4 Tables $10/$20 and $25/$50 6-Max Deep Ante PLO (part 2)
Posted by Ola Amundsgård
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 30 Comments...
Really nice video!
Thanks :)
who is the girl at 2:37?
Its my beautiful gf :) I always win flips with the tables on top of her (lol) :)
Excellent video Mr. Oddsen! I feel like you greatly improved on your first video in terms of explaining your thought process. I really appreciated how you broke down the ways you plan to adapt your future ranges whenever you saw a hand at show down.
Thanks, just doing my job :)
Odd (or anyone else), how big of a sample do you think we need to make an assumption such as LuckyGump is barreling 100% of turns? You mentioned you wanted a really solid read on him and I can imagine making a few mistakes since some equities are borderline call/fold.
Is there anything published detailing when specific stats reach statiscal signifcance? I think Sauce has mentioned in a post that turn cbet of ~8 would be signifcant
Hello mplecki23,
I don't think we can 100% make the assumptions I did by just reading hud data, if yes I think we would need a pretty ridiciolous big sample (which I dont really think its possible mining yourself), and do some pretty heavy filtering both for stacksizes and various flops/turns which tend me to believe we would need a pretty huge sample to make good assumptions with a good certainity about his range. But the good news is that we can cheat, by that I mean we can observe the hands we play versus Gump and do some conclusions based on what hands we see at showdown.
I base my assumptions on Gump by the hands i've seen him show down while playing VS. him (esepecially in 3b pots where he is the aggressor vs a wide stealing range)
An easy example to understand this; in this spot: if we see Gump takes this line with both the top of his range (top of his range equity% wise vs. my range) and the same line with the bottom of his range (bottom of his range equity% wise vs. my range) we can assume (gotta obvs be careful assuming to much when making extreme adjustments, but thats another story) that he is doing the same with all the hands in between => he bet-bets range (be careful doing these assumptions for other spots, but I do think its representative for this situation (we kinda got a confirmation about this aswell when he showed up with AQJ5 without flush (even tho its not the bottom of his range, its pretty far away from the top)).
Hope this helped clearify your question, of how I come up with theese assumptions.
I know there are statistical tools/formulas published out there regarding when specific stats reach statiscal significance (I think its basic statistics we are talking?) and with a given certainty, but I don't see why thats super relevant regarding this situation since I don't base my decisions truly on statistics but rather hand reading and deductive logic in this given scenario.
EDIT:
There are however other problems to my approach VS. Gump here, and my main concern is that if Gump observe my play here, it might lead him to change his strategy by implementing a c/f range (bottom 10%) which means => stacking off here might be wrong in the future because of his betting range now be comes stronger. So the solution here might be not to overexploit Gump, but maybe make some -EV folds on some turns (to get turn fold % in this spot a bit higher, (you can look at it as an insurance for us to get Gump to use the same strategy in the future)) in order for us to ensure that Gump isn't changig his strategy so that we can exploit him more slowly, even tho the GTO camp might not 100% agree with my thought process in this hand. Enough rambling, I think I could probably be making a whole video about this spot.
About the hand with luckygump , you say he never pot folds flop , and that he barrels every turn. Also that you call every turn except 2 or 3 specific cards. So are you making this play instead of just shoving flop just to dodge these 3 cards?
Hi Vatal,
Yes you are absolutely right, getting it in on the flop is obviously +EV, but flatting and folding on Ks,Qs and Ts will show a higher expectation in a vacum. As mentioned in the comment above, is that there is arguments for actually folding on more turns even tho it will give us a lesser expectation, it will also ensure us that Gump will keep using his same strategy (atleast with a higher probability).
"You shouldn't clip the sheep more than twice a week, doing it more frequent will make it die, and no more wool to be made" - A famous Norwegian saying.
Hi Odd,
Table 1 @ 12 min, hand vs Channing: You mentioned you like Channing's turn raise but doesn't it leave him open to be rebluffed given the T8s26s board, he opened UTG (ie not too many 97 combos) and checked flop?
Great vid btw
Hello,
Thanks for the good question.
You are perfectly right, that raising the turn here in his shoes will make him open for getting rebluffed.
And I also agree with you that
1) Channing has a tight highcard heavy UTG range, and shouldn't have a lot of 97xx preflop
2) The combinations he has of 97xx I'd expect him to cbet a ton (since alot of the 97xx will be rundowns
which will have a wrap alot, which I expect him to cbet 100% on this rainbow board.
So the only 97xx combos I believe he would have in his range is like dry openeders {AK97,KQ97...} (which I think he might cbet some percentages aswell).
So you are right, villain should not have many 97xx's on the turn here given his line and positon hence we should probably attack his turn raise alot (Ex: call down light, rebluff non-sd hands, probably balance with the nuts aswell) since he shouldn't have the nuts very often. I do still believe we should just call the nuts here atleast some % to protect the times we are drawing ourselves/want to get to SD w/ semi marginal made hands,and actually be protected that we can have the nuts with calling the turn.
When taking different turn lines here it will affect our other ranges for the other opinion alot, so gotta be a bit careful of how we want to construct our ranges and with what frequencies.
