$200-$400a 100bb OOP vs. Phil quick checkup
Posted by Ola Amundsgård
Posted by
Ola Amundsgård
posted in
High Stakes
$200-$400a 100bb OOP vs. Phil quick checkup
HJ: Ben86: $50498
CO: 5tgb6yhn7: $111170.13
BN: The Liar: $27601.14
SB: L0ve2playU: $18426.96
BB: Odd_Oddsen: $65538
UTG: MrSweets28: $40000
CO: 5tgb6yhn7: $111170.13
BN: The Liar: $27601.14
SB: L0ve2playU: $18426.96
BB: Odd_Oddsen: $65538
UTG: MrSweets28: $40000
I don't think villain needs much introduction, he is probably the best/toughest TAG out there right now, so getting reads on him is pretty tough.
Anyways I believe villain is opening around 16-20% of hands here (not in 100% pure hot and cold equity obviously but more a combination between playability) (I do think top 18% in PPT rankings is representative-ish for his opening range) (Example: folding some bad ABBx).
He is cbetting ~60% and turn cbetting ~50% from my hud (I do think his cbetting and turn cbetting frequencies are a bit higher in this spot, since he is playing a much stronger range + he knows my range is somewhat wide here (~40% of hands.))
My reasoning for jamming the turn is that I believe he will play rivers pretty much perfect vs my range when I x/c the turn, so I kinda felt that I had a +EV spot just x/pot the turn and went for it to make my life easy on rivers. However this game
is not about making your life super easy everytime, but maximizing your EV.
My question is basicly whats your thoughts on x/c the turn and re-evaluating VS. x/jamming?
Anyways I believe villain is opening around 16-20% of hands here (not in 100% pure hot and cold equity obviously but more a combination between playability) (I do think top 18% in PPT rankings is representative-ish for his opening range) (Example: folding some bad ABBx).
He is cbetting ~60% and turn cbetting ~50% from my hud (I do think his cbetting and turn cbetting frequencies are a bit higher in this spot, since he is playing a much stronger range + he knows my range is somewhat wide here (~40% of hands.))
My reasoning for jamming the turn is that I believe he will play rivers pretty much perfect vs my range when I x/c the turn, so I kinda felt that I had a +EV spot just x/pot the turn and went for it to make my life easy on rivers. However this game
is not about making your life super easy everytime, but maximizing your EV.
My question is basicly whats your thoughts on x/c the turn and re-evaluating VS. x/jamming?
Preflop
($600.00)
(6 Players)
Odd_Oddsen was dealt
3
7
6
K
MrSweets28 raises to $1400, Ben86 folds, 5tgb6yhn7 folds, The Liar folds, L0ve2playU folds, Odd_Oddsen calls $1000
MrSweets28 raises to $1400, Ben86 folds, 5tgb6yhn7 folds, The Liar folds, L0ve2playU folds, Odd_Oddsen calls $1000
I think my decision is close preflop playing such tough player with a strong range OOP for >= 100bb's.
I do however think I can defend it profitable with a discount and the dead antes in the middle (call $1000 to win $2480).
I do also think im folding preflop here without the antes in the middle.
I do however think I can defend it profitable with a discount and the dead antes in the middle (call $1000 to win $2480).
I do also think im folding preflop here without the antes in the middle.
Flop
($3000.00)
T
K
2
(2 Players)
Odd_Oddsen checks,
MrSweets28 bets $1800,
Odd_Oddsen calls $1800
Here might be my first missplay in the hand, I feel like this is a pretty loose peel on the flop OOP this deep vs 18%. If he is opening from CO/BTN this is another story. I feel x/r (blocker bluff merge) or x/fold might be better.
Turn
($6600.00)
3
(2 Players)
Odd_Oddsen checks,
MrSweets28 bets $5200,
Odd_Oddsen raises to $22675,
MrSweets28 raises to $31520,
Odd_Oddsen calls $14045
My question is basicly whats your thoughts on x/c the turn and re-evaluating VS. x/jamming as played?
River
($80040.00)
J
(2 Players)
I decided to hide the results so people won't get to result oriented :)
Final Pot
Odd_Oddsen has
3
7
6
K
Loading 95 Comments...
I put Phil on a macro of 17% of hands pre (maybe slightly too tight, but Phil is pretty tight in EP), and then had him bet the flop with around 75% of his range. Phil tends to leverage spots where his range is substantially ahead by betting frequently- especially in a spot like this where he'll flop nutty hands very often. He'll also add some marginal hands to this mix and figure out interesting things to do with them on later streets. I put him on a range of roughly 2pair or better, top pairs and overpairs with backup, half his dry overpairs, wraps, 3/4 of his dry mid pairs, all his dry bottom pairs, his dry QQ/JJ combos, dry gutters, and his weak backdoor FD w/ backdoor wraps. This sort of range is admittedly wide, but he can still continue comfortably versus about 60% of x/r, which goes to show how strong his preflop range connects to this board.
For the mathematically inclined, here's the syntax:
(SET>, 2PR>, OP+(NGD, OE>), TP>+(NGD, OE>), {dryOP}50, {dryMP}75, dryBP, (QQ, JJ)-(NGD, OE>), WR, {MP<<+(BFD, BDW)}75, dryGD)
On the turn, I had him continue betting with about 70% of his range. This consisted of anything with the As, 2PR+ with a K, 2PR with backup, wraps, decent sized flushdraws with backup, some weak flush draws, some weak straight draws, and top pair/overpairs with backup. Against your x/r, I had him continue about 54% of the time with 2 pair or better, wraps, top pair with strong backup, and strong draws. Versus his turn continuing range I have Kd7c6d3c on about 34% equity.
Turn syntax:
Phil's betting range= (As+(GD>, FD), 2PR_14>, 2PR>+(OE>, FD), WR, OE>+FD, {QQ}50, dryGD, FD-MP>, TP>+(GD>, FD))
Phil's continue vs x/r range= (2PR>, WR, TP>+(OE>, FD), 4NFD>+OE>, NFD)
So, there's $11800 in pot, we risk $37075 effective.
.46(+$11800)+(.54)(.66)(-$37075)+(.54)(.34)($48875)
=$5428-$13214+$8973
=+$1187, or ~+3bb
If we include our dead cards in this analysis, then Phil is betting turn about 70% of the time still, but only calling the x/r around 51% of the time with 64% equity. In that case, we'll win substantially more, about $2300 or 6bb.
