PLO brilliant or sucker move
Posted by gael67
Posted by
gael67
posted in
High Stakes
PLO brilliant or sucker move
Deep stack, 3 players see the flop, Paired flop e.g. (994) rainbows, player 1 bet, one fold, player 2 raise with xx44 or
94xx. Player 1 call and check in the dark before the turn is dealt. Turn
5 or 6,7,8,T, J, Q, K, A. Player 2 did not improve. Now what action for player
2: check and give a free card or bet and risk a raise? What about player 1
move (checking in the dark): brilliant or sucker move?
Loading 7 Comments...
Player 2 should bet for value/protection on most every card depending on opponent (there are some villains who you may know are weighted towards AA/KK after bet/calling and therefore should probably check back against on those cards) with the intention of probably folding to a raise unless Player 1 is known to do weird shit.
As for Player 1 checking dark can't be brilliant because it reduces his options and there's no reason he can't check his entire range on every turn after it's dealt anyways. People think checking dark is brilliant 'cas Hellmuth does it but it doesn't really gain you anything strategically so I'm against it (except I guess if you're playing live against some fish who reacts retardedly to it which is probably what Hellmuth's going for 'cas he's pretty good w/ live reads).
Brilliant or sucker move? Neither. Checking in the dark is another way of saying you have no leading range, which is a legitimate strategic option in lots of spots. I don't see much reason to let your opponent know that's your strategy though.
People do love to check in the dark though. For most I think they just like to say something that sounds kind of suave and have a moment in the spotlight.
yeah this isn't either a brilliant or a sucker move. and if they are deep stacked betting turn and folding to major action is certainly fine.
more importantly, I wouldn't be raising 44 on the flop, and would be very reluctant to raise 94 if I didn't have other overs to improve to a higher boat. These are important hands to protect the weaker made part of your range as well as your floats, and when you raise you often fold out opponents bluffs or hands drawing to two outs.
I think raising underboats without outs to improve when deep stacked without a good understanding of the opponent is likely the sucker move.
If we have over-cards, we should be fine with check-calling to protect and maybe improve and have a check-raising range in later streets.
On the other hand, when you don't have over-cards, check-raising right now on the flop will get the most money in while we are far ahead of our opponent's range, which we might not be able to get if an over card drops on the turn.
By playing these hands slowly, especially on the flop, we can save money when we're behind and protect our calling range (as we'll have some nutted hands on blank turns). Protecting ourselves with nutted hands with the potential to improve is a bad idea because we risk missing out on stacking a villain if we're freerolling him and a scary turn (for him) comes.
wiit -
Tom basically covered the most important point, but the problem is that when we raise the flop villain isn't going to just stack off super deep with bare AA or KK. We're isolating the strong part of his range and folding out his thin value bets and all of his bluffs. Look at this flop 944 rainbow. Are there any draws out there? nope. So when villain bets we can basically construct his range like this:
a) over pairs (AAxx - QQxx)
b) trips (of which many will have outs to make a bigger full house against us)
c) full house (99xx against which we're drawing dead or 94xx against which we're likely being reverse freerolled)
d) air (some kind of bluff like JT9x, or AKQx, or 8765 that has bd draws)
if we raise the flop villain is likely folding most all of d) and most of a) and continuing with b) and c). If we were relatively short and could get the money in on the flop that would be ok since we're still doing decent against a range of trips and full houses. But we're deep, and we have no outs to improve. Meaning every card in the deck higher than a 9 causes us to slow down. Sure some cards are less likely (ie villain is more likely to have A4xx than J4xx) but it doesn't change the fact that if we bet and get raised on a later street we suddenly don't like our hand so much.
but if we call the flop villain is going to keep betting most of his range on the turn and we get to make another street of value of his overpairs (that would have folded), his air (that would have folded), his worse trips (that we would still have gotten value from), and save money the times we're drawing dead or being reverse free rolled.
Plus there are going to be times when we have AA or KK on this flop and want to be able to call to avoid getting bluffed on such a dry flop. Or maybe we want to occasionally be able to float a player that continuation bets too much so that we can represent the trips and take it away on the turn. If we always raise the top of our range in these spots villains are correctly going to realize that we can't stand much pressure on the turn. Suddenly we're going to find ourselves facing lots of second barrels with weak holdings feeling like we're getting run over. But when we start calling some of these flops people start slowing down against us, which allows us to realize equity with a larger portion of our range, and prevents us from having imbalanced weak ranges that are correctly exploited by over bluffing.
hope that helps.
Thanks for the explanation Tom. It's probably calculable at what SPR we wouldn't want to put in a 4th bet against a 6 outer.
themightyjim,thanks for the detailed analysis, the ranges and potential futures
scenarios really gave me a better understanding of the situation and
thought process. btw, the board is actually 994, so 94 would never be
drawing dead, I don't know how much the different boards affected your
reasoning but it seems to focus a lot on mistakes from both players
which aren't really quantifiable and avoidable by creating a balanced
strategy.
Be the first to add a comment