At 36:20, there's a spot where you dislike leading the river with the nuts. I'd like to understand this spot better. Most of my training and experience says leading this river is better, and whenever I go for a c/r I seem to lose tons of value because opponents check back so much.
So I realize I'm asking you (or anyone) to elaborate on a spot that you already spent 5 minutes on in the video, but there it is. Specifically, what are the assumptions about the opponent that make c/r the clearly better play, and what conditions would need to be present for leading to become better?
What does leading your nuts on this river and not x/r-ing it do to your range? More specifically, what does being able to x/r bluffs and nuts in this particular spot accomplish that leading doesn't? Also, what does putting in the last bet accomplish that the reverse doesn't?
I think you'll find there are just more benefits for your overall game being able to x/r here as opposed to lead. Villian has a lot of missed draws and a good amount of value (besides nuts) in his betting range. You will make more from your nuts and from villians bluffs. What happens when you try to bluff-lead the river and villian jams?
Yeah, you would make a great politician, answering questions with more questions :)
I will think about it some more when my head is clearer. The approach I often like to take is to try to figure out which line is more likely to induce the largest mistakes from my opponent. And also against what type of opponent flaws one or the other line would work better. Not sure how this works with balancing though. Or maybe it's just a simple (-ish) decision tree analysis, idk.
On the flop I don't X/R the hand becuse it is a non nut draw with no pair. I also think I am behind a getting in range on the flop and that the turn is going to be difficult to play on many cards. On addition to that I think that there will be a lot of bluffing oppertunities later in the hand if I chose to call flop / turn since my hand is going to be disguised.
On the river I chose to lead out becuse I think that the river is going to go X/X too often since villain is go to have showdown value with as weak as A7xx IMO. I also think we look weak when we lead the river here and I see many opponents snap call any 2pair here and also make hero calls with 1 pair.
it seemed to me the big issue here was that on the 4 we aren't expected to have many combos of 85 and thus should expect villain to vb a bit wider than he might on a 5/8/9.
the fact that u don't have nut draws seems to be a stronger reason to c/r the flop imo.
I been away on holiday so I have not been able to participate as much as I like here lately. Anyway I am back now and going to write a big update now taking about my game in general.
I have been playing a lot of HU in the past but the last few years I have been concentrating on 6max play. Most of my HU play now are when I am trying to start new tables or when I am looking to "challenge myself" as I did in this match.
Pre Flop
My stats this year are the following for HU play: (12k hands, many hands vs short stacks) VPIP 3Bet 4Bet / CB Raise CB SB 96% - 14% 74% 25% BB 56% 21% - 67% 23%
My stats for the match was: (300 hands) VPIP 3Bet 4Bet / CB Raise CB SB 100% - 4% 70% 14% BB 55% 15% - 90% 16%
My general preflop strategy when facing a tough opponent is to try to deny them to play in position especially big pots. To accomplish this I try to not 3bet them a lot preflop and induce them to play oop by minopening the button.
In general I feel very good about my pre flop game apart from that I like to see myself defend slightly wider. I think 3 betting 15% against this villain is good and do not want to go much wider vs him.
The pre flop folds and the TTP on Monotone board that Phil has discussed are pure mistakes on my parts and not a part of an overall strategy. I am not sure if the are caused by the fast pace of the match or if I was distracted at the time but it was very surprising to see that I did so many in such a short period of time.
Flop
My CB range is as Phil has described in the videos and I feel like I don't have enough set strategies to fall back on. For the rest of the year I am going to try to figure out how my betting range / x-back range is roughly going to look on different boards texture with different ranges.
My logic for X-back now has basically been: I have a hand that is in the bottom of my range + I don't CB this board 100% = X-Back
My logic for betting is: I have a good hand + I can call a raise = CB
Turn
I feel like I many times end up betting here because I don't know what to do like in the when I had AKTx @ QT5 K when I 3 bet preflop. I also feel very unsure about what sizing to use and I am not sure what questions to ask myself to get it right.
I am also curious to how much of the concepts for flop CBing we have learned in this video translates into the turn double barreling range.
River
I have been a big fan of x/r the river for a long time but as of lately start to change my strategy to leading out more hands on the river. My reasoning for that is to get more value and to get more bluff opportunities at a cheaper price.
In the soon-to-be-infamous JJT4 vs QT88 hand, at around 16:30 you say these three things, "I think on this three river he (hero) is committed to calling a river jam," "But I do think now that the board paired we're getting checked to almost always," and "I think villain will give up with his bluffs, and he might check some straights as well."