Even though this analysis says we're winning 6bb here, I think jamming is pretty speculative. First, one small caveat with the analysis so far. I like to "keep hands in" when I'm running ranges. By that I mean I don't like to miss a huge class of hands which may or may not be in Phil's range, and I tend to weight different hand classes in different ways seeing how that effects the analysis. Phil tends to bet a lot of different things though, and tends to mix up his play more than most, so in this case I think I've probably erred on the side of too much aggression. When we're looking at big turn x/r, small differences in the inputs for Phil's flop and turn bluffing ranges are likely to cause a pretty big change in the output- our EV. So, it wouldn't surprise me if in reality the x/r was nearer to neutral EV than I've argued so far.
If our x/r rates to be between 0 and +6bb, and we hold a hand relatively near the top our range, then we should probably think about calling. I'm not going to examine the decision closely (since we'd have to look at all the rivers), but it seems like a simple strat of folding on most board changers and calling everywhere else is going to win us a lot of money. I looked at one river card, the Jc, just to test the waters. If Phil's turn betting range bets the Jc with T2P> for value and worse than middle pair as a bluff, then he'll bet about 63% of the time and we'll have about 25% equity. Phil usually bets around 2/3-3/4 pot, so we'll likely be nearly indifferent between calling and folding. Lots of rivers will be like that, but that doesn't suggest to me making a marginal turn jam will increase our EV. Actually, jamming turn looks to either dominated, or if not quite dominated, then pretty close to it.
You make very precise calculations (and I like it). Another way of arriving there: if his 17% range bets this board blindly he has two pair or better ~17% of the time on the turn. Given that he 2-barrels around 50% of the time (75% * 70%) he will have two pair or better roughly 1/3 of the time after betting the turn (17/50). Those hands never fold, and some of his other hands also never fold. If he continues with only 1/4 of his "other" hands (and presumably they have good equity vs K3) he's folding 50% to the turn c/r at most. This is something I can perhaps expect to figure out at the tables, whereas your calculations I'd have to do away from the table.
Do you find this less precise reasoning sacrifices any significant value? (or makes any significant errors or wild assumptions)
Usually when I'm thinking about a hand, I first map out the play more intuitively. In this hand, my thought was basically that x/jamming turn was def worse than calling, since Phil is going to be betting turn with weak draws, big draws, and better made hands. And if Phil is relatively balanced, he won't have enough weak draws to make x/jamming a bluffcatcher better than calling.
I tried to test that intuitive analysis using a more precise street-by-street representation of Phil's range using software. Doing that lets me test my intuitions and make sure they're on track. I find I'm wrong pretty often!
If we make two assumptions more about Phil's range here (even tho. they might not be true)
- he barrels the turn with 100% of all AA** combos (not only AA** + backup) (he b-f AA** b-c AA**+)
- he folds 40% of the KK** combos pre.
Does theese assumptions change anything for the x/jamming play? If yes- how much?
46(+$11800)+(.54)(.66)(-$37075)+(.54)(.34)($48875)
=$5428-$13214+$8973
=+$1187, or ~+3bb
is it supposed to be +(.54)(.34)($43675) since phil needs to call $5200 less than effective stacks (its already in the $11800 pot)?
If so the result would be:
=$5428-$13214+$8019
=+$233
He cannot win the $5200 bet twice.
The way I like to approach flop spots like this is how many turns and rivers I'm likely to make mistakes on. In this case, it seems like at least half of the turn cards would make life difficult for you, and the other half aren't exactly ideal either. Rivers would be the same. The only thing you really have going for you is that you may have the best hand on the flop ;-)
The equity breakdown feature of odds (-en?) oracle works nicely here. When many turn cards give equity in the range of (say) 25-40% then I know I'll have some awkward turn decisions ahead. It depends on what range you give Phil for cbetting here obviously, but a quick run against a reasonable cbet range yields around 20 cards in that equity range.
So to me peeling creates awkward situations on the turn. X/r the flop reduces that, but adds some other weirdness instead (that I can't really comment on). There's much much more to this obviously, equity may not even be the major consideration here. But when things get very complex I usually like to turn them around to being (almost overly) simple.
Anyway, I can't say what the best play is here. But when you peel the flop, what do you think the probability is that you will make mistakes later in the hand? Low/medium/high? And would those mistake be small/medium/large?
I have a another question for you. You mention the alternative of x/c the turn and evaluating. I don't quite understand this. (sounds like x/decide to me, another concept I don't understand) Let's say you peel the turn, river comes X and he bets Y% pot -- what is your basis for evaluating? Which combinations of X and Y helps your decision?
I hope you dont mind us asking you questions ( try not be total stupidity ones )
My thinking when im seeing your play of this hand is not very mathematical in terms of exact odds, but more of logical thinking about hand
You stated that your play range in spot is some 40 percent of hands versus presumed 16-20 percent opening range. Tht kind of play will set you up in situation hitting lot of 2 pair hands of exact kind as one you have here and probably win you lot small pots even versus superior ranges
My question is, when you face much stronger range , why are you deciding on CR and building huge pot with hand that doesnt have nutty strenght ( 2 pairs but not highest 2 pairs, no redraw to str8s, no trips )
Your laggish play and wide range is unbeatable playing just with flat calling imo, tho i maybe missing something i dont see atm, check raise on turn versus stronger range may win you a hand or few, but against what phil is willing to go with against you, i think you are in bad shape and can pick little bit stronger hand or draw , simply as general approach versus taggish player "S?
Your preflop call is debatable naturally when OOP against Phil's UTG range, but it's not terrible. Your flop call is a different story, however. It just doesn't feel like a good spot at all to C/C against Phil's UTG range given your reads on him. Your 2 pair outs aren't of much value, there aren't many good cards to bring you a semi-bluffing opportunity (ie every A,Q,J,9 hit him much harder than they hit you) and you don't really have any backdoor equity to speak of. When you c/c here, you're basically hoping that he will just fire one shell and then give up. That doesn't sound very much like Phil to me.
The turn C/R is interesting in that you might be able to fold out some of Phil's marginal hands, but the hands he calls the C/R or jams with have you in extremely tough shape at worst and perhaps only flipping at best. Is C/C still viable? I don't really know. Such decisions are above my play grade. :) I do know that if you do, it still puts you in a lot of extremely difficult situations on the river.
Are you turning K3 into a bluff ever on broadway rivers or spades? If you do c/c the turn, I think you almost have to. If you c/c the turn then have to check river and he bets, you're basically looking at a hero call on so many cards.
It also seems to me that it is ok to give him a profitable with any kind of equity when you play a wide range preflop due to pot-odds and you are trying to recover some fraction of the big blind.
I dont play this high and am mainly trying to learn by posting, so comments will be appreciated.
