---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (High Stakes)

I don't get it... You say you're talking about balancing your range, but what you're really talking about is balancing what to do with ONE hand on different rivers..? I guess it's kinda related that you use this one hand to achieve balance in your range on different rivers, but still you're not saying anything about your range - just this one hand.

Then again, as you say pretty much everybody has misunderstood the concept of balance, I could very well be one of those..

I don't get it... You say you're talking about balancing your range, but what you're really talking about is balancing what to do with ONE hand on different rivers..? I guess it's kinda related that you use this one hand to achieve balance in your range on different rivers, but still you're not saying anything about your range - just this one hand.

Then again, as you say pretty much everybody has misunderstood the concept of balance, I could very well be one of those..

Maybe we misspoke in a spot or two (i don't remember), but it's an example of how to approach balancing in this situation. To try to construct a completely balanced river range vs his hand range is way outside of the scope of this series. Instead, we show you this example as a springboard for you to approach how to think about balance and how to try to achieve that in a microcosm of the entire gameplan (river c/r, river lead). We also talked about the other hands in our range and how those might play out here. It's an incomplete in terms of our entire range in this spot, but it's meant to get you guys thinking down the right path.

OK, thx. Good video and all interesting thoughts about gameplan and how to play the hand on different rivers/what to do in practice to achieve balance - I just got a little confused at the end and started to suspect that I could have misunderstood something about the balance concept.

Time Link to 00:50:43

If you expect him to be more likely to call some of his value hands, shouldn't we actually construct a range that is unbalanced toward value hands?

Pokermoney could think that your turn check/raise looks full of shit because you represent only TJ, 44 and 66. Maybe thats why he 3bet there. Because his range is weak too for checking back the turn.

What about 4 betting despite the deep stack? and if he calls, we shut down unless we hit.

I like just calling by the way.

Pokermoney could think that your turn check/raise looks full of shit because you represent only TJ, 44 and 66. Maybe thats why he 3bet there. Because his range is weak too for checking back the turn.

.

Not sure, but I suspect he will have a decent amount more value hands in his turn c/r'ing range than just those

Not sure, but I suspect he will have a decent amount more value hands in his turn c/r'ing range than just those

Yeah I guess but I think his range for X/R seems polarized ''most'' of the time.
Looks like a cool play to X/R KJ QJ there though, if villain is expecting us to have alot of air.

I feel like I'm hijacking this thread so I'll stop now

I think I'll have to rewatch the video, I missed a few points I think.

If you expect him to be more likely to call some of his value hands, shouldn't we actually construct a range that is unbalanced toward value hands?

I think we tried to mention at least a time or two throughout the video that balance does not necessarily mean highest EV. It just means balanced. Playing an exploitable strategy is almost always going to be better, assuming you are aware of what you're doing and looking out for him to adjust etc. Since this video was about balance though, we wanted to construct a balanced bluffing/value strategy in this spot...

Pokermoney could think that your turn check/raise looks full of shit because you represent only TJ, 44 and 66. Maybe thats why he 3bet there. Because his range is weak too for checking back the turn.

What about 4 betting despite the deep stack? and if he calls, we shut down unless we hit.

I like just calling by the way.

could be good, it just sets up a somewhat weird stack situation and depends greatly on how many hands he's 3bet/folding vs 3bet/continuing, and if he does continue it will often be a shove so then we either miss out on our equity or put in a lot of $ bad. The nice part about call and c/r is that we get more $ from his air, but then again if he also has a lot of air that certainly makes reraising the turn ok. Basically it's not clear cut and it just depends on what you think his range is and how he continues with each part of it.

Time Link to 00:42:47

I feel like the concept here is slightly off. You're talking about calling on the turn in an attempt to bluff certain cards and that you need a 2:1 ratio of bluff cards to value cards. I think we're supposed to consider the balance of each individual card with our entire range right?
For instance, It doesn't matter than on the river we can check raise w/ 6 cards for value, that has nothing to do with how many cards we can check raise for value as a bluff. When bluff cards roll off all we need to do is show up w/ a 2:1 ratio of "theoretical" value hands to bluff hands.
For example on the river 6, we could potentially check raise all 2 pair that hit full houses, thus we have 18 total FH combo's (hand reading is irrelevant it's just an example) and we can check raise 6 total bluff combo's in our range. That being said, how many value hands we hit on the river has nothing to do with our turn decision in regards to which cards we can bluff right?

we were looking to create a balanced river strategy with this hand in this spot. We weren't trying to balance our entire range vs his entire range. That is out of the scope for this video series.

It is flawed to balance 1 hand vs our opponents entire range in any circumstance. The river texture will change our perceived value range. If the river is a heart we will have more value combo's than 6. If we keep our bluff range exactly the same based on just 78o regardless of river texture we're ignoring the fact that the river changes the number of value hands we can have.

There are going to be some hands that will be better to bluff catch with than to turn into bluffs. If you balance each hand individually you're going to be turning hands into bluffs that you should bluff catch with. Under your logic you need to balance by bluffing with a hand like AT on heart rivers. This will balance your entire range by looking at each hand individually. However clearly it's better to bluff with every combo of 78 before you ever start bluffing with AT. That is the reason why you can't balance by looking at just one hand.

sorry to be off topic, but I was wondering what you think the best course of action is in dealing with the recent bullshit bomb our government dropped on the online poker community. Pretty much all advice in the forums seems to be based on speculative evidence at best, and I was wondering if there was some reliable information out there as to how the future of online poker will be affected, and what people should be doing with their bank rolls.

Time Link to 00:46:19

why would the Q of hearts be a better card to lead as a bluff on the riv than the 3 of hearts?

this might sound a bit daft bt figured id ask anyway

why would the Q of hearts be a better card to lead as a bluff on the riv than the 3 of hearts?

this might sound a bit daft bt figured id ask anyway

It hits more of our perceived range (flushes and more straights)

yea that makes sense wilt thanx, also v good vid, has really got me thinking about alot of stuff.

Aaron--

Even given what you've written in this thread, I think it's really misleading to call the technique you describe "balancing" in the game-theoretic sense. Bluffing 1/3 of the time (given that you bet) when your opponent is getting 2:1 on a call can be right (given other assumptions), but the 1/3 of the time has to make reference to _the public information_.

Of course, if you do this with every hand in your range, then you will be bluffing 1/3 of the time in total on the river--but that does you little good if the bluffs occur disproportionately on certain rivers.

You're ten times the player I am, but unless I'm missing something obvious, your advice doesn't hold game-theoretic water. Put yourself in your opponent's shoes with a bluffcatcher--why would you care that 1/3 of Villain's bets are bluffs if that 1/3 is 1/3 _of all rivers_? Is the idea that if you bluff 1/3 of all rivers then you're likely to get it approximately right on each specific river? (But then why do you choose "good bluff cards" to bluff?) Or are you playing exploitively? (But then why are you bothering with exactly a 2:1 ratio in the first place?)

Thanks for the pr1nnyraiding videos--they're some of my favorite poker material ever, and I watch them over and over. I'd love to know more about what you're thinking in these spots.

Time Link to 00:27:14

what is the name of this 2parter? Didnt hear the name yet or forgot it.

what is the name of this 2parter? Didnt hear the name yet or forgot it.

search Duel: KRANTZ (#6) and Duel: KRANTZ (#7)