I thought i'd put this in short-handed since it gets the most traffic and this applies to everything.

I was reading 2p2 a bit and i came across a post where a player, a 2/4 and 3/6 regular that i thought was reasonably good made a ridiculous statement. He said "I think leading flops is always terrible."

The reason this statement is ridiculous is the same reason why any general strategy that is simple and surface-surface level is stupid. Poker strategy is complimentary, if one move is good, then it's complimentary move is not good. And vice versa. What does this mean? Let me show an example:

I'm in the BB, the co raises, the button calls, i call. The flop comes 233 totally dry. Let's say i have 78, total air. Now, according to this 2p2 player, leading is always terrible no matter what you have. And i for some reason follow this idiots mantra and i decide not to lead with 78 because i also think its terrible. But if leading with air is so bad, doesn't this mean leading for pure value, the compliment of a bluff, is very very good?

Another example, let's say i get to the river and my opponent bets and im thinking of c/ring with a middle strength hand for value. I decide, however, that he'll give me too much credit and will never call with worse. But this just means that i should be c/ring this river as a bluff, even if it means turning midpair or something with showdown value into one.

I had 3 morals of this story when i thought of writing this. 1) don't be a pussy when it comes to bluffing. If you encounter a situations where you don't value bet KJ on a K8642 board on the river because you think you get too much credit, bluff the shit out of it. And if you really belief you wont get any credit at all, be patient, widen your value range, and value bet the shit out of your opponent. 2) Don't follow basic strategy like "you should never lead" or "c/ring the turn is the shit!" As i pointed out above, these statements can't possibly make sense. And lastly 3) Dont see the game of poker in parts, see it as a whole. While value betting wide, think of why you are deciding not to bluff. While bluffing wide, think about what you're going to do when you get to this same spot with TP weak kicker. I think you'll come out as a better player because of it.



P.S./ ramble/ comeback: For those who are going to comment about balancing your range. These thoughts i just laid out don't always apply.
For example If a prior action leaves you so you actually can't have any type of value hands, you will essentially only be able to make one-sided plays. This is ok if that prior action is substantially +EV. But if you think about it, this balancing of range also has a compliment, which is range you get with your other hands that will hopefully be exploiting your opponent.

But sometimes you will want to balance because you think it will stop your opponent from adjusting correctly. This is definitely an exception to the rule. Another exception is sometimes just betting with all bluffs and value you good, for example on a river where if you check your opponent will always check, and you think a bluff is good with any two, you should bet everything including the stone cold nuts.