If anyone wants to discuss which KK/TT, if any to slowplay on the flop, then that would be awesome as well :)
Edit: Thanks for posting this as I suspected that I´m way too tight from the BB and this hand more than confirms that.
Nevertheless, I'm totally falling for this set up so here we go:
Preflop we need to call $1000 for a $3480, we need 28.7% equity if there was no more betting. Against a Propokertools range of 18% we have 42.6% so that seems like a decent edge to justify a call.
Lets look closer at how this equity is distributed on the flop:
The red graph indicates the Propokertools equity of our hand against PPT range of 18%, since our equity is 42.6%, the area under the red graph equals 42.6% of the total area.
The blue line indicates our theoretical equity if our equity on he flop was linearly distributed over all flops, meaning we have 2 times 42.6% (=85.2%) equity on the best possible flop (on the left) and 0% equity on the worst possible flop (on the right).
Ideally given 42.6% equity we want to have 100% equity on 42.6% of flops and 0% on the rest of flops, since this would us totally clairvoyant. If we are totally clairvoyant Phil cannot valuebet or bluff us, we start leading flops even if our equity is way below 50% and Phil had to check back every thing and bluffcatch vs out leads.
The worst looking equity distribution would be a flat 42.6% line, meaning our hand is a bluffcatcher on any board. Of course we can compensate for having such a hand in our range by having many other hands with steeper equity distributions in our range.
So if our hands flops good against Phils range our equity graph should be above the blue line on the left and below the blue line on the right. This is in theory, since PLO has very smooth equity distributions. Almost no hand had more than 90% equity on 10% of flops, only ultra strong hands like AAQQds/AAKKds come close to this.
With this in mind our equity distribution on the flop is really good for a 42.6% equity hand, we have over 80% equity on 5% of flops. Our equity converges to 0%., this is also in our favor since usually we won't realize our equity on the worst flops, so we don't lose a major part of our total equity when this happens. This also makes this hand much better for calling than AhTh9d8d. The latter has 48.2% equity against a 18% PPT range, but it has 20-30% equity on the worst 20% of flops. This equity is very hard to realize if we call Phil preflop since we have to check most flops against Phil and then fold our 20% equity on the worst flops like Qc7c2s. This (and other reasons) make AhTh9d8d a much better hand to 3-bet.
If we look at turn distributions:
General unpaired flops, assume the flop was unpaired and we check call any such flop and then look at our equity distribution on the turn:
Again, our equity distribution looks pretty good. Of course we are more likely to continue after the flop with some equity, for instance pairing the K/7/6:
The last example is a [2-8][2-8]R board, note that not all of these boards hit our hand, but they hit Phils range less than ours so we should bluff some of them.
This is still looking very good. The only conclusion can be that calling this hand preflop is optimal, provided Phil doesn't outplay us very hard postflop. But if Odd is afraid of being outplayed by Phil he should play http://folk.ntnu.no/trymbrox/kyckling.html insead of 40000 PLO.
And could the tech guys please share the secret behind posting images, bold text and such? ;-)
I will continue with the flop.
Here might be my first missplay in the hand, I feel like this is a pretty loose peel on the flop OOP this deep vs 18%. If he is opening from CO/BTN this is another story. I feel x/r (blocker bluff merge) or x/fold might be better.
It is nice that Odd mentions a x/r with bad Kxxx, it reminds me of this thread where I had a discussion with Phil and Ben about a x/r range and the effect of blockers. I suggested that the opponent should x/r a lot of his bad Kxxx: http://www.runitonce.com/plo/2550-hu-flopturn-decision/
I will give Phil now a PPT range of 17% and add alle double two gappers or better and single suited non gappers and suited double pairs:
Omaha Hi Hand Count ?
Hand Optimized Count Base Count
18% 48724 (18.00%) 48724 (18.00%)
17%,($1g,$2g):xxyy,$0g:xx 48298 (17.84%) 48298 (17.84%)
This amounts to roughly 18%, and I think this approximation is closer to Phils actual range since 18% is high card/pair heavy.
Our equity on the flop is 45.5% now, and since we cannot turn better than trips no kicker or toppair-thirdpair we have very weak nut potential:
Whereas if he had AJQ6ss our equity would be comparable, but our nutpotential would of course be much stronger:
For this reasons I think calling the flop is very marginal, if not losing versus Phil. Even on the best turns our hand is still a mediocre bluffcatcher.
So now the turn:
We have 62.47% equity versus Phils preflop range. Ben estimated Phils barreling frequencies here to be 75% and 70%. This yields 52.5% two barrel frequency. We can now do a count with card removal:
Omaha Hi Hand Count
dead cards: ThKs2c3s
Hand Optimized Count Base Count
3c7c6dKd 1 (0.00%) 1 (0.00%)
(17%,($1g,$2g):xxyy,$0g:xx,RROO:xx) 25985 (9.60%) 49126 (18.15%)
A total of 25985 combos. If we look at flopped sets and toptwo we get this count:
Omaha Hi Hand Count ?
dead cards: ThKs2c3s
Hand Optimized Count Base Count
3c7c6dKd 1 (0.00%) 1 (0.00%)
(17%,($1g,$2g):xxyy,$0g:xx,RROO:xx):(KK,TT,KT,22) 3265 (1.21%) 13312 (4.92%)
Thus this means that 3265/25985 = 12.5% of Phils flop range is toptwo or better. And hence 12.5/52.5 = 24% of Phils turnbet range is toptwo or better. Against this range we have only 3.7% equity.
For simplicity we can now assume that Phil only stacks of with those hands and folds the rest. This is a favorable assumption for us since Phil will play almost perfect against our actual hand. For instance QJ9 with spades he will likely call and fold rivers unimproved and AAQJss will go allin with 57.5%. Even KJ92 without a flushdraw has 37.5% equity, so its unlikely we get it in way ahead ever.
By getting it in we risk $37720 for a $80680 pot. With 3.73% we have $3010 equity in this pot, so it costs us $37720-$3010 = $34710.
Hence the EV of the shove is:
0.76*$11800 + 0.24*(-$34710) = $637. Which is very marginal +EV, but not max EV.
(KK,TT,KT,22,AA,K:ss,K,AQQ,AJJ) is 13192 combos or 50.7% (=13192/25985). Against this range we have just over 50%:
board: ThKs2c3s
Hand Equity Wins Ties
3c7c6dKd 50.51% 262,492 8,033
(17%,($1g,$2g):xxyy,$0g:xx,RROO:xx):(KK,TT,KT,22,AA,K:ss,K,AQQ,AJJ) 49.49% 257,155 8,033
If we can realize 40% of this equity we pay $5200 for (40% of $17000 =) $6800, which yields $1600.
