Raising Turns in PLO (Part 2: Playing Out of Position)
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 17 Comments...
The first hand AA2Jds would u still go for a cr on the turn if he bets the flop? would u ever donk the turn when the 4th dimond (or any other card) shows?
Thank you for making more examples of where to implement this strategy ( so far i was doing it with sets hit flushes or blockers ) , loved the vid, ty again
Just a general concern since in this video most of your hands are very strong. Specifically the last hand where the board reads J385hh and you have KJ45hh. What is the mechanism of your decision making that made you decide to check raise this hand other than the fact that he was stabbing turns a lot?
Wouldn't this hand be a really good hand to lead since even though the nuts will change often on this river you will have hearts as well as K to still have the effective nuts. I'm very confused about how this will effect your flop leading range after it goes check/check. In regards to your earlier hands, wouldn't a hand like 35xx be more ideal for a cr here?
As you can see from my question here and part 1 that the biggest problem I'm confused now is how to construct your range when you are taking hands that are towards the top of your range to do an action that you would not do equity wise (ie, not betting KJ45hh this situation).
If you only do this sparingly, what factors would go into letting you make the decision? It surely isn't just "random" right?
I think 53xx is a little bit too strong given the way this hand has played so far to turn into a x/r bluff. I'd be happy leading or x/c'ing with 53, for the most part.
It's my opinion that you need some hands from the top of your range in both your leading and x/r range, but more of them in your x/r range. If you believe this makes my leading range too weak, I'd argue that there's not much he can do to exploit it, since he's checked back the flop and the board hasn't changed enough that he'd now have many legit turn raising hands. Also, I still will have SOME nutty hands in my leading range, and I have all of the very good hands (but not good enough to x/r) as well.
When you say that I took an action that I wouldn't do equity wise (not betting), I think your thinking is off there. Slow-playing (whether it be a multi-street slow-play, or a miniature version- like checking to x/r here) is part of poker, and is part of constructing ranges. We can't bet 100% of our best hands, and then choose some of our now weakened range to x/r with.
I would say that I make this play more than sparingly. I wouldn't say I do it randomly, but I certainly do not go through anywhere near the amount of preparation and analysis that you seem concerned about doing to build your ranges.
To be entirely honest, there is a good bit of "randomness" built into my game, somewhat based on my mood and my level of focus, but mostly based on my feel for my opponent and how he's currently thinking/playing.
I know this isn't exactly the answer you were hoping for. If you have some more specific followup questions (or you want clarification on anything), I'll be happy to answer as best I can.
thanks for the response. your answer is clear and it makes good sense to me. Certainly, having the top of our range spread out into multiple actions such as lead and check raising can be good for our overall game plan and deception.
I have been discussing this concept with some of my game theory oriented friends. They mainly do NLH and have ran some calculations in CREV to find that most of the time just betting with the top of your range will net the highest EV. Is there any way you can provide hard evidence that splitting up your ranges is in fact more +EV in a vacuum or is this supposed difference of EV over valued when the EV you gain by having deception cannot be quantified?
I would argue that the EV gained by your opponents against your checking range will far outweigh the EV you may gain by betting some of those hands. They can now 2 barrel bluff more frequently (which you may say you can counter by calling down lighter if not for...) & they can 2 barrel for value more frequently. This combo allows them to win MANY more pots than they otherwise would have (betting a wide polarized range v a face up bluffcatcher over 2 streets is VERY profitable and is also unexploitable).
Aren't these all great reasons to cbet with the nuts?
I was trying to explain the dynamic, and explain how I was checking to give up boards like this a lot. I included this in my checking range for deception and balance, but I did expect it to be the highest EV play at the time as well. I may have been wrong.
Perhaps bet, x/r, bet or bet, bet, bet would've been better.
MP2: 54.82% 54.02% 0.80% { 6c4d8c7d }
MP3: 45.18% 44.37% 0.80% { 88**, 22**, 55**, 85**, 8567, A267, 6789, 789T }
And other think is that i almost can't use some your advance at 200 PLO (like dont cbet with nuts flush on the flop at 25% of times), becouse peoples don't that attentive and competent. And we must choose standart more profitable line in vacuum, is not it?
Just email stars and they will ship all ur hands in 24hrs when u are on your laptop.
Hello,
May I ask what is the software that show 68% besides your username? And does it represent the relative strength of your hand vs his range?
Thanks
Marlon.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.