MidStakes PLO Study and Hand Review
Posted by André Santos
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 52 Comments...
Do you have any particular method for bringing your conclusions to the tables? Do you memorize particular spots and board textures, or do you have any other way?
Jonna,I started by studying spots that I thought would come up pretty often and everytime I did so I made sure I made different assumptions(like diff kinds of villains,slightly drier/wetter board, or slighty bigger/lower SPR) so that I understood how much esch of this things affect decisions. After having all the "standard" spots covered I started (and keep on) studying more "unhortodox" spots. If you do this often enough you'll start getting a good grasp of the EV of your plays.
ZenFish, that's a (good) tough question. I guess mostly it depends on how i think villain will react to the diff possible actions. I decide based on specific notes/stats on villain and experience of having tried each of the two options(bet or cr in this case) many times (and thus having a good grasp of what villain will think/do). If i think villain is well balanced i'll just try to be well balanced myself and in this case you do so by never betting, or by betting a small and balanced range and check-(folding,calling,raising) the rest.
Btw, are you brazilian ? Your name/accent says so lol :)
You conclude XR vs. wide Cb range in last hand is prior since it is +8bb but you never really estimated or calculated to EV for calling like he did. Is it just common sense that it is not +8bb to call there?
On the river you call since you don't estimate he has a flush often enough. But don't you think he would often Vb his straights here also (especially with the 4th club on the river)? Furthermore would he bluff here often enough given that the 4'th club on the river would make you call more?
In this case I think that raising probably has a higher E.V. than calling if CO is cbetting really wide (like I assume he is), because by raising we're making him fold many hands that we have a lot of equity against (in fact we're almost always behind equity-wise). That, the fact that we're gonna be playing turns and rivers oop, and also the fact that we don't have a tone of implied odds w/ naked Qh FD makes raising better than calling imo.
Question:
Are all those abbreviations for PPT built in or macros you defined? Such as, the $0g. I'm familiar with most but not all of those abbreviations.
And congratz for you first and trully solid video Andre. Looking foward to see more great content like that.
In general in boards this dry and ip I prefer to cbet more on the smaller side (since we're gonna be bluffing often and thus want to give ourselves a good price)
In the last hand where you first depict a stack off range for villain which includes almost all of the higher flush draws, his calling range now should only consists of stuff that is capped at a J or Q high flush.
Now you will obviously bet for value when you have him beat but wouldn't this hand be a great hand to bet? Given that 1. you have outs vs a flush. 2. you are still v-betting vs. some hands and denying equity. and 3. you are now making his decisions tougher by having big flushes for value and these types of hands as a bluff.
I would probably go something like (and this is for 3 streets of betting from you).
3 streets of value = good flush+
3 streets of bluff = maybe something that had outs and consists of a Ac or Kc
2 streets of betting = your hand and sets and lowest flushes and straights
please share your insight
I understand your point, however i think our hand is too strong to turn into a bluff and probably doesn't get called by enough worse hands to value bet. Regardless of everything else i wouldn't expect villain to fold a turned flush w/ 1.5psb left and we're not bluffing anything else. Also i think this is a good hand to have on my river call range after checking back turn.
In my opinion a better range distribution would be(if you want to be relatively well balanced)
3 streets of value: any flush
3 streets of bluff: Qc/Jc/Tc hands (since we alrdy excluded nut and 2nd nut flushes from his range)
2 streets of betting: some hands w/ one(other) club
Looking forward to see more videos in Phil Galfond class from you.
I did include double pair hands in all the 3b ranges. However I might have forgotten to include them somewhere else, and if that's the case I apologise. I always try to build ranges that are as realistic as possible.
Tight 3.8%- AA!AAA!wxyz, KK$ds, (KK$R$R)$ss, 6543+$ds, 8654+$ds, 8754+$ds, 8764+$ds, 7654+$ss, 9875+$ss
Med 7.5%- AA!(AA:wxyz), KK$ds, (KK$R$R)$ss, (KK$M$M)$ss, $0g$ds, $0g$ss, 8764+$ss, 8754+$ss, 8654+$ss, $1g$ds, $2g$ds, ($R$R$R$R)$np$ss, ($R$R$R$R)$np$ds, (****)$tp$ds, ($R$R$R$M)$np$ds, ($M$M$M$R)$np$ds, ($R$R$M$M)$np$ds, ($M$M$M$Z)$np$ds, 8%$ds
Aggressive 10%- AA!(AA:wxyz), KK$ds, (KK$R$R)$ss, (KK$M$M)$ss, QQ$ds,$0g$ds, $0g$ss, 7653+$ss, 7643+$ss, 7543+$ss, $1g$ds, $2g$ds, ($R$R$R$R)$op$ds, ($R$R$R$R)$op$ss, ($R$R$R$R)$np$ss, ($R$R$R$R)$np$ds, (****)$tp$ds, (****)$tp$ss, ($R$R$R$M)$np$ds, ($M$M$M$R)$np$ds, ($R$R$M$M)$np$ds, ($M$M$M$Z)$np$ds, 9%$ds, AKQ$ds, AKJ$ds, Ax:654+:xxyy, Ax:765+:xx
Hope you don't mind that I used your ranges from the video as a foundation.
The tight, med, and aggressive %'s are arbitrary (but I think will be useful to stereotype a lot of regs in my games).
My main concern is with the tail ends of the med and aggressive ranges.
Thanks
Thanks for the syntax suggestion. I am learning this stuff as I go.