In reality our equity is likely higher since Phil will bet a more polarized range. So we hit one of the best cards in the deck and we are still barely 50% against a barreling range that consists of over 50% of Phils preflop range. But lets not forget that Phil could've also checked back and then our equity would've been much higher.
Phil can have toptwo or better 24% of the time here, perhaps 20% if we discount for some slowplays or weak KKxx/TTxx that Phils folds but are top 17% PPT. Shoving three times the pot the turn is quite a disaster, calling also allows us to fold on very bad rivers such as 9s-As.
I'm also not sure if calling the extra $14045 is profitable against Phils range. This might indicate that it is better to raise less than pot on the turn and fold to a shove, as long as this is not a too large part of our range.
I also agree that even if we play rivers kind of badly, and even if he plays them near perfectly, we'll still make plenty of money calling.
I haven't looked too hard at x/r the flop, but I imagine it's near neutral EV just like x/c is. I'd x/r the flop with this hand some % of the time.
Syntax of it is also quite uncommon but easier than writing all these long constraints in PPT.
I think the biggest error comes from the PPT ranges, it is too high card/pair heavy to match opening ranges accurately.
As for this hand, of course I agree that Phil will continue with many hands that are not KT+, and this will hurt our equity as Phil is not calling/shoving in order to burn money against naked K3.
But do you really think Phil will have KT+ much less than 24% given that he bet 2 streets?
I could easily be convinced that this 24% should be 15-20% if we account for inaccurate PPT ranges and card removal effects.
But I don't think card removal effects are that strong since we only hold a K, and many KTxx/TTxx/KKxx hands that Phil raises UTG hold side cards higher than 8, and we hold no side cards higher than 8 so we also have reverse blockers.
I have Phil's range with T2P+ 22.5% of the time after betting turn. Preflop I used a custom range for Phil's UTG opening range, and I have him betting a bit more aggressively on the turn then your previous sim. I think that's why I get 22.5% instead of your 24%. My analysis has Phil continuing with many hands worse than T2P, mostly combo hands like AAQJ, etc, which is why I have him continuing versus the turn x/r about 50% but only holding KT+ 22.5%.
Would you say that in general when the stack to pot ratio is around 3-4 ad we have 20-25% chance of being near drawing dead that:
1. Since the value get it in range is so narrow we should have no range that raises to $22675, but raise smaller with a balanced range
1b. Have no raising range at all since Phils range contains much more T2P+.
1c. Raise fold this hand if we raise it at all.
2. The value we lose by getting bluffed/valuebet on blank rivers is less than the value we safe by letting Phil say check KKK on a 9s river and also make generally correct folds on scare cards.
Let's say IP's range is 25% nuts and 75% air (as a first model). Say his betsizing is pot/pot. On the river he bets 25% for value and adds 12.5% bluffs, and on the turn he bets 37.5% for "value" and adds 18.75% bluffs for a betting frequency of 56.25%- against which range our EV is 0.
On this model, our EV playing call/fold is 1-.5625=43.75% of the pot.
Say we jam over a turn psb to 3x that bet. In this case, our EV is .25(-3psb)+(.3125)(2psb)= -.125psb, which of course loses more than our initial EV of 0.
Now of course this model will not hold for PLO, both because our hand has some redraw equity and because many of Phil's "bluffs" have 25-50% equity against our hand. I'm also assuming Phil is being fairly balanced in his turn betting. Certainly if he bet 100% on the turn, jamming would be our best option since either our fold equity would rise above 65% or our equity when called would rise about 50%.
"Would you say that in general when the stack to pot ratio is around 3-4 ad we have 20-25% chance of being neat drawing dead that:
1. Since the value get it in range is so narrow we should have no range that raises to $22675, but raise smaller with a balanced range"
--No, because if we raise smaller, he'll just call with his 25-50% equity hands and make us indifferent on many rivers. Leaving significant money behind favors his range since with our x/r our range becomes more defined while his range will still polarize well on rivers.
"1b. Have no raising range at all since Phils range contains much more T2P+."
--Here's one hand I'd raise. Our exact hand with an open ender or flushdraw. Or dry KT. Or a huge draw with a little pair. etc.
"1c. Raise fold this hand if we raise it at all."
--The problem is that the region of Phil's range [.25-.5] has around 40% equity versus our hand, and we quickly become exploitable to him jamming that region with some frequency if we raise/fold this type of hand.
"2. The value we lose by getting bluffed/valuebet on blank rivers is less than the value we save by letting Phil say check KKK on a 9s river and also make generally correct folds on scare cards."
--Yes. Our turn calling range will contain a non negligible frequency of all the straight draws J9-AQ, as well as spade draws and various 2pairs/1pairs which improve. Phil can't bet KKK on a 9s river against our range, and so we'll realize plenty of our equity to make calling dominant on the turn.
As a final caveat, I DO think jamming is best up to about 2psb (i.e. up to about 13k effective on the turn), for basically the reasons Odds stated in his OP. We're just too deep to jam here vs an UTG range.
Great analysis GameTHeory!! I agree with just about everything you said specially the flop analysis I don't think we can make much money here calling out of position and reverse implies odds should be a major concern considering the stack sizes and caliber of opponent. Although check folding seems weak, if the antes (and implied odds) tip the scale towards a pre-flop call then unless we flop one of those huge flops you mentioned it maybe be a much better option then calling against this specific opponent.
If he decides to flat the turn we are in a tough spot as well. I can't think of a single river card we can comfortably bet for value (maybe a 3 since he's most likely shipping KK and 1010 on the turn) Also if our main concern is Phil playing the river perfectly against us aren't we also concerned he will play perfectly against a raise her in a much bigger pot?
Before we both join Posting Degens Anonymous, here is some more crack:
On this model, our EV playing call/fold is 1-.5625=43.75% of the pot.
Say we jam over a turn psb to 3x that bet. In this case, our EV is .25(-3psb)+(.3125)(2psb)= -.125psb, which of course loses more than our initial EV of 0.
Jamming turn is 4 times that bet in PLO if he can still pot the river.
The EV would become:
0.4375+.25(-4)+(.3125)(2) = 0.0625 <<< 0.4375
It is clear that jamming a bluffcatchers against a clairvoyant opponent is not optimal.
Certainly if he bet 100% on the turn, jamming would be our best option since either our fold equity would rise above 65% or our equity when called would rise about 50%.
