Blocker play
Posted by Gothicrow
Posted by
Gothicrow
posted in
Low Stakes
Blocker play
BB: $291.90
UTG: $127.00
CO: $108.53
BN: $202.57
Hi everyone, this is my first post on this site. A brief introduction from my self is that I'm a part time player that wants to move up on the stakes as fast as possible, trying a very aggressive bankroll managment, analysing my game as much as playing it and moving up and down on the stakes. Well that's me without to much bla bla bla jejejeje.
This hand is one from my first 200 hands played in PLO100, and I want to take it as an approach of what I should be expecting from this level in general, asking you, what should be my approach on a blank river if opponent would called my turn bet?
How much bet to bluff river to make him fold some 2 pairs or maybe a set?. Does it worth it at this stake, or in general people are in bluff-catching mode?, How much bet when actually I have the str8 to induce him to call with worse hands?, Do we have the need to balance this bet sizes against the 80% of the field?
Just in case I want to say that I play in regular tables, honestly I enjoy that ones more than zoom.
Thank you for the replay. Regards!
Loading 20 Comments...
if villains are reg-(ish) I'd say it's well played.
as for sizing - I do only concentrate on sizing being credible from villain's POV
Hi Jimmy, thanks for the replay.
I had the doubt because as a bluff I would bet something like 65% of the pot, as I don't expect to be called that often by anything, but with the same reasoning, if I would actually valuebet something on a blank river, I would probably bet something like 33% of pot, to induce him to make a crying call. This are very different sizes, but now I guess I'm over thinking this because against unknown players almost doesn´t matter how I would play this specific spot, sooner or later I would have some read to play the hand in a different way, trying to explote an opponent's leak or playing it in a GTO way, depending on his playing style.
I like the donk. The flop has no flush draws and we need to protect against two pairs, pair + gutters + backdoors, sets etc.
Against regs or decent players. The river we need to polarize our range and bet bigger. I'd shove all-in on river to do this. It's either a bluff or the nuts. IF we actually had the nuts, I'd bet half pot vs unknowns. VS. regs, that have seen me bluff like this before, I'd pot it as well with the nuts.
Thanks Mindset, it looks like a good aproach to the river.
Regards
Can we expect him to fold a set of KK or AA OTT ever?
Never. But as long as the board doesn't pair, we can get him off those hands with our polarized river bet.
I dont know if we can imply our fold equity to the next street. Given that -if he has a set- he will fill up 20% of the time OTR and we will have to x/fold. The other 80% of the time, we have to be super confident about our opponent to fold the river.
Plus, we donk lead the flop with 0 EQ when called, just to push trhough a plan which is good in terms of mechanical poker, but in overall strategy, shouldnt we get to the river more "naturally" and then decide to bluff the river when the pot is big enough to be worth it?
Would you be tempted to fold any two pair, sets and pair + gutshots when you see a guy donk into you and bet pot on the river for 50bb? I think everyone would be worried and always have a good fold % of the time.
If we don't donk the flop, he will bet small or check. When we decide to donk the turn, he is 100% calling after our flop check to one bet. Then we bet river, and he will most likely call a second bet. When someone faces 3 streets of pressure, it is a lot harder to actual put them on a hand besides the nuts or top set.
I think if the flop had a flush draw, we could get to the river more "naturally" and then decide to bluff rivers. But this board will be checked on flops and turns very often imo.
What we can do is check/call flop and then donk bet turn and pot it on rivers as well. Maybe that would be better? Less risky for sure and less variance. But will it work as much? Once they check the flop, they know that we know they can't have the nuts and then we can decide to make plays. It puts them in a weird spot but it doesn't sound bad either.
I actually think I prefer the check/call flop and donk turn now.
ch/c flop and donk turn..... to be honest I hadn't considered as a play I would do with the nuts..... interesting.
I think that play makes sense when a FD is present on the flop, or if the flop is rainbow and the turn opens a FD (wich is going to happen almost 3/4 times). But without a FD present, I don't think that would be the best play with the actual nuts. With QJ I would prefer a ch/c flop to try a ch/r turn, or ch/r flop (a small raise, something like 2.5x), or donk flop.
When a FD is present, sure I like now the ch/c flop, donk turn, bet river; and would be a play to make with QJ, AA, KK (for value), blockers and probably some flush draws. I think the calling range from the opponent in the river is going to be wider if we play this way, because on opponent's eyes this play looks weird, so that's why I would widen my value range.
Interesting.....
When there are no flush draw present on the turn. What hands do you expect him to call with? What hands are you expected to value raise? It's even more polarized to nuts or air.
Would you do that with your 2 pair? Pair and gutshots? sets? On such a dry board when you're hand needs little protection.
I think most players would just fold. And if you choose to raise small. It just increases variance and puts you in tough spots on bad turns and rivers.