Anyway I think it's pretty good that you're thinking about this actively and trying to build ranges yourself, and I'm glad the ranges I used for the video have helped you do it!
(AA, KK$ds, $R$R$R$R, 8765+)$nt:xxy
I think it's a mistake to not include rainbow AA in a loose IP 3betting range, in my experience at least.
Ax:654+:xxyy seems like a very redundant way of writing it, you could just write A[654+]$ds...
Agreed and maybe even in the med range as well (loose players almost for sure have them in their, because they are missing out on so much value when they get cold 4b and hold AA:wxyz).
Thanks for the syntax suggestion. I am learning this stuff as I go.
Small thingy:
In the second hand (3betting sb AQJTss) you do not adjust the BU range to exclude hands he will 4bet. So instead of 35% it should be 35%!(AA and whatever else you think he will 4bet). If your sb 3b range is wide enough and given him being shorter I can imagine good KK hands being in his 4b range as well. This will change outcomes.
Edit: Did this and the difference was <1% in F.E.
How much time would you say you spend on studying compared to playing?
It depends on your level and what you want to accomplish, but I'd say playing about 25h/week and working on your game 6-7h/week seems like a balanced schedule to me.
Also, how do you do the calculation where it shows how many hands the range contain. The one you use when calculating FE. Thank you!
The exception to this would be if you actually do think checking all hands is correct here and I find that hard to believe.
Also, if you want to have a checking range it doesn't seem inherently necessary to have a x/r and x/c range. You could just have a bet and x/c range for example. As long as the x/c range is balanced with some strong hands, it is not exploitable (though it may not be theoretically optimal)
When I re-did this the F.E. difference was <1%, so it ended up not being very relevant.
On my HUD it would express the % as 0% fold so I wasn't used to the 45% open 45% played (meaning 0 folds) - sorry for the confusion
Hey Andre!
Regarding the second hand (3bet with AQJTss), I decided to recreate your simulation to experiment doing my own here and got stuck at some point.
Using Range Explorer, I included the flop, the dead cards, and villains opening range. The table you created to represent these ranges, you get to a number of 22.54% which represents the number of hands remaining for villains range after we know the board and our hand.
However, after putting those very same ranges I wasnt able to get to this specifc number of 22.54%. All the other data match, like hands in isolation (121673) and after board/dead cards (61013). After the board and dead cards are known, we get to a 40.95% of hands after board/dead instead of 22.54%, unless I am missing something.
Could you please double check and shed some light on this? I would like to recreate these very useful/awesome sims you did to do them myself, but I got really stuck on this number, which, as you said yourself, is very important to calculate our FE.
Thx again for your great job and keep them up.
Hey Diego!
That's pretty weird, and I'm actually pretty sure it's a bug from odds oracle, because as you can notice it says "61013 hands after board/dead" which is about half of the 121673 hand combos we started with (w/ no board/dead cards). In other words there are 270725 combos of hands in PLO, and 61013 remain after we know the board and dead cards so 61013/270725=22.54% of hands.
So I guess that's either bad wording by them or more likely a bug.
It's not a bug. All hands in PLO after dead cards are 148995 hands. 61013/148995=40.95%. If you were to play 100% VPIP to the flop then you would hold 35%,432+,$1g,$2g,xxyy 40.95% of the time.
61013/270725 is like comparing oranges to apples. One number contains removal effects, the other doesn't, so the frequency doesn't really mean anything.
To me it looks like the web based platform is the culprit here as they say "optimized count 61013 (22.54%)". I'll post this issue on the PPT forums to see what bachfan has to say about this.
Here is the link to the thread I started: http://forum.propokertools.com/showthread.php?783-Erroneous-result-in-Simulator-2.0&p=1956#post1956
Thx Andre and thanks IM for clearing that up ;)
Andre, fwiw I ran the sims here. Using numbers provided by Oracle, even though they are different in terms of %, we still get to the same results. The "hands after board/dead" of his folding range ( (35%,432+,$1G,$2G,XXYY)!(K,88,44,84,876,865,875,754,654,765,76$op,75$OP,65$op) ) results in 21.58% of hands. If we divide that by 40.95% (his opening range) we get to the same 52.7% of FE needed.
I didnt run the numbers for the others simulations tho, will do it later.
Any plans of more vids, this was a good one and I would love to se more. I like how u break down your plan with your range for x/c and x/r in the start.
more of andre's vids please
at 20:30, I think its a leak not to be betting there.. A bet of 150 accomplish so much. First of all you handcuf him on the river, and 2nd of all you protect your hand which is very vulnerable. Its just a better play with your range imo.
Great video. One of the best i have seen.
But @20:40 do you really think he
opens all these 6543, 7654, A432ds, A543ds, 5432ds
from MP and calls a 3-bet?
Personally i wouldnt consider opening any of these hands
exept maybe 7654ds. On the other hand thats only 620 hands in total
and i assume wouldnt change your numbers much.
Hey,
Thanks!
I think 7654r and 6543r might be (open-)folds, but personally I would always open 7654$ss,6543$ss and the other low rundowns double suited in most line ups (exception would be maybe when co/bt are super tough and we're playing very very deep). Opening this kind of hands is somewhat important for your range balance (or in other words they have good implied odds because villain knows you don't nail low flops very often).
I should have wrote (7654,6543):xx to exclude the rainbow hands, but it won't change significantly the results.
What EV calculator do you use? Thanks.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.