I'm not sure if this is correct in real PLO. In the clairvoyant game certainly we would be better off calling 100% on the turn and 50% on the river:
Then Phils optimal strategy on the river would be to bet 25% nuts and 12.5% air, our EV:
0.625(2) + (0.375)(-1) = 0.875
Whereas with shoving the turn we get:
0.75(2) + 0.25(-4) = 0.5
Now to make things more interesting, assume the following:
On the turn Phils range is 25% nuts, 12.5% flushdraw, 12.5% straightdraw, 50% air.
Out range is 100% bluffcatcher. Our equity on the turn = 68.75% (=11/16).
There are 4 rivers possible, each with 25% probability, {blank, blank, flush, straight}
If the flushdraw hits, the straightdraw misses and vice versa, Phils nuts can still valuebet since we don't have draws.
If a draw comes in on the river, Phil bets 37.5% value and 18.75% bluff, or 56.25% total, we call 50%.
On a blank river Phils valuerange is 25% and his bluffrange 12.5%, or 37.5% total, we call 50% again.
On average Phil bets 46.875% of rivers.
Now the turn becomes a little more tricky for Phil, he 'needs' to have a 56.25% range to maximize his fold equity on non-blank turns. His turn "value" range becomes 46.875% * 1.5 = 70.3125% (45/64).
Hence our EV =
0.296875(1) + 0.234375(2) + 0.46875(-1) = 29.6875
Thus we are also indifferent between folding on the flop.
So now assume that Phil deviates from equilibrium, and bets 100% of his range on the turn. Compare the EV of jamming vs bluffcatching optimally (Phils draws can't call with 25% equity here):
EV Jamming = 0.75(2) + 0.25(-4) = 50% >>> 29.875%. Not bad.
EV call turn always, call optimally on rivers. = 0.53125(2) + 0.46875(-1) = 59.375%
So if Phil starts betting 100% instead of 70% we can realize 86% of our equity instead of 43%, a massive difference!
Now the last case where his draws have 40%:
Phils range = 25% nuts, 25% draws, 50% air.
Our range = 100% bluffcatcher, 65% equity. A draw comes in on 50% rivers, giving phils 20% made draws and 5% missed draws.
Phils value range on draw rivers = 45%, bet range = 0.675.
On a blank, bet range = 37.5%, on average Phil bets 52.5% of rivers.
Assuming we never raise the turn, Phil bets 78.75% of his range on the turn, 1.5 times his river range.
Our EV of calling turn and calling rivers 50% =
0.2125(1) + 0.2625(2) + 0.525(-1) = 21.25%, again we are indifferent between calling and folding the turn.
Now calculate the EV of jamming the turn if Phil bets a 78.75% range.
He calls with a 50% range, against which we have 30% equity on average.
0.2125(1)+0.2875(2) + 0.50(0.7*(-4)+0.3(5)) = 13.75%
So again we are worse of than calling by a decent margin.
Last example is that Phils starts betting 100% turns instead of 78.75%:
EV jamming =
0.50(2) + 0.50(0.7*(-4)+0.3(5)) = 35%
EV of calling 100% turns and optimal on rivers:
0.475(2) + 0.525(-1) = 42.5%
If we start lowering stacks, it is no longer realistic that Phil will bet turns too much if he knows we always have a bluffcatcher and can force the money in.
Under all circumstance so far jamming the turn was strictly dominated, even if our equity was much higher than Phils.
In PLO situations like this one, though, air never really occurs. In my original simulation, the absolute bottom of Phil's betting range on the turn was a dry gutter, and that hand is going to have around 10% equity. In PLO, the bluffing region of betting ranges are going to be (relatively) linearily distributed- with draws ranging from 10% to 50% equity against OOP's bluffcatchers having sizable frequencies. I'm not certain this will change the result of the analysis- but I'm guessing it will tend to increase the EV of jamming relative to calling.
I actually think your value-draw-bluff model is more directly applicable to NLHE situations. It's fairly common in NLHE to be facing a range split into value-bluff-draw components at roughly 25-25-50 frequencies (and obviously the model can be tweaked to accomodate different frequencies of these hand classes). For example, say we 3bet K3o and get called, flop Ks 7c 2d and x/c. Turn 9s and we can either x/shove for 3psb or call 1-2 streets.
I agree that in PLO equities run much smoother than in these examples, I will make a new one based on what you seen to be suggesting:
First the case where Phil still bets his nuts when a draw comes in.
Phil: 25% nuts, 75% draws. Draws have 30%, Phil has 47.5% equity.
Rivers are 50% blanks, 50% non-blanks. On non blanks 60% of all draws hit uniformly, whis is a 45% range.
Hence Phils valueranges are 37.5% and "105%" or 100%.
On average Phil bets 68.75% of rivers and "103.125%" or 100% of turns.
EV of calling turns and playing rivers optimal:
0.3125(2)+0.6875(-1) = -0.0625
Which we felt coming after all those >100%s.
If we assume Phils equity is distributed such that 25% range ahs 40% and 50% range has 25%, then Phil still has the same range distribution as in the second last example of my post above, since the 25% equity hands cannot call. Jamming guarantees a value of 0.35 >>>> -0.0625.
Jamming is clearly optimal here.
Now the case where Phil doesn't bet his nuts when the draw comes in:
He bets a 45%*1.5= 67.5% range when the draws comes in and 37.5% on blanks. Average betting range is 52.5% of rivers.
If Phil bets 100% of turns:
Calling all flops and optimal on the river gives EV =
0.475(2)+0.525(-1) = 42.5%
This is the cloest we ever to got realizing our equity, if we only keep a small portion of draws in our perceived range, enough to make Phil check behind draws, we realize almost 90% of our equity!
If Phil bets 52.5%*1.5=78.25% of turns
Again we are at a situation from the previous post, calling all turns and playing rivers optimal guarantees an EV of 21.25%.
New range distribution: Phils range is 25% nuts, 25% draws with 40% equity, and 50% draws with 10% equity. His total equity is 40%. Phil bets all his nuts on draw rivers again.
On blank rivers his betting range is 37.5%, and on draw rivers his betting range is 82.5%.
Average betting range is 60%.
Calling all turns and optimal on rivers:
0.4(2)+0.6(-1) = 20%
Again jamming would've been better.
An if Phil doesn't bet nuts on blank rivers:
On blank river 37.5% betting range, on draw rivers 45% betting range, average betting range of 41.25% on the river, 61.875% on the turn.
EV of call turn and optimal on river =
0.38125(1) + 0.20625(2) + 0.4125(-1) = 38.125%
EV of jamming here, 30% equity when called:
0.38125(1) + 0.11875(2) + 0.5(0.7(-4) +0.3(5)) = -0.03125
Jamming is clearly a disaster since Phils range is too strong.