I think I know what you're getting at here, but the way you phrased it is tricky. Can you expand on how your pre river reads (Bayesian priors) change once you see villain bet out? If your priors are that he almost never bets the river, and if he does bet the river it isn't with his bluffs ("I think villain will give up with his bluffs"), then how did your gut reaction become "Wow, $390, I'm calling!" so quickly? Is it that $390 feels way weaker than jam? If so, why? Any way to explain how you clued into the fact he was on a desperation bluff so quickly?
Villain has (roughly speaking) 6 bluff combos (88xx) and 8 value combos, if he only raises turn with nuts or blockers. Even if we add some PR+OE and PR+WR hands, i doubt bluff outnumber value more than 2:1.
So if villain checks with 75% of his bluffs and 50% on the river, that ratio is around 1:2 in favor of value hands...
I'm also intersted to hear about Phil read on $390 bet size and why it is often a desperation bluff. I would jam with both bluffs and value. This is because id hate to get shoved on in both cases.
This isn't logical, but id be less annoyed if i shoved bluff and got called by a better hand, than having to bet/fold like that. Of course from GTO perspective jamming here is best bet size.
i don't understand the difference between jamming w a str8 and betting 390 with it because even if u go 390 u commit. i agree that most players wouldn't bet a straight there.
I am a high stakes mixed game player with NO experience with PLO or NL. Been watching your videos for a couple months and find them very informative of course. I would love to make a video and have you critique it for your subscribers as, if you many new subscribers like myself, with little or no experience, this would be very beneficial. You could call it "Rookie Mistakes".
I have a theory about two curious plays here by Albin - The first is the preflop fold of K543 double suited. It was folded for the same reason the AJxx was folded to a flop cbet on a AJ3 monotone flop in an 8bb pot; he was paying 100% attention to the fact that he had just doubled through with the miraculous JJ v QT88 hand, and to the fact that he had rivered the nut straight with Q854. Yeah?
Loading 12 Comments...
At 36:20, there's a spot where you dislike leading the river with the nuts. I'd like to understand this spot better. Most of my training and experience says leading this river is better, and whenever I go for a c/r I seem to lose tons of value because opponents check back so much.
So I realize I'm asking you (or anyone) to elaborate on a spot that you already spent 5 minutes on in the video, but there it is. Specifically, what are the assumptions about the opponent that make c/r the clearly better play, and what conditions would need to be present for leading to become better?
Jonna-
What does leading your nuts on this river and not x/r-ing it do to your range? More specifically, what does being able to x/r bluffs and nuts in this particular spot accomplish that leading doesn't? Also, what does putting in the last bet accomplish that the reverse doesn't?
I think you'll find there are just more benefits for your overall game being able to x/r here as opposed to lead. Villian has a lot of missed draws and a good amount of value (besides nuts) in his betting range. You will make more from your nuts and from villians bluffs. What happens when you try to bluff-lead the river and villian jams?
Yeah, you would make a great politician, answering questions with more questions :)
I will think about it some more when my head is clearer. The approach I often like to take is to try to figure out which line is more likely to induce the largest mistakes from my opponent. And also against what type of opponent flaws one or the other line would work better. Not sure how this works with balancing though. Or maybe it's just a simple (-ish) decision tree analysis, idk.
My toughts when I played this hand was:
On the flop I don't X/R the hand becuse it is a non nut draw with no pair. I also think I am behind a getting in range on the flop and that the turn is going to be difficult to play on many cards. On addition to that I think that there will be a lot of bluffing oppertunities later in the hand if I chose to call flop / turn since my hand is going to be disguised.
On the river I chose to lead out becuse I think that the river is going to go X/X too often since villain is go to have showdown value with as weak as A7xx IMO. I also think we look weak when we lead the river here and I see many opponents snap call any 2pair here and also make hero calls with 1 pair.
it seemed to me the big issue here was that on the 4 we aren't expected to have many combos of 85 and thus should expect villain to vb a bit wider than he might on a 5/8/9.
the fact that u don't have nut draws seems to be a stronger reason to c/r the flop imo.
I been away on holiday so I have not been able to participate as much as I like here lately. Anyway I am back now and going to write a big update now taking about my game in general.
I have been playing a lot of HU in the past but the last few years I have been concentrating on 6max play. Most of my HU play now are when I am trying to start new tables or when I am looking to "challenge myself" as I did in this match.
