PLO100 range play on turn
Posted by jonna102
Posted by
jonna102
posted in
Low Stakes
PLO100 range play on turn
BN: $100
SB: $110.45
BB: $121.53 (Hero)
UTG: $253.56
HJ: $56.28
CO: $204.64
SB: $110.45
BB: $121.53 (Hero)
UTG: $253.56
HJ: $56.28
CO: $204.64
I thought I might try out posting a hand history, to see how it works. Not a very tricky spot really, given my actual hand. However, I'm a bit curious about range plays, and then it becomes perhaps slightly more interesting.
I'm a bit new to these games on stars, don't really have any significant reads on most players. Except the button, who is playing a positional TAG style, raising, isolating and 3-betting very aggressively on the button. Seems like a decent player. Names have been hidden to protect innocent nit offenders and such.
I'm a bit new to these games on stars, don't really have any significant reads on most players. Except the button, who is playing a positional TAG style, raising, isolating and 3-betting very aggressively on the button. Seems like a decent player. Names have been hidden to protect innocent nit offenders and such.
Preflop
($1.50)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
A
K
T
Q
UTG folds, HJ calls $1, CO folds, BN raises to $3, SB folds, Hero raises to $10.50, HJ folds, BN calls $7.50
UTG folds, HJ calls $1, CO folds, BN raises to $3, SB folds, Hero raises to $10.50, HJ folds, BN calls $7.50
Preflop is standard, not too much to say. I'll generally be 3-betting a strong range in this spot, marginal hands tend to play better by just calling. Although I don't really know what my opponents assume.
Flop
($23.50)
2
K
J
(2 Players)
Hero bets $18.50,
BN calls $18.50
Flop pretty standard too, I'll probably bet this flop with most of my range as most of it hits this board, and in this case calling off a raise. Nothing too difficult here. I'm assuming the button calls pretty wide here, pair+gutter, 2P+, flush draws. However, I also expect a decent number of folds given the assumption that he probably isolates light in this spot.
Turn
($60.50)
2
K
J
T
(2 Players)
Turn is probably the best card in the deck for my particular hand. Here I have some questions, mostly regarding range play. SPR is 1.2, somewhat awkward for all hands that aren't the nuts.
* Given the buttons wide peeling range on the flop, what's the best way to get stacks in against his weaker hands?
* With naked AAxx here, is a blocker bluff bet going to be profitable?
* Other hands, say two pair, NFD or sets, betting is a bit awkward since they all have to call off a raise. Check-calling is awkward for similar reasons, although possibly with less money going in bad in that case. And when I have the nuts I don't want to give free cards, so I unless I'm folding I think I usually have to bet here. (given limited reads)
* Given the buttons wide peeling range on the flop, what's the best way to get stacks in against his weaker hands?
* With naked AAxx here, is a blocker bluff bet going to be profitable?
* Other hands, say two pair, NFD or sets, betting is a bit awkward since they all have to call off a raise. Check-calling is awkward for similar reasons, although possibly with less money going in bad in that case. And when I have the nuts I don't want to give free cards, so I unless I'm folding I think I usually have to bet here. (given limited reads)
I removed the results because they aren't really relevant. I wouldn't have minded to remove my actual hand also, but it is as it is.
Loading 9 Comments...
It is a pretty awkward spot. While your opponent will have a few hands that are weak enough to fold to a small bet, I think that potting full range (with the rare check/trap) is best here.
There's just not enough room to do much else. If the board were rainbow, MAYBE we could get away with betting 37% pot or something.
The options to choose from would be:
1. Continue to bet everything, but varying sizing, Different sizing for different types of hands (with an appropriate mix of weak and strong hands for each bet size so that Villain could not exploit the information he receives when we're no longer potting everything).
2. Have a checking range
Even if you could improve a bit by using these options, it might not be worth it at this stack/pot-ratio. There's something to be said for keeping things simple when playing out of position. If you have an immediately profitable option that eliminates any mistakes you might otherwise make, it's probably best to take it.
Follow up Q: Which of these options should kick in first when the stacks get a bit deeper?
I'm intuitively thinking Option 1 when we have a clear range advantage (which allows us to bet a lot). For example, we could bluff small with what little air we have, balanced with some very strong hands, and pot-call the rest. Would that make sense as the first adjustment, or would it be better to use uniform sizing + use a checking range (which would be a more complicated strategy)?