Note that it is always assumed that we auto win the pot on the river if the turn gets checked through, which will cause estimated errors of 0.01-0.05.
--The problem is that the region of Phil's range [.25-.5] has around 40% equity versus our hand, and we quickly become exploitable to him jamming that region with some frequency if we raise/fold this type of hand.
This is true if we only raise the turn with made hands and not draws. If we raise with a mixture of dominating draws, we could make naked KT for instance indifferent between folding and calling/shoving.
board: ThKs2c3s
Hand Equity Wins Ties
KdTd9h8h 39.30% 36,382 73,761
50%:(K2:xxyy!T,K3:xxyy!T,KT,KK,TT,22,As*s[K-J][Q-T])!5% 60.70% 76,297 73,761
He needs around 39.5% to get 40k in breakeven.
Against the top of our range he has 31%:
board: ThKs2c3s
Hand Equity Wins Ties
KdTd9h8h 31.40% 11,849 73,761
50%:(KT,KK,TT,22,As*s[K-J][Q-T])!5% 68.60% 69,590 73,761
Now consider one of his strongest semibluff hands that is not a complete monster, AsAQJ without a flushdraw.
AdJdAsQh 34.29% 103,148 889
50%:(KT,KK,TT,22,As*s[K-J][Q-T])!5% 65.71% 198,043 889
Which means he lacks 5% equity in a $80k pot, or loses $4k.
Given his holding:
50%:(KT,KK,TT,22,As*s[K-J][Q-T])!5% = 7552 combos
50%:(K2:xxyy!T,K3:xxyy!T)!5% = 1012 combos
If we fold our K2xx/K3dxx$ds hands we fold 11.8% of our range, or 1/9th.
His EV = 0.118*(6600+5200+R) + (1-0.118)*(-4000)=0
Where R is the size of our raise, solving the equation gives R=$18100 for AsAQJ.
Conclusion, if we raise to $16.8k for example he needs an even stronger hand than AAQJ to get it in profitably.
If you think a smaller raise size is a legitimate strategy choice then continue making your case, but I think it's fairly obvious at this point that jamming turn with a more polarized range AI is the most reasonable strategy for OOP in this situation.
But you wanted to x/r some hands here, K3 + draw, KT etc, so all I pointed out was that you can do that with a balanced range, and still x/r/f some hands towards the bottom of that range, especially if you make your raise smaller than pot. For instance raising 50%:(K2:xxyy!T,K3:xxyy!T,KT,KK,TT,22,As*s[K-J][Q-T])!5% with a 40% frequency and calling 60%.
Also other distributions can be made where it is not exploitable to x/r/f naked K3, if we only raise TT/KK/K2/K3/AQJss we can add even more weak one pair Kxxx hands to make AAQJ indifferent:
AdJdAsQh 30.14% 49,797 405
50%:(K2:xxyy!T,K3:xxyy!T,KK,TT,As*sQJ)!5% 69.86% 115,678 405
My main point is that we don't "quickly become exploitable to him jamming that region with some frequency if we raise/fold this type of hand" as long as we are polarized/balanced enough to make hands below a certain threshold like AAQJ indifferent between folding and jamming. The lower we set this threshold the more profitable it becomes if we can force a decent part of Phils valuerange to fold.
As far as Phil's given hand (which I think is not relevant at all, unless we see a hand which wasn't in his percieved range)
Phil had KK97hh for topset which means I was drawing dead.
Are you going to change your gameplan:
a. not raising anymore in spots like this
b. raise smaller than pot
c. raise fold hands like K3 in this spot?
Do you think you would exploit Phil if you had folded to the all-in?
You suggested earlier that Phil could be folding up to 60% of his KKxx combos, for instance KK73ccc. Do you think that is accurate?
(which I think is not relevant at all, unless we see a hand which wasn't in his percieved range)
This is only partly true, if you keep seeing topset every time and you put on on a wide range, you should adjust your perceived range at least a little every time you observe his hand.
Wish I could rig the like button somehow.
At a rate of 26 likes in 11 days, it should be at +100 in exactly one month, no need to rig the system.
ye but noone will read this tread in few days
logarithms tho
would you ever consider leading as it is a cheaper bluff than a c/r? And for the same reason that you thought about c/ring this hand, you could use it as a b/3b bluff if you think villain can raise leads light.
With 22-25% nut hands (>96% equity) relative to our hand in Phils betting range on the turn and a stack to pot ratio of 6, bet/3-betting this hand is almost surely a losing play.
Or did you imply to do this on the flop, you didn't specify. Leading the flop should be bad since Phil can call at least as wide as he bets for value/draw on the flop. This will mostly accomplish that Phil folds his air that he would normally bet once and give up.
Unless Phils fold hands like AJ98 with backdoor flushdraws you don't fold out many hands with equity either.
I'm not that experienced at plo but it seems to me our hand simply isn't strong enough to c/r ott. Hands that we could c/r turn with include sets, top two, wraps +fd, two pair + fd, etc. So Top bottom seems way too weak to c/r especially because Phil is always betting OTT with top two and sets and not folding them, and our equity vs those hands is abysmal. The only advantage I see to c/r turn his folding out his weak/medium draws that have a lot of equity, but that seems not worth it compared to the result of getting it in bad against Phils value range.
Awesome thread. Very nice work, guys. I'll be re-reading and perhaps I'll have more to add (though Ben and GT's mathematical analysis isn't something I can improve upon).
yea i meant to b/3b bluff the flop, but he will also just fold to the lead a % of the time as well. And leading is a cheaper bluff than c/r'ing
Phil will not fold much of his range to a bet, these ranges are assuming Phil never bluffraises or floats without at least a gutshot + double backdoor flushdraw.
He is defending at least 71% of his conjectured opening range, maybe this is 68% for Ben. But the problem is that the hands that are folding are almost completely air, these are not likely in Phils barreling range.
Moreover, if you bet and Phil calls and you check the turn, Phil is very likely to barrel you off your hand, even with his hands that are worse than K7 on the turn. And lastly it would really surprise me if bet/3-betting the flop is profitable, given how many combos of sets, toptwo, and wraps Phil has is his range (more than 20% of his floprange):
Guys,
I think all the math is great but can anyone confirm based on normal thought process without including math that exactly what Lucas Greenwood said?
I mean preflop vs Phils strong opening range this looks speculative at best. Unless we can outplay him postflop very well it seems like a breaking even play at best. Now on the turn c/shoving here to basically make phil fold his bluffs is what it looks like to me.
