't know they're exploiting you. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp but it seems as if most of you just don't realize it.

Yea I agree with you and regarding stacks´ argument the "don´t do this at micros" was off as well.

My point was meant to say "don´t try to balance just for the sake of being balanced". You have to know, where u are getting exploited and how you should react to that and that´s something, which can´t be put in a nutshell.

However, I do outlevel myself frequently and when I post a hand I get told "dude wtf, just raise ur aces" or "just lead that FD in a 3bet pot". The act of balancing will usually mean, that u´ll play a hand differently from what´s optimal in a vacuum and it can be difficult at times to find the right frequency where the balance/naked ev trade off makes it worth.

Bjaust: Opponents who call too much flops in position do a good job exploiting wide cbetting ranges. Bet-when-checked-to monkeys exploit weak checking ranges/too tight check raising ranges very well and so on.

[AlKo4g7iC]

i find none of my strategy works on micro games, bet sizing and bluffing do almost nothing against agressive players at that stake , i just rather not change my game plan so i play $1/$2 cash games or 20 dollar SNG's. Online play i usually use UB or AP including PP and a few others i really only use online poker play for building bank roll to play on the weekend and such. good post stacks nice and detailed

This thread is tilting me, props to stacks for at least not being as oblivious as the rest of you.

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

wat

you don't need to balance, you can just adjust to the opponent tendencies

if someone always calls 3bs, do we need to balance and put in some bluffs? NO, WE DON'T

please list some spots where we need to balance against an opponent's tendency or we get exploited

for example, I could think of cbetting vs. loose opponents where you're going to get called a lot by your air-type hands so we should balance our range by including a lot of medium strength hands we don't include vs. people who c/r a lot

but I could go a step further and bet an unbalanced range of basically the top half of our range
so if betting a polarized range was bad, and balancing was better, betting the top half of our range was even better

I would like to know when balancing is the best option available, I may be missing out on sick value.

[Keith]

This thread is tilting me, props to stacks for at least not being as oblivious as the rest of you.

Balancing your range is what you do vs. opponents who pay attention to your play.

This is precisely what is wrong with this thread, this thinking is incorrect. You can be getting exploited with out even knowing it, even from players who don't know they're exploiting you. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp but it seems as if most of you just don't realize it.

As a pleb down in the mire I'm finding this thread fascinating.
Would an extreme example of this be a nit playing 10/0 at 5NL over 100 hands suddenly pushing all in preflop UTG with AA. some people will be folding simply because of the size of the bet, others will be folding because they realize that a nit raising is likely to have a good hand , others will be folding because its a nit raising for the very first time from the worst position on the table and therefore probably has a monster. All of them are exploiting the raiser by not putting money into the pot when he has a monster, some will be realising it and others will be oblivious to it

[Erpel]

I'm just going to jump in and repeat a comment I have managed to come with a couple of times recently (some in person in sweats, some in posts). Not directly but indirectly related to the subject at hand.

It's blatantly incorrect to state that opponents "only think on level 0". Pretty much all opponents think on levels 0, 1 and 2. The thing is that they don't do it very well.

Sometimes I run into a situation where I end up telling myself that my opponent fails to think on level 0. It can be a situation where there's four to a straight and four to a flush on the board and the opponent is betting his second pair on the river for value. I know the opponent and he never bluffs and I know that a second pair hand for value is in his range and yet I find that I can't call with a hand I think is better simply because there are so many ways he can accidentally have a flush or straight that beats me.

More appropriate to the discussion is expanding on my statement that everyone thinks on levels 0, 1 and 2. I'll use my dad as an example. He's bad at poker. He normally gets level 0 pretty right. He knows what beats what, he can read his hand and he understands relative hand strength some of the time. Does he think on level 1? Let's ask him - do you ever make decisions based on what the other guy has? Yeah, sure - sometimes he bets big, this must mean he has a big hand and I get out of the way. Level 1 thinking. How about level 2? Do you ever make decisions based on what you reckon the opponent thinks you have? Yeah, sure. Sometimes I flop a set or a full house. I've noticed if I just bet out they tend to fold because they think I have a big hand, so I check/call and win a bigger pot that way, if they don't outdraw me. Level 2 thinking.