Pre Flop
My stats this year are the following for HU play: (12k hands, many hands vs short stacks)
VPIP 3Bet 4Bet / CB Raise CB
SB 96% - 14% 74% 25%
BB 56% 21% - 67% 23%
My stats for the match was: (300 hands)
VPIP 3Bet 4Bet / CB Raise CB
SB 100% - 4% 70% 14%
BB 55% 15% - 90% 16%
My general preflop strategy when facing a tough opponent is to try to deny them to play in position especially big pots. To accomplish this I try to not 3bet them a lot preflop and induce them to play oop by minopening the button.
In general I feel very good about my pre flop game apart from that I like to see myself defend slightly wider. I think 3 betting 15% against this villain is good and do not want to go much wider vs him.
The pre flop folds and the TTP on Monotone board that Phil has discussed are pure mistakes on my parts and not a part of an overall strategy. I am not sure if the are caused by the fast pace of the match or if I was distracted at the time but it was very surprising to see that I did so many in such a short period of time.
Flop
My CB range is as Phil has described in the videos and I feel like I don't have enough set strategies to fall back on. For the rest of the year I am going to try to figure out how my betting range / x-back range is roughly going to look on different boards texture with different ranges.
My logic for X-back now has basically been:
I have a hand that is in the bottom of my range + I don't CB this board 100% = X-Back
My logic for betting is:
I have a good hand + I can call a raise = CB
Turn
I feel like I many times end up betting here because I don't know what to do like in the when I had AKTx @ QT5 K when I 3 bet preflop. I also feel very unsure about what sizing to use and I am not sure what questions to ask myself to get it right.
I am also curious to how much of the concepts for flop CBing we have learned in this video translates into the turn double barreling range.
River
I have been a big fan of x/r the river for a long time but as of lately start to change my strategy to leading out more hands on the river. My reasoning for that is to get more value and to get more bluff opportunities at a cheaper price.
Phil,
In the soon-to-be-infamous JJT4 vs QT88 hand, at around 16:30 you say these three things, "I think on this three river he (hero) is committed to calling a river jam," "But I do think now that the board paired we're getting checked to almost always," and "I think villain will give up with his bluffs, and he might check some straights as well."
I think I know what you're getting at here, but the way you phrased it is tricky. Can you expand on how your pre river reads (Bayesian priors) change once you see villain bet out? If your priors are that he almost never bets the river, and if he does bet the river it isn't with his bluffs ("I think villain will give up with his bluffs"), then how did your gut reaction become "Wow, $390, I'm calling!" so quickly? Is it that $390 feels way weaker than jam? If so, why? Any way to explain how you clued into the fact he was on a desperation bluff so quickly?
I agree that reasoning seems inconsistent.
Villain has (roughly speaking) 6 bluff combos (88xx) and 8 value combos, if he only raises turn with nuts or blockers. Even if we add some PR+OE and PR+WR hands, i doubt bluff outnumber value more than 2:1.
So if villain checks with 75% of his bluffs and 50% on the river, that ratio is around 1:2 in favor of value hands...
I'm also intersted to hear about Phil read on $390 bet size and why it is often a desperation bluff. I would jam with both bluffs and value. This is because id hate to get shoved on in both cases.
This isn't logical, but id be less annoyed if i shoved bluff and got called by a better hand, than having to bet/fold like that. Of course from GTO perspective jamming here is best bet size.
Villain's river bet/call was spectacular btw :)
Also wondering how villains bet straights on this river if not for 390?
Check/calling to induce from a counterfeited 2 pair or top pair + whiffed SD? Jamming to get hero off a chop?
i don't understand the difference between jamming w a str8 and betting 390 with it because even if u go 390 u commit. i agree that most players wouldn't bet a straight there.
Hey Phil,
I am a high stakes mixed game player with NO experience with PLO or NL. Been watching your videos for a couple months and find them very informative of course. I would love to make a video and have you critique it for your subscribers as, if you many new subscribers like myself, with little or no experience, this would be very beneficial. You could call it "Rookie Mistakes".
I have a theory about two curious plays here by Albin - The first is the preflop fold of K543 double suited. It was folded for the same reason the AJxx was folded to a flop cbet on a AJ3 monotone flop in an 8bb pot; he was paying 100% attention to the fact that he had just doubled through with the miraculous JJ v QT88 hand, and to the fact that he had rivered the nut straight with Q854. Yeah?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.