As observed in this video, we could see that Channing did not put in more money unimproved (He would probably be way unbalanced if he bets 100% of rivers with 100% of his turn raising range, I would be assuming Channing utilizes his blockers for the times he wanna bluff the river here (which I think is a good way to balance his bluffs for this spot, both for card removal and frequencies))(9 or 7 in his hand for when he wanna be bluffing OTR)). On the river here which tend me to wanna actually raise my nuts here on the turn and include alot of my non-showdownable drawing hands in my raising range just for this situation aswell to exploit Channing. But its also a give and take situation.
I do however still think I like Channings raise/concept of raising the "dry" nut fd OTT here, he will actually build alot of implied (me bluffing the river when the flush hits and/or valuebetting to thinly on flushening cards) combined with the immidate fold equity, and the opportunity to bluff with good balanced frequencies on the river. Which all will make him pretty though to play against.
re: LuckyGump 3bet pot w/ two pair, I assume you would be folding this turn vs. a lot of players? Do you think Gump's strategy of 3betting a ton, then potting every street with any equity is a good one? Seems like kind of a neanderthal strategy!
Hello DirtyD,
I think this turn is somewhat close between folding and getting it in VS. many other players obviously alot closer than vs Gump.
I obviously don't think Gump's strategy is the most optimal for this situation vs many players, I actually think a more viable strategy for Gump on theese flushening turns with STP 1.3 is to invent a bet-folding range and a bet-calling range (with a lower bet sizing 1/4 pot maybe) and also a x-folding range (bottom ~5% w/0 blockers combined with the lowest equity vs range.) and also maybe a x-raising/calling range (some tiny%). One other easy way to do this is in similar spots is just pot the middleing part of our range (in Gumps shoes, and invent a b/f and b/c with the top of our range and bottom (polarized.)
I belive Gump thougt process here is that villain (me) shouldn't have many flushes in my range at all (and a very weak range for just calling the flop) since he expect me to jam 95%+ of all my FD's on the flop which means he think he should have a lot of fold equity on all flushening turns.
Gump has actually been printing money from 2006-2010 by attacking/exploiting weak regulars ranges which was folding way to much in spots like this and is also probably the regular that has won most at PLO 5k at stars (I might be wrong).
But you are deffinitly right, his strategy is very open to be getting heavily exploited.
Odd awesome video, def improvement from the first one and that one was excellent as well (wish you would do them more often). Wondering if making any live series in the future is possible? I always feel that i learn more from a live sweat session then these kind of vids.
Keep up the good work and Thanks for helping us becoming better players.
Hi Trigger,
Thanks for the good response, I appriciate it.
as far as live series go, I might actually try to do some live sweat session
with commentary in the future, if thats what people wants. Even though I might
be a bit handicapped with my english on the fly, I could obviously give it a shot.
Uno Problemo, gl.
Regarding your OO analysis it seems a bit off to me or am I misunderstanding something?
You construct your range like this: 30%,ss,(44,JJ,99)...an so on which means top 30%, all spades in the deck, all 44 in the deck and so forth. The total range comes to 156833 hands which is about 75% of the deck given the flop and your hand.
Don't you mean all spades and sets WITHIN the top 30%? In that case the syntax would be 30%:(ss,44,JJ,99).
Running your hand against a range of 156833 seems a bit inaccurate to me.
Hi Nikolaj,
Thanks for spotting this.
"Don't you mean all spades and sets WITHIN the top 30%? In that case the syntax would be 30%:(ss,44,JJ,99)"
- Yes thats obivously what I meant.
Im going to be looking into this later tonight and get the range syntax fixed asap (and probably post it in the comment field), sigh.
Sorry for the late response, looks like I did some first time PPT newbie errors.
Corrected syntax for Gump's percieved range looks like this:
((44,JJ,99),((4J,49,J9)!(44,JJ,99)),((J,9)!(44,JJ,99,4J,49,J9)),QT8,(QT8,KQT,T87),(KT7,QT,T8),(QT,T8,T7,KQ,Q8,KT,87),(99+!RRR),ss,9876+):30% (I tried to copy a screenshot, but it just was so small that it wasnt readable)
Now with that range and with the same equity breakdown we (obivously) have to fold on more cards than what I orginally thought because of including to many hands.
with 7cAs9c4c @ 4sJs9d vs Gump's percieved range we are actually flipping on the flop, (still +EV to get it in obviously since there is ~360 dead in the middle.
Breakevenpoint for required equity on the turn: = $1334 / ($1042 + $1334 + $1334) = $1334 / $3710 = 0.359 = ~36% So we need => 36% Equity vs. his range to continue profitable on this turn assuming his percieved range is correct and is betting range on the turn.
Now lets look at the turn equity distributions with the corrected range:
I've bolded out the cards we don't have the equity we need.