I just wanna make sure I ain't missing something!
For example, here's an argument for the opposite conclusion:
On the turn Phil is betting hands as weak as AA, and certainly AA with gutter, as well as some weak gutters, as well as his 2PR or better and strong draws. Since every hand in his range has at least 15% equity against us, and he'll play well against our hand on rivers, we should go ahead and jam now to lock up our equity by folding out his bluffs and preventing ourselves from being outplayed. We even have some equity against hands like AAQJ or big draws, and we block some of his 2PR+ combos.
Looks pretty plausible to me. I just wrote it, and even knowing it's wrong, it can be hard to see why.
Compare the argument in your post:
"I mean preflop vs Phils strong opening range this looks speculative at
best. Unless we can outplay him postflop very well it seems like a
breaking even play at best. Now on the turn c/shoving here to basically
make phil fold his bluffs is what it looks like to me."
Seems pretty plausible as well. How do we decide which argument is right?
Numbers help, since they give both arguments a common language.
Thank you very much Ben. Too bad I am really bad at using numbers. How good was poker back then when everyone played based on feel :)
It is very tough to to base your play on the turn on words and not on number. Which play has the highest EV strongly depends on the relative frequencies for Phil betting nuts/draws/air here. And to weigh these options you need to know the equities and values.
Good feel players don't know these numbers, but they make the right play anyways.
Nice thread, interesting how you pros turn this into calculus so nicely. It was fun looking at how you guys break it down.
But from my point of view this poor guy lost $40,000 because of $200!!!!!!
[ I do however think I can defend it profitable with a discount and the dead antes in the middle (call $1000 to win $2480).
I do also think im folding preflop here without the antes in the middle. ]
Does $200 mean that much to you pros when.....
A. You have $68k on the table and probably 2 mill in the bank
B. You have to play one of the worlds best PLO players out of position
C. You have a hand with no nut anything?
Forget the analysis, that is way above my head, but why even get into this hand just because of $200 worth of antes???
BB is 400. and question is same as if you asked why someone plays 10 cent blinds to win 10 buying or 1 dollar blind to win 100, if you ask that , better ask yourself why you play poker anyway
I must admit, I was wondering why play this oop....esp. as the impression I get is that Phil is not an Isildur/Durr any 4 type anyway.
Polar1965, every time you have the opportunity to make a decision that yields $200 more in expectation you should make it.
A. Phil only has $40k, so he is risking no more than $40k.
B. Odd is likely one of the world's best PLO players aswell.
C. He can make nut straights on 452/453/458 boards, nut fullhouses on KK7xx/KK6xx/776xx and nutflushes on AXXddd boards.
Thinking that he lost $40k because of $200 is very results orientated. He could've gotten it in ahead or behind and won Phils stack.
Thank you GameTheory for responding. I was just taken back that whatever the amount of the antes were (I know sb was $200, bb was $400) ( and I assume the antes somewhat equal the sb when added together) that they factored into any decision when playing for those kind of stakes.
I'm dyslexic but even I enjoyed reading this thread! thanks a LOT to sauce/GT for taking the time.
I think polar raised a valid question about how small your edge is in the situation you had described. Your calculation showed that you could win 0.5% over the long run by risking 100% now (win $200 but risk$40,000), but you used so many assumptions about your opponent to reach that conclusion. my question is, what is the standard deviation of your forecast, or how confident are you that you really have a small positive edge? if changing your assumptions slightly will lead to vastly different conclusion, that means the standard deviation of your forecasted edge is large. an example I can think of, used in Nassim Taleb's book "fooled by randomness", is if someone tells you the Mars is on average 26 degree, but one std dev of his forecast is -200 to +300 degree, will you make the trip there? I think there's a saying in the financial market that goes " it's better to be roughly correct than precisely wrong".
I came to this site cos I love Phil Galfond's videos,always insightful, well-articulated yet never veering from common sense.
singdean- Thought experiment. Assume you're playing infinite big blinds deep (or if you prefer just super deep, like 10,000+ bb deep) and assume you consistently use the kind of logic you used in your previous post to evaluate decisions. How many hands would you play?
Can that be right ?
Hi Ben, I'm not very clear what your thought experiment is
trying to elucidate. I assume what you are trying to say is that in the long
run even having very small edges is sufficient to decimate your opponent, if
the two of you play long enough? If that’s your point, I totally agree with it.
But what I am instead asking is an epistemological question
- how sure are you that you do in fact have a small edge? How do you know that
you know?
Game Theory came to
the conclusion, laden with assumptions, that the edge is $200 and the standard
deviation +-$40,000 in this spot (being a gambler he doesn't worry about the
standard deviation). However, making a slight change in his assumptions may
lead him to conclude that the edge is -$500 with another standard deviation or
+$800 with another standard deviation. He can’t be sure of his edge.
If there was no postflop betting, defending would be +$487 better than folding. If Oddsen would start folding all his hands that have a +$200 EV option of calling he would give up a large part of his winrate.
Furthermore, we can be certain that the standard deviation of this hand in a single raised pot is much less than $40,000.
The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that since the standard deviation is $40,000 - it is not but lets for the sake of argument assume that it is - this will have an impact on the EV of calling with this hand. If we assume that Oddsen is a good player, he will not make many mistakes that will cause the EV of calling this hand to be as low as -$800. This is a fact that can also be observed by looking at the bbEV of calling this hand and other hands of similar strength over a large sample.
Ben had a nice counter example against your risk aversion. We can use this rock-paper-scissors example:
Oddsen posts a $400 blind, Phil raises to $1400, after which Oddsen can either call or fold.
After this $2800 pot is created, Phil and Oddsen place further mandatory bets of $100,000 each, and they decide who wins the $202,800 by one trow of rock-paper-scissors.
Assuming that Oddsen plays near optimal, he will realize 50% of the pot, giving his $1000 call an EV of +$400, even though the standard deviation is near $100,000. By definition, playing near optimal guarantees that you will (almost) realize your equity, the uncertainty in your EV is very small.
If Oddsen is so risk averse that he will not call the $1000 to avoid the variance, he should not join this game because his $400 blind will be dead money.
I was trying to be clever, but the point is that:
a) It's very clear the preflop call is significantly +EV
b) It's very clear there is little uncertainty that the call is +EV
c) The variance on the call isn't the size of the player's stack
Hi GT/Ben - I see your point. Very interesting. So you guys will bet the universe just to pick up a "guaranteed" dime, as long as you are convinced you are playing GTO. Von Neumman, what have you started!?