The question with thinking in levels is not that bad players don't think on certain levels, it's the fact that they don't think about poker on levels particularly well. It's the quality of thinking that's the issue. It's just a really similar argument with range balancing and merging etc. The trick is not to dismiss people as incapable, because if you explain it to them they will understand on a superficial level and go away and misapply it. The trick is to understand how people think about poker, exactly in which ways they are bad and how to exploit those.

It's tempting to jump to the conclusion that because all opponents are terrible you just need to play a simple ABC poker game and profit will follow. This may be true, but it's bad for two reasons. First it's bad because you're not maximising your edge - you could win more by knowing exactly how these players play badly and exploiting it, and second it's bad because you're not practicing identifying and exploiting edges - something that'll only become more important and less obvious when you move up. Opponents need respect at least to the degree that we accept that even the worst (one could argue especially the worst) opponents are worth learning about so we know the exact strengths and weaknesses of their game.

Isn't cbetting a calling station on a good cbet board an obvious example of someone exploiting you without them knowing it?

[kfaess]

I'm just going to jump in and repeat a comment I have managed to come with a couple of times recently (some in person in sweats, some in posts). Not directly but indirectly related to the subject at hand.

It's blatantly incorrect to state that opponents "only think on level 0". Pretty much all opponents think on levels 0, 1 and 2. The thing is that they don't do it very well.

Sometimes I run into a situation where I end up telling myself that my opponent fails to think on level 0. It can be a situation where there's four to a straight and four to a flush on the board and the opponent is betting his second pair on the river for value. I know the opponent and he never bluffs and I know that a second pair hand for value is in his range and yet I find that I can't call with a hand I think is better simply because there are so many ways he can accidentally have a flush or straight that beats me.

More appropriate to the discussion is expanding on my statement that everyone thinks on levels 0, 1 and 2. I'll use my dad as an example. He's bad at poker. He normally gets level 0 pretty right. He knows what beats what, he can read his hand and he understands relative hand strength some of the time. Does he think on level 1? Let's ask him - do you ever make decisions based on what the other guy has? Yeah, sure - sometimes he bets big, this must mean he has a big hand and I get out of the way. Level 1 thinking. How about level 2? Do you ever make decisions based on what you reckon the opponent thinks you have? Yeah, sure. Sometimes I flop a set or a full house. I've noticed if I just bet out they tend to fold because they think I have a big hand, so I check/call and win a bigger pot that way, if they don't outdraw me. Level 2 thinking.

The question with thinking in levels is not that bad players don't think on certain levels, it's the fact that they don't think about poker on levels particularly well. It's the quality of thinking that's the issue. It's just a really similar argument with range balancing and merging etc. The trick is not to dismiss people as incapable, because if you explain it to them they will understand on a superficial level and go away and misapply it. The trick is to understand how people think about poker, exactly in which ways they are bad and how to exploit those.

It's tempting to jump to the conclusion that because all opponents are terrible you just need to play a simple ABC poker game and profit will follow. This may be true, but it's bad for two reasons. First it's bad because you're not maximising your edge - you could win more by knowing exactly how these players play badly and exploiting it, and second it's bad because you're not practicing identifying and exploiting edges - something that'll only become more important and less obvious when you move up. Opponents need respect at least to the degree that we accept that even the worst (one could argue especially the worst) opponents are worth learning about so we know the exact strengths and weaknesses of their game.

Isn't cbetting a calling station on a good cbet board an obvious example of someone exploiting you without them knowing it?

This post really opened up my eyes. Why are good players able to come down to the micros and pwn for higher win rates than the regs who are grinding the micros? Its because they have a more accurate idea of how their opponents are playing and thinking, and the good players themselves are actually thinking much more clearly. The good players don't just assume every micro player is a loose passive donk, they consider each situation separately and make more correct plays against that specific opponent.

[Robb]

Spenda, I think you get frustrated too quick for BC threads, FWIW.

One spot you got me thinking about was the "cbet air" line. Tons of villains at all levels I've played automatically "call one street" with almost anything: any piece of the flop, any half-way hopeful draw, any over card, etc. As bad as the play is, it works great against someone who one-barrels (cbets flop, checks turn) a ton with air and two-barrels with a TPTK / overpair type hand.

Taking the "cbet air give up" line too often allows bad opponents with mediocre hands to play perfectly against our line.

[Outlaw]

I think I am more confused now than when I originally posted this lol

Spenda: I would love to see a microstakes video where you discuss at length balancing ranges. I just got one of the scholarships to grinderschool.com so now would be a perfect time hint hint

Stacks: Your posts make a lot of sense to me.. thanks for sharing your insights.

