The idea behind it is due to people reacting badly to what you do. Let's say you're just open shoving AA then people are just going to call with AA and fold all the time depending on rake, it's pretty easy. If people know you are shoving AA and 23o then there is still a correct response to this, but it isn't obvious. So it's very likely people adjust badly and as a result we win more/lose less. If they adjust perfectly then it boils down to whether our new plan is more right or wrong than the last one.
If you take the same idea and apply it to more complicated situations it becomes a better idea. A good example is people playing a good LAG style. Although they may have hands in their ranges which are unprofitable people react to it so badly that you win. If people are adjusting perfectly all the time then no it doesn't work you'd both end up playing GTO , but if they aren't (which people do all the time) it can work very well. Hence why I said it's an exploitative measure not really anything to do with balance.
I suppose going back to the original point we only want to play profitable hands, but we may be able to play our ranges in a way where people play so badly it makes more hands +EV. Although it's about trying to find the most +EV way. So if there was a way where we could play 80% of our hand in a profitable way, but playing 20% of our hands was more profitable we'd do that anyway.
Sorry about the delay, dunno why I never got round to it.
Reply With Quote