When there are no flush draw present on the turn, all depends on the oponent. But I think that the line ch/c flop, donk turn seems suspicious because we represent like you said nuts or air (and in my opinion mostly air), so I don't expect opponent raise anything, and he would call with everything but air (and if he is a tricky player, a lot of his range would call turn to probably try a move on the river). That's why that if I decide to run this play I woudn't have a polarize range. Practically I would do it with some bluffs, str8 and some sets, just because I think he would call at least once with almost everything that hits that flop in some way. And I like the play because most of the hands on opponent's range that wouldn't bet turn, could call the turn donk. In this case is almost the same that when we donk flop where opponent could call with everything but complete air at least once, but by donking turn we can potentially win also a cbet.
It's true that with a flop ch/r increases the variance, but I would do that play against people who cbets wide, has a low fold to ch/r, but tends to fold on turn or river once they call on flop. And here the play I think I would do it with something like blockers, something like bottom 2 (because we have practically 0 implied odds if we just call to hit our FH and also I could do a better hand fold on later streets), and str8. Also, if opponent has a high fold to ch/r on flop I practically wouldn't do it with a str8 until he starts to adapt.
About how I would played 2 pair?, well that depends a lot on the opponent, but against an unknown, I think wouldn't do the play we are studying. Probably I would ch/c flop and ch/decide turn.
"but by donking turn we can potentially win also a cbet". Thats a really important consideration, when you think villain c-bets to frequently and mindlessly.
On the flip side; I find it more believable for either playing QJ as a x/raise or a flop lead.
If he c-bets the flop, he isn't bluffing much. He has value so when we donk the turn, he is always calling and we make sure we get an extra bet in to make either play with the nuts or bluffs create more profit.
If we check again, he may just check behind. If we bet out, we are polarizing our range to nuts or air and can make it very difficult for him on rivers.
It really all depends on villains. All these plays sound good against certain villains.
If he has air, why wouldn't he cbet?
You dont bet your 6547 hand here, you just dont.
Why not? That is the only way to win the pot, and it is still hard for opponents to have a hand that can call one or more bets. As long as opponents are not raising or floating here with bluffs, half a pot cbet is probably +EV.
"Thats the only way to win the pot" - one of the worst arguments you can hear everywhere. poker isnt about winning every pot you play or bluff everytime when you can, it is about making (semi-)bets and calls that are highly plus EV. . Especially in PLO, where so many hands connect at the one way or the other with that flop, it is rarely wise to play an auto c-bet strategy
Not auto cbet. But if a bet can win you the pot often enough while checking pretty much gives it away, I don't like to just give up when the board is that good. Yes, it connects to opponents ranges often but rarely good enough to stand some heat. If opponent has just Axxx he would have to fold. Even if someone has 2 pairs, they have to fold on blank turns. With reasonable preflop ranges (if hero is in CO with 7654) SB has TT+ 35% and BB has TT+ 22% of the times. This means neither one has TT+ about 50% of the times. Hard to see that half a pot cbet is horrible here (need to be working 33% of the times).
Disharmonist said: it is about making (semi-)bets and calls that are highly plus EV.
I think that even a marginally and small +EV is better than EV0 decision. Checking is often EV0, cbetting is marginally +EV imo.
The only two pair that opponent is folding would be bottom two pair and maybe not even that. A half pot c-bet, they will always be calling with any two pair hands because of the price you're giving them.
You're saying to c-bet when it is the only way to win the pot. You will be over bluffing and players will start calling you down with just a pair of aces. Not only will you throw away money when they have the nuts, you will throw away money when they don't.
If this flop hits their range hard, a check/fold would be the most EV play. Like Disharmonist said, it's not about winning every pot. Even if you try, imagine the variance in your PLO game.
If you c-bet every time you have no equity, this works if you're running good. But as soon as you start running bad. You WILL lose your bankroll VERY fast.
Hi all.
About make or not a cbet on that type of flops, I think that against most people we should cbet air here. Imagine we are in the CO or BU holding a low roundown, and that str8 broadway flop hits, aren't we happy if he folds something like 689T? TQ99ds? 9955? complete air?, some of those hands maybe call 1 street, but has to fold to second barrel, even something like AK has hard time calling a turn bet on a brick unless they hit a backdoor flush draw. We need to consider that we can discount many strong broadway hands on blind's ranges because usually they would 3bet them preflop. As Kyyberi pointed out, almost half of the time, opponent's wouldn't hit a hand that could stand heat on 2 streets.
Suppose an oponent catch a read on us that we cbet bluff very often this type of boards and he is tired of let us win and starts to adapt by calling wide; that would be great!!! because now we can get at least 2 streets of value with top 2+ on those boards against a wider range.
In Omaha hand's equitites run so close, so an important part of our win rate comes from making others to fold their share of equity in the pot.
Even if we are against an overall nit from the blinds who only 3bet 2% on this spot, we can think on fight this type of boards starting by cbeting sometimes (when we have a str8 blocker, with 2 backdoor FD, etc); sure, he will hit this type of board on single raised pots more often, but a bunch of his hands would fold against a second barrel just because, he is a nit!
We can't blindly cbet, but doing it here most of the time, is a good start to make an overall +EV play.
I honestly don't remember where I read this, but someone wrote somewhere:"Poker isn't a game of cards, it is a game of bets" and it's true!, we should attack the opponent's range on spots that are an overall +EV play; and this is one of those in my opinion.
Regards
Be the first to add a comment