With deeper stacks it gets more interesting. I'm glad you asked ZenFish.
When 2 < SPR <= 4 on the turn, I like to still be betting. That just usually seems to work out best, both in terms of fold equity and in terms of value. The pots where he folds or I have the nuts probably make up for the times when I get it in slightly bad with a draw or ... hmmm fold out equity. With these stack depths it does get a bit awkward those times when I have 25-40% equity against the nuts and he shoves. It probably makes sense to have two bet sizes in this spot.
When the SPR is > 4 stack leverage comes more into play, and I like to have a nice healthy check-raising range in that case. Sets, NFD+stuff, nuts and possibly the occasional blocker bluff would all be good there imo. More so against the auto floaters obviously. Against passive players I still think betting will be best, and instead considering 3-barrel bluffs with some hands. I won't be able to bluff shove in that case, but will be able to put in a nice big river bet. These plays obviously need to be balanced to some extent, but no need to overdo it at these stakes really.
With regard to bet sizing, I tend to use board texture as a guide, bigger bets on dynamic turn cards, smaller bets on static turn cards. This seems to work quite well with higher SPR's.
This is all still assuming a tight 3-bet range preflop. If I had a wider 3-betting range I think I'd also like to increase the checking range even with smaller SPR. Not sure how that would work out. At these stakes it tends to work out best to usually have it, and mostly play strong ranges when pots get big.
As to what to do with AA blockers in this spot, I'd bet the turn again and leave enough leverage for a river bet provided the flush doesn't come in. Naturally this is opponent dependent, but I think as a default play this is my standard line. He expects your OOP 3 betting range to be AA heavy and there's no reason not to discourage him to find a fold.
I think... in spots like that I usually try to set myself up for a river PSB shove. That's like the GTO play in spots like that. It doesn't really work out so well in this case. It's my experience that blocker bluffs really don't work out as well as I'd like when I bet smaller. With naked AA I'd almost be inclined to c/f the turn given this stack depth.
That's what I actually did in this hand also. Expecting folds a lot, but this time he got it in with the smaller straight, drawing nearly dead (he had 2P to go with it). So that's a nice result. It puts him in a sticky spot with that particular hand, and with many others, so there must be merit to the play.
Do you think his flop sizing is optimal here on this texture with his range @ 100bb's? It seems to me that if the flop smacks our range much harder than our opponents, we should size accordingly which in this case makes me think a flop bet of around 60% pot, sizing for 3 streets, seems better than betting 80% pot and looking to go two streets(If we do think 80% is optimal and going 2 streets is optimal, then why aren't we just potting flop/ shoving turn with SPR of ~4?)
I don't quite see the logic of that. It seems like it would lose us a fair bit of value with no real benefit. Better then to have a wide enough range so there is some uncertainty in the opponent's mind whether we are actually strong there or not. I sometimes like to check-raise this board after 3betting from the blinds, but the same logic applies there. Checking probably gives up some value in the general case.
Essentially, this is a heavy board that should hit many ranges in 3-bet pots. That's why I want to bet large here, and I will bet large on this board regardless of my hand, and regardless of whether I'm calling or folding to a raise. It's certainly possible to have two bet sizes on this board. You can also consider betting smaller in 3-bet pots in general, but I think that's overcomplicating things for PLO100.
A textbook nlhe example is when btn opens we 3b bb and he calls and the flop is K83r or A83r. This is a spot where our range is inherently stronger than the preflop caller's, and because of that we size smaller with our entire 3bet range both to get value from worse or induce a float the times we connect hard w/ the flop, and at the same time to give us a better price on our bluffs and keep their flop calling range wider vs our barrels.
In PLO there is definitely more merit to protecting our equity, but I feel like when we start to take a macroscopic view of our entire range and overall strategy on certain flops, sizing around the 60-70% mark, and setting up opportunities for 3 barrels just seems to make so much sense. I personally have noticed that when I try to bet larger for protection and get a call, there are spots that come up on future streets that I feel like negate that extra couple bb's of protection were trying to get on the flop, usually as a result of a bad card for our range falling and an awkward stack size to maneuver.
Be the first to add a comment