When I would be playing poker with Zeus and God and my bankroll would contain enough universes to play 0.005universe/0.01universe with an ante of a galaxy supercluster, I would gladly bet one universe to pick up one dime!
Another example: which gamble would you choose?
1. Guaranteed 1 billion USD.
2. 50/50 chance of winning either 0 or 2bln and 1 dollar.
Gamble #2 has EV that is $0.5 higher, but it has lower expected utility for pretty much every person on earth.
More interesting problem was raised earlier.
Say the estimated EV of best play is +1bb. We never win exactly 1bb, but different amounts (from getting stacked to winning a stack) which according to the model yields 1bb on average.
But our analysis is itself uncertain. Under different assumptions maybe the answer would be +2bb or -2bb.
If, hypothetically speaking, variance of our estimate varies between -100bb to +100bb, being 1bb on average then value of such estimate is low.
Here is an interesting example, suppose you face a problem, and there are 11 solutions.
Default one has EV of 10 units.
You take 10 experts and have each produce estimate of one of remaining solutions, and they come up with following results: {14, 7, 10, 9, 6, 8, 6, 12, 8, 10}
Is chosing option 1, with EV of 14 really better than default ?
I think nwolf makes a point that variance could/should play into the decision. Though, I also agree with Mr. Sulsky's note on magnitude of variance is likely not as large as previously assumed. There is a value to considered when thinking about variance in gameplay. Managing risk always costs money.
It if takes a larger bankroll to employ a higher variance style, there is value lost in maintaining risk. Coming from a business background... that money could be used for other things and has intrinsic value of growth (like putting money is stable stocks or treasuries). So, a high variance strategy needs to generate enough EV over time that beats the additional amount of bankroll times the percentage gain I could generate doing other things (like... generating 15% returns in options trading or 10% in more passive investments).
the standard dev on the call is prob 8-20 bets and the EV on the call is prob at least 1/4th of a bet.
Hey, really interesting discussion! However I really wonder how you get to those results (calculations? Large database analysis ?), care to 'prove' this ? :-)
This is such a sick thread. Thanks everyone!
What is Jman cbet %, and how often do he fold to a raise in %?
The result of this hand is a situation that I feel occurs often enough, and when it does the cost is devasting.
Getting it in drawing dead with top pair/2 pair against top set, and doing so under the premise we have top set blocker....
Just seems if we are right and we are ahead we are probably somewhere between 40-60% against a continuing range like A-Q-J-10, Q-J-10-9, Q-Q-J-9 and if opponent has air such as 6-7-8-9 and lays down, the amount of $ we pick up when opponent lays down to a flop or to turn x raise is miniscule compared to the amount we lose when way behind/drawing dead like in this case.
Regarding this hand. seems like with our check raise, anything other than opponent lay down puts us in a difficult spot come the river.
What about a turn donk bet/fold strategy? or turn donk bet, and check call unpaired rivers 8 or below. If we are ahead on the turn, a 9-10-J-Q or A would seem to make opponents likely turn calling ranges that we are ahead of, now beat us with a straight or bigger 2 pair...
Awesome thread, thanks Ben and GT
In Phil's spot with bare AA with spades, say As9sAh8d would you always be betting the turn or would you check back usually. Does your answer change if you are deeper?
Awesome thread, Even though I didn't understand how GT came up with a lot of the numbers, he explained the meaning of how it affects each theoretical situation which was interesting to read Ben react to.
I do have one question.
Ben wrote:
Isn't it clear that defending the blinds +EV is worth what we give up by playing in a imo, a very -EV situation? (playing the rest of the hand OOP, in an inflated pot vs PG)
Ugh, this is hard. I'm trying to articulate my argument but its harder then I thought. Let me just ramble then, Basically if we think defending the blinds is worthwhile from an immediate result, does it net enough profit right there to warrant the negative EV of playing a weak OOP range vs a strong IP PG range. The pot is inflated because of ante's but does this mean we have to be defending much wider, do you think PG would be defending vs ODD this wide? I think the profit we can expect to give up postflop is likely a lot more than what we gain by the preflop defend. I'm likely wrong though (or ODD wouldn't be defending), I think I could be wrong because of how much lower SPR will be on the flop compared to a non ante game, thus drastically reducing the importance of position and dramatically increasing the variance and gamble.
The main reason I have a hard time understanding why to defend this light, is how much I personally value position. Looking at the preflop situation again, we are gaining EV on 1 street, to give up a positional advantage on 3, I just can't justify it. SPR on the flop will be ~13, that still seems quite large. There is a high enough SPR that this hand will likely see 2-3 more rounds of betting, where PG will enjoy the benefits of position.
Do you think we should be folding 100% of our hands? Playing PG oop deep is going to be difficult, but clearly there are SOME hands you think you can play profitably here vs him, or at least lose less than 1 BB which is what folding does. K763ds falls into this top x% of hands we should be playing here.
Hey Sauce. If we c/r flop aren't we worried about future streets if called or is it a simple shut down fold? And if so doesn't that make a float on his part with the intentions to bet any turn we check a profitable play for him, since we prob arent c/r c/ring too often? And if we are check raise check calling some of our range on the turn and river what would that be in order to balance out this play for future hands? Since I'm guessing we would need to incorporate one to make the above play less profitable for him. Also I TRY not to raise for information or to make a hand easier to play in NLHE (rather then relying on my reads) unless it's against a very tough opponent (Phil would obviously qualify) is this true in PLO as well or do you use it more often? OR am I totally wrong about my assumptions and should incorporate this play into my NLHE game when facing a marginal spot oop?? Sorry for the 21 ?s lol
If called then you get play poker :). What's his continuing range? What's the turn card? I'm pretty sure we are not always behind when called on all turns so no we are not always shutting down and checkfolding.
It's not really a raise for information, more like a range merge where you have something between a draw and a strong made hand. In hold'em it's kind of like check raising middle or bottom pair which I think you should do occasionally.
bump for liking ianks post so GT makes a vid with sulsky
99 problems, but having to make a video ain't one!
Obviously leveling retards since 99 is max
this isn't fb no max
soon :)
This thread made me sad. I realize I don't stand a chance vs these kind of minds :(
This tread is excellent opportunity for learning. First time i was reading it, i didn't understand almost anything, but was going over it over and over, until i grasped remotely what it is about, . Few months later, i could read it with understanding. It is a good measure of your progress, and you can try to recreate numbers they did and their thought process to best of your ability from time to time, as excellent exercise that will help you improve.
Revisiting subject occasionally will give you idea of your progress in time. Also, time when you learn poker is slow, but hard work and months and years in end do show :- )
I'm depressed.
Be the first to add a comment