2 Table $10/$20 HU PLO vs ioutplaydara (part 1)
Posted by Phil Galfond
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 14 Comments...
Hey, thanks for vid,
I always here that its bad combos bluffs when you have a miss fd (i make some shortcut but i dont want to spend too much time on it)
You Say as well that it's a bad combo of bluff catch if you have miss fd ...
Isn't there here something not logical ?
If the guy is bluffing w non miss fd, than you should be happy calling w 2 pairs + miss fd right ?
You make a great point, Everest!
In reality, we need to bluff with some missed FDs because they make up a large portion of the bottom of our range - we just give preference to the same hand without a missed flush draw. In many spots, we can run out of bluffs if we exclude all missed FDs or we might end up choosing too many bluffs that are higher EV checks (lower EV bluffs).
So, we prefer to bluff without missed FDs, but we still bluff with enough of them that our range includes plenty. Due to that, we strongly prefer to call without them.
Nice! I enjoy the hu content and look forward to the follow-up.
table 2 24 minutes: What percent of the time do you feel that you are four betting here? I believe that based on a 4-5% four betting range this spot is supposed to be potted 85%+ by IP and that the only high frequency 1/4 pot pets are total air (backdoors such as the T879 $ds) mixed with some small measure of AA:ss for balance. It feels like this hand is supposed to be bet larger on the flop.
I think 4-5% sounds about right for my 4b range. I haven't run this spot through a solver (which I'm assuming is what your frequencies are based on), so I certainly can't argue. I would be surprised if there were a large EV difference between that strategy and ~30% pot with full range on a low paired board like this.
Hello Mr.Galfond.Nice video!I have some questions .
i 'am playing with 47 % postflop agr, 85% flop cbet. limit plo500.and how much percent we must have Cbet% ?
can you explain why this is not correct? and another question, why do you limp weak hands, unless you should not get pre-flop + 2bb
Thanks, sam!
85% flop cbet is definitely too high. There are few boards in PLO where you'll have a very large range advantage after open raising, so putting in money so frequently lets them make more money with their strong hands and their draws against your weak hands.
I would take advantage by check-raising aggressively against you. Bet-folding is more costly in PLO than in NLHE in many cases because you'll so often have decent equity with 4 cards in your hand.
My open limping strategy is one that I've seen some strong players employ and other strong players not. The idea is that I want to play these hands but without creating large pots, especially against aggressive 3-bettors. The most they can raise me is 2bb more, so I don't mind putting the money in that way.
I don't think it's a mistake if you choose not to open limp.
Thx you very much Phil !) waiting for new videos
7642 spot at the end of the video, right table. am i super off here if i want to bet the turn? i mean we have top two on the flop and a gutshot. the argument that it isn´t a good flop for us to bet with our range is certainly right, but to me, the Q on the turn doesn´t change a whole lot and facing another check i think betting for value and protection should be standard here? at least it is for me so far, would love to hear some thoughts!
Definitely not super off!
I glossed over the turn action because I was focused on the other hand, but I think a turn bet would be good. I was expecting him to bet a lot of marginal hands on the turn due to the low connected flop, so I thought he'd fold too often against a bet & I was hoping to induce a river bluff.
Even with that in mind, as you mentioned, getting some protection is nice. I think in hindsight I prefer a bet.
hi like this series. HU is always interesting.
at 30:16, at the river, you comment that villian should have a large sizing rather than a smaller sizing. But isn't it also good to have the same sizing for both good hands and bluffs in some cases depending on how the action went, blockers, board texture.
For example in this hand villian could be bluffing on the river after your action of just check calling, and 3rd pot is often a good sizing to bluff with vs a larger size betting. My point is in some spots this sizing disguises future bluffs.