Logic Knot 12 - Balancing the Scales - Part 2

  • Fixed-Limit
  • FL
  • $2/$4
  • Shorthanded
(4 Votes) 5078


Free membership

Join now


Boomer concludes the two part mini series within Logic Knot, regarding the subject of balance within the Limit Hold 'em variant.


balance Game theory Logic Knot series stats Theory Video

Comments (7)

newest first
  • SvenBe


    Enjoy the second part of Balancing the scales!
  • madorjan


    Hey Boomer,

    Really nice vid, cool idea. My only problem is people will think I copied the idea of this vid in my own series coming this month.:)

    As usual, I have some comments/questions:

    1) In the first example, as far as I can see you use a one-street alpha, which I think is not the best on non-river streets. With most of your hands you're going to be barreling after the x/r, which will make his odds worse (and your odds worse), therefore I think you should be x/ring more relative to the valuerange here. Also our bluffs have equity, which means you should be bluffing more to make him indifferent.

    2) In the first example as the BU player I'd definitely call all of my range, just because of the fact that I have more than enough equity to peel here against all of the balanced ranges my opponent can have. It's just the nature of equity in game theory, we'll have to fold more on later streets, since our opponent can't expect us to be folding anything on the flop, he had to risk more for bluffing -> we should fold more. But I certainly think folding anything on this board as BU is a dominated strategy.

    3) To determine your draws you usually select K hi or worse, while I think K his usually should be call/call/folded, since (especially on the paired board example) A hi is not going to fold, so I usually select hands lower in my range.

    Very good point about the flushdraws being randomized.

    Thanks again for the video.:)
  • madorjan


    At point 1) I mean x/r bluffing more because of multi-street alpha. Also I missed to ask the question of what do you think about my points, since I'm exploring this method of range-building nowadays.
  • Boomer2k10


    Hey madorjan

    1) I did try somewhat to mitigate bluffing percentages by increasing the alpha artificially (in essence this is similar to how UOA reprogrammed Polaris to have "personalities) but usually by no more than a few % so it's not a pure flop based alpha but it's close...really I want to start this stuff out on one street then work towards multi-street problems...contrary to the Descrpition this seris has more legs :)

    2) I can't see calling all of your range there being bad to be honest. The board is very condusive to it, but in theory you should have some folding range otherwise your opponent can weight his ranges accordingly, raising a bit thinner for value etc.

    3) I use K-High for draws sometimes because often as a "mixer" I turn the bottom of my calling range into a bluff, certainly on later streets. I can certainly see that better K-Highs are strong enough for a x/c, x/c, x/f line (or x/c, x/c, x/c) but with King Highs which are right on the borderline sometimes something can come allowing you to bluff.

    Additionally in certain points K-High loses pretty much all it's showdown value and bascially turns into a hand where it doesn't matter if a worse hand folds because you can't see showdown so fighting for the pot is a necessity.

    Basically it was really for the sake of completeness.

    Your points are good though and I wish to subscribe to your magazine :)
  • madorjan


    Hey Boomer,

    thanks for the response, I agree with most of your points. (I may be off on the K hi question playing mostly HU recently, where K hi = nuts.)

    About point 2: I don't think Villain has to alter his range too much in that spot even if we're calling 100% - that's just the nature of the equity. So the basic principle is to make him indifferent of x/r-ing the flop with bluffs - therefore we'll fold more on later streets, but folding there hands like KJ is definitely worse than calling with them, unless Villain has 2pair+ there. (But it's also a multistreet stuff, that may be a subject for your future videos.)

    If it continues this way I can say it will be the best series on poker I've ever seen, so definitely a lot more of this please.
  • MyLady17


    Hi Boomer, this Video is just perfect. Love your Videos <3. You say you c/r bluff 12-13% of your Range on the Flop. I´m only able to know the GTO Frequency on the River. Where do the 12-13% come from?
  • Boomer2k10


    Essentially I'm taking the odds I present to my opponent (9-1 in a 3-bet pot) and then adding a a few factors on to account for a couple of things like:

    1) I may have to barrell more than 1 street (Negative, Bluff more expensive).

    2) Even if my hand is a bluff it can still have as much as 30-35% equity vs a hand which doesn't have me over a barrell (Positive, Potential Implied Odds)

    3) Fake outs, VERY important when pure bluffing

    4) General Player tendencies (More likely to fold on drier boards)

    It's hard to come up with a pure value but no-one you play with at the table is going to know whether you bluff 14% or 18% in this scenario, it's more important that you are aiming for these sorts of figures knowing that there's not much your opponent can do to exploit it and the fact that if his default play isn't designed to defend against this play then you exploit him by default.

    So it's not a complete GTO Frequency but it's an acceptable shortcut and is mainly used in this example to show where default play is actually deviating quite a way from normal.

    GTO's a very wierd subject to deal with becasue of how complicated it seems. Exploitative strategy is a lot easier to teach and learn however learning the GTO/Balance angel I think gives you an even better platform for establishin an exploitative game so it's kind of learning a basic version of something, to then come full circle and learn it to a better degree.

    Hope that answered your questions :)