So, we have already discussed why range balancing is useful, while also mentioning that sometimes range balancing in poker is misunderstood. So, when is it worth striving for balance? If balance is desirable, then it must contribute to +EV in our game. Therefore, let's try to explain it further.
Imagine a situation where you are the preflop raiser and you flop three of a kind. You decide to check on the turn because you want to balance your bet/check/bet action line instead of bet/bet/bet. You decide to use this hand to create balance. Restoring balance in this spot is a +EV decision.
So, let's imagine that we have identified such tendencies in the opponent's game and calculated that making bet/bet/bet actions would have a slightly higher +EV than bet/check/bet in this particular situation. Mathematically, if balancing is good, it should bring more EV beyond this situation. Where should that EV be?
EV for balancing is understood not synchronously but broadly over the entire period. This means it is calculated not for one hand but for the entire match. If the bet/check/bet action sequence allows you to make value bets with weaker ranges (thin betting) and three of a kind in the future, the opponent will be less likely to check-raise-bluff against you. This not only allows for more effective value bets but also gives the opportunity to bluff more effectively with such a line.
Remember, we can only fix EV at the end of a session or the entire match. Since balancing EV is understood very broadly, balancing has value only in the long term. If you play with someone for 10 hands, balancing will be worthless unless it is optimal for that one hand.
There is another factor to consider. If your opponent does not know that you are balancing your game, then your balance brings no net profit and will not be +EV. If your opponent does not notice that you have both strong hands (three of a kind) and weak hands in your bet/check/bet line, then you will not gain any benefit from your balancing. Against someone who has no clue about what is happening, it is best to play each hand optimally, as if you were playing under perfect conditions (in a vacuum). So, balancing is valuable only when playing against people who understand well what is happening and respond to your balance, as well as against those you will play with for a long time and in the future, your line adjustments will bring benefits.
There are places where balance brings no value, and there are places where it is valuable. It is important to understand that balance is not necessarily better than not having it.
Here is the final balance theorem:
A player should strive for balance (range balancing) then, and only then, when the external balancing EV, averaged over the entire session (diachronically), is better than the EV you would earn by playing each hand optimally (synchronously).
