A Hand Encompassing 3 Important Things

$1/$2 No Limit Holdem • 6 Players • FullTiltPoker

Generated by weaktight.com.

UTG	guy9bundes	$290.60
UTG+1	JPizu	$218.10
CO	Hero	$222.45
BTN	DrUPSWING	$212.60
SB	NjDraW	$151.20
BB	yamchae	$841.05

• Pre-Flop ($3, 6 players)Hero is CO
• 

1 fold, JPizu raises to $6, Hero raises to $18, 3 folds, JPizu calls $12

• Flop ($39, 2 players)
• 

JPizu checks, Hero checks

• Turn ($39, 2 players)
• 

JPizu bets $20, Hero calls $20

• River ($79, 2 players)
• 

JPizu bets $38, Hero goes all-in $184.45, JPizu calls $142.10

• Final Pot: $443.55

• JPizu shows
• 

• Hero shows
• 

• Hero wins $440.55 (net +$218.10)
• JPizu lost $218.10

Ok I think this hand is interesting (not just as a cool brag or WE) as it gives examples of 3 different topics I've been thinking about lately, and by committing them to words I might actually remember them and think about them in future.

The first is balance. Now, I'm obviously not an instinctive balancer..... the reason being that I often see the proponents of it as being more interested in discussing abstract theory and seeming clever than they are in making money.

As I've started to think more about it, I've realised that these people are doing the topic of balancing a disservice, as what they should emphasise are the deceptive qualities of balancing, rather than simply the act of balancing for the sake of it.

So in this hand, a thought occurred to me on the flop. The thought was that I'm always giving up this board with my bluffs (ak etc). Not only that, but villain would expect me to give up this board with bluffs. So betting this board 100% for value, and 0% with bluffs is clearly a massive exploitable leak. Clearly a curveball is needed somewhere.

Options: bluff it more? I dislike that heavily as the bluff in a vacuum will definitely be -EV. With any kind of equity, we'd prefer to check and see the turn and maybe run a bluff later in the hand.

So we're left with a flop check with a value hand. Of all the value hands, AA is the best candidate as although there's a fair few 4 straight turns, there are no overcards to come. In terms of deception, this will induce turn bluffs where villain has air and thinks we're always giving up. In terms of losing less VS ~99, this accomplishes that as well. If villain has something like T9, well by checking we get to make a better decision on the turn in the event of a 4 straight turn, etc.

This is but one example, but there are other examples. I don't like to balance for the sake of it where it's perceived that we're balanced anyway, but in those spots where villain perceives one thing, we should do our best to throw in a counter to that perception.

The second thing I wanted to talk about is this: I've heard Daniel Negreanu (bear with me) say plenty of times that in live play, he'll often call on the flop with a wide range, and then try to pick up tells later on in the hand that allow him to make good decisions later on. He was saying that he can't do this online, so he's often left with raising or folding.

I obviously disagree with the last bit, but the 'calling to get reads' is something I think about now all the time. What these reads are, given the lack of physical tells, are ~ 10% timing tells, and 90% betsizing. I can't really stress this enough, but regs at 400nl and below literally try to give away the strength of their hand on multiple streets. They get away with making what they perceive to be the best play in a vacuum because regs are just not observant enough to read enough into their betsizing and exploit it.

So hence, on the river, with this betsizing villain literally sends me a postcard saying 'hey man, weather is nice, I have A8, TT-KK and I'd like to get value please'. So where I was planning to call on a bigger betsize that is more nuts and air, on this betsize I was able to shove.

So the third thing is a mixture of the above. With the amount of rivers I'm currently shoving, I've decided that I need to throw in some different lines with my value hands and start shoving much lighter for value than in times past. For example in the hand below I decide to not bet the turn as this looks insanely strong (and again, can't think of a bluff I would do it with), and instead induce vbets from AJ and AQ to then CRAI the river.

$1/$2 No Limit Holdem • 5 Players • FullTiltPoker

Generated by weaktight.com.

UTG	Hero	$414
CO	le_marc08	$251.30
BTN	yamchae	$200
SB	jballer88	$201
BB	nairoon	$200

• Pre-Flop ($3, 5 players)Hero is UTG
• 

Hero raises to $7, le_marc08 calls $7, yamchae calls $7, 2 folds

• Flop ($24, 3 players)
• 

Hero bets $11, le_marc08 calls $11, yamchae folds

• Turn ($46, 2 players)
• 

Hero checks, le_marc08 bets $31, Hero calls $31

• River ($108, 2 players)
• 

Hero checks, le_marc08 bets $65, Hero goes all-in $365, le_marc08 folds

• Final Pot: $538

• Hero wins $535 (net +$121)
• le_marc08 lost $114
• yamchae lost $7

Answering those that would call this super thin brings me onto my last point. Namely, there's a tendency to think the worst of all worlds in poker. So, the same guys who would say AK is too thin for value here, would probably be the same people who call a bluff here retarded, as 'he never folds AQ/AJ to this line repping nothing yada yada'. I discussed this with Dodgy and I ended up calling it Purgatory, that place between Heaven and Hell.

Basically, similar 'grey area' spots come up all the time and I think that we should start committing either way to whether a particular line will a) fold out x% of hands, or b) induce calls from x% of hands. The pessimists often want to have it both ways and talk themselves out of both bluffing and value betting in equal measure. Stop sitting on the fence people!

Dan