So far I have learned.

1. We balance ranges to make postflop play more difficult for our opponents.
2. We balance our range to confuse our thinking opponents and to increase our "Shania."
3. We merge our range to gain value against weak opponents.

Tell me if these examples are anywhere near the right track:

1. We are playing 5NL 6-max.. a guy running 24/16/2.0 has been raising our blinds relentlessly for the past half hour. He seems solid and has shown down only strong hands. We decide to defend with any suited connector as well as our nut hands. We end up in a hand with him and make a weird straight with 108s. 5 minutes later we are in the BB with AA and he raises us once again. We 3-bet and he 4-bet shoves 88. Would he have done that if we had not polarized our defending range earlier?

2. 5NL 6-max again.. a guy is running 45/2/.05.. and obvious donk. He has shown down 3rd pair after calling 2-3 streets. We decide to raise his limps with more of a merged range that flops better against his range. We leave off our Axs, sc hands but add K10s, QJ, J10s etc. We then bet for value relentlessly on any favorable boards.

[Muzzard]

1. We are playing 5NL 6-max..

2. 5NL 6-max again..

We don't need to balance our ranges at 5nl, there is a reason they are at 5nl, they're not even thinking about ranges.

[Stacks]

1. We are playing 5NL 6-max..

2. 5NL 6-max again..

We don't need to balance our ranges at 5nl, there is a reason they are at 5nl, they're not even thinking about ranges.

Oh dat muzzard. So when I go and play 2nl-10nl, I'm not thinking about ranges? And let's be honest, I probably play more micros nowadays than I do my actual game. It's sad, but damnit, it's more fun.

[Erpel]

1. We are playing 5NL 6-max..

2. 5NL 6-max again..

We don't need to balance our ranges at 5nl, there is a reason they are at 5nl, they're not even thinking about ranges.

lol - read the whole thread to this point and join me in lolling imo

[Stacks]

1. We are playing 5NL 6-max..

2. 5NL 6-max again..

We don't need to balance our ranges at 5nl, there is a reason they are at 5nl, they're not even thinking about ranges.

lol - read the whole thread to this point and join me in lolling imo

Erpel, you need to go to irc. Your posts are always excellent, and you'd fit right in on some of the study/review sessions that are frequently going on in irc.

[oskar]

I think there's a fundamental communication problem here.
Stacks, Spenda, I don't think you're saying: balancing ranges for the sake of balancing ranges has much of a merrit at the micros. Of course you have a bluff range and a value range, but you're not going to make a play that is -EV by itself just so your range is not tilted one way or the other.
And merging ranges is something that I almost never do anyway... or if I do I'm not thinking I'm merging ranges, I'm doing it because I think I'll get called with worse often enough, so it's really just a straight foreward value bet.

As a more concrete example... you probably won't advocate raising gap connectors from UTG every once in a while, so it's harder for them to put you on a range.

Also some situations that might look like balancing, say you call a steal, flop comes 993, and you c/r overcards, any 9 or maybe even 88+. All of those could very well be +EV by themselves, and even though it might qualify as balancing, I don't think this is necessarily the way you want to think about it. You should be more concerned with: is play x +EV or -EV?
Maybe I'm wrong, and this is just a semantic conflict... Unless you're actively trying to balance a range that is already diversified I wouldn't actually call it balancing. It's just playing different hands the same way... not this is 70% for value, so I have to find more hands to bluff with.

If you have little or no history with your opponents and they're not thinking in ranges, then I don't see why you would want to balance anything.

[bigspenda73]

Man this thread is the box

[Luco]

I play at $10NL on the iPoker network, and I'm inclined to agree that at the micro level, people aren't applying levels 2 & 3 enough for you to worry too much.

As I always play single table it's easy for me to spot which players I can bluff and which I can't, which players have seen a starting hand chart and which have not, which players are honest and which are not, which are paying attention to you and which are not.

Your actions on a table are not generalised by the limit you play at, they are defined by the people on the table with you and, more specifically, those in a hand with you. I won't balance my range for the sake of 1 out of 9 players, It's simpler just to alter your betting patterns whenever you end up in a flop with that one person. With scared money players I don't even need to look at my hole cards, as I don't intend to see the showdown.

Play fluid, reactive, situational poker and you'll know when your range needs balancing.