4 Tables Mid Stakes 6-Max Deep Ante PLO (part 3)
Posted by Phil Galfond
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 13 Comments...
Calling the squeeze with KQ35ss seems insanely loose in minute 7:30. How confident are you in that peel? I assume 100bb deep you are folding. Are you folding KQ35 suited to the Q? It seems like the type of spot that SB could easily have flatted with AA intending on back raising, though obviously that is a very small % of his range.
I would call suited to the Q as well, but I'm not confident at all about either. What makes me somewhat comfortable is that my 5 and 3 aren't likely to be shared, so those outs are extra live and they are safe-ish when they hit.
I wouldn't fault anyone for folding, and I may even be leaking by calling. Hard to be sure.
In the AT76 hand it seems pretty optimistic that he will jam a wrap on the turn. It certainly looks like we have AhXh, maybe even AAhXh, on the flop and wanted to invite the other play along with a dominated draw. I think we would probably just raise get in a set or 2 pair + weak FD or whatever on the flop. How many turn bet/folds are in our range? Would we just check back and take our equity with KKhXh?
I completely agree. During the video I realized that my turn bet was the biggest mistake I made all session. Not because of results, but because of how I felt about his flop leading range (a lot of hands that would fold the turn and had little equity, and some hands that now are straights).
I think that I definitely would bluff turn with the weaker parts of my range, but you're right... I don't have a lot of weak hands in my range here to bluff with.
Phil,
Top left table @ 9 min, when you flop nut flush on A74m after calling a 3b, you talk how to split your range with 2 or 3 different betsizes. Rather than doing this just based on feel, I think the best way to split up your nut flushes is to use the smaller betsize when you have 3+ diamonds in your hand and use the larger betsize when you only 2. I think this is good for two reasons:
1) By having 3+ diamonds in your hand it's less likely the other players have a flush themselves combinatorically so we want incentivise their weaker ranges to continue;
2) Combinatorically we have more flushes with 2 of a suit than 3 or 4 of a suit so it makes sense to use a larger betsize with these hands theoretically.
Nothing wrong with that approach you suggest and it has sound logic. Although, from observation and from Phil's dialogue on this issue I believe he gains more in "mood" range splitting than predetermined "randomization".
His "mood" is a compilation of conscious and subconscious reads based on player tendencies, recent history, game flow, etc. If these "mood" reads are accurate, than his strategy will fair better than a purely unexploitable "randomization" or predetermined strategy. The "mood" strategy remains reasonably balanced and any imbalances are likely unobservable by opponents.
hmmmm, isnt it the other way around?
I'll take Zach's answer :)
Solid video, Phil!
Thanks man!
Donk Pred, was your question pointed at my post? If so please clarify what you meant.
I think the crucial part of the A7hh hand is that there is no value from a lower 2p-A2/A4/47. Leading a gutshot+ pair like 23Ax or 43Ax 24Ax or A467 makes a bit of sense. But he would just bet all those again on the turn since you have hands like KKhh or Axhh which would just check back.
Vs the occassional guy who does check those 2p there I think the value outweights the time he has 35. Guys like the one on the top right would be the type.
Another factor is that some people might have donked a hand like 10 10hh and now check calls. Of course a good player would realize that when you 3b from the blind and call flop you're full of higher flush draws and would snap fold that hand. And a good player is less inclined to donk 10 10hh.
Since during the hand you had a misread that he was a weaker player, I think the bet is correct. Solely revolving around that assumption. Another factor is that weaker players are less likely to C/R.
I think you misunderstood my read... which was that the 3rd player in the pot may have been a weaker player, which perhaps was influencing the way that villain played his hand here.
I agree that my bet was a big mistake, and I actually still am beating myself up for it.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.