This acutally shows us that there are actually 13 turn cards where we don't have the equity needed to contionue and not 3 cards as first assumed. The play is still clearly to just call the flop, and fold on theese turns if the assumptions hold water.Ah
62,5092%
2,0352%
12211
Ad
57,9634%
1,9788%
11873
Ac
61,8249%
2,0212%
12127
Ks
33,5917%
2,0640%
12384
Kh
39,2224%
2,1070%
12642
Kd
35,9500%
2,0807%
12484
Kc
38,3380%
2,0708%
12425
Qs
29,5967%
2,1365%
12819
Qh
35,0976%
2,1350%
12810
Qd
32,3069%
2,1487%
12892
Qc
35,2122%
2,0772%
12463
Jh
32,6388%
2,1077%
12646
Jd
30,6497%
2,1498%
12899
Jc
32,5581%
2,0998%
12599
Ts
28,9769%
2,1520%
12912
Th
35,2267%
2,1317%
12790
Td
33,2728%
2,1552%
12931
Tc
35,2401%
2,1517%
12910
9s
89,9034%
2,1922%
13153
9h
90,6189%
2,2030%
13218
8s
38,9780%
2,2032%
13219
8h
45,8377%
2,2503%
13502
8d
42,8871%
2,2260%
13356
8c
46,3833%
2,2465%
13479
7s
46,8543%
2,2358%
13415
7h
55,4950%
2,2475%
13485
7d
51,8084%
2,3133%
13880
6s
46,5116%
2,2862%
13717
6h
56,2216%
2,3145%
13887
6d
52,5850%
2,2888%
13733
6c
56,1808%
2,3015%
13809
5s
47,5220%
2,3103%
13862
5h
55,2261%
2,3185%
13911
5d
52,5534%
2,3237%
13942
5c
55,2975%
2,3612%
14167
4h
90,9277%
2,3230%
13938
4d
91,2795%
2,3460%
14076
3s
48,0551%
2,3180%
13908
3h
58,9122%
2,3488%
14093
3d
54,2527%
2,3887%
14332
3c
58,0430%
2,3820%
14292
2s
48,3343%
2,3313%
13988
2h
58,7706%
2,3820%
14292
2d
55,1422%
2,3498%
14099
2c
59,0159%
2,4050%
14430
On table 1 about 46 mins in, where Durian has a capped range
containing draws/bluffcatchers. Could it make more sense to bet
bigger? I mean, isnt he quite inelastic in his calling range here ?
You are right, there are arguments for betting bigger:
his range is capped, and he knows that I know that.
However at the time I just felt he was going to call the ~3/5 pot bet more often than ~pot.
But for your overall gameplan I think a bigger sizing is better: our range is very polarized and
villains hand is capped. It will also make me able to have more bluffs in my betting range (villain gets
bader price) to make villain indifferent.
Anyways, I went for the exploitive route, thinking that villain would call the river bet with close to all his bluffcathers versus that sizing, since he'd prolly think that I'm way unbalanced with that sizing given the price.
Really nice work. I remember playing vs you about 2 years ago and I fellt I was really bad. Seeing your two videos made me realize I still know nothing about poker.... I hope you make more videos soon!
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the kind words. I can however say
that Rome is closer than what you think :)
Hard work and alot of grinding will make diamonds from stones.
Hope that can give you some motivation to keep improving.
GL at the tables
Like this if you like the way Odd says "nutty draws".
Really enjoyed this video. The first one was a little bit clunky at times, but this one for some reason I just really liked and felt I got A LOT out of it (PPT errors aside).
Hope you make more. Would be sort of interested in a completely live one [ie not after the fact]. I feel like that would be incredibly insightful coming from you.
Hehe.. glad you made the stipulation about fixing Gump's PPT range because I thought I was going wacko if we were supposed to get it in on everything but 3 turn cards on that A974cc hand.. :p
I think I would also add some AA/KK/QQ +pair hands to his range, no? Probably not a big leak/issue to not have them in if he's 3betting 30% here.. but for guys that are < 15%, seems like a pretty massive portion of their range. (AAQJ, KKJ7, etc..)
Hi Sean, you are totally right that AA/KK/QQ should be in that range and the syntax for those in Gumps range I've represented like this: {99+!RRR} (Overpairs bigger than 99** without trips).
Re: LuckyGump hand @ 22:00 - where he pot/pots on J94ss 6s
If I understand your assumptions correctly the situation is that:
1) Gump 3bet pre around 30%
2) He pots range of FD,WR,OE, 2PR> {2pair or better}and (TP,OP)+GD> {that is top pair or better with gutshot or better), and then pots turn with this entire range.
If that is correct your flop equity is just 41%, and you should fold turn on any spade (except 9s), K,Q,T, J.
In particular you should be folding on 6s, because you have 30% equity and need 36%.
Very interesting hand. I thought our equity would be better, around 50%, but not 41 (given my assumptions).
Also - what leads you to believe he'd just jam hand like AAKQ - with overpair and gutter on the turn?
Wouldnt it be more +EV for him to CC?
Great vid, it's just astonishing how you seem to play every hand in the perfect way :D
@Ola Ola
Bottom right table at 23:45, u 3bet with AsKsTd9d and then say " we are 200bb deep and i like to 3 bet this hand as a lot of good things can happen".
Could u elaborate unequivocally on the good things that could happen with this action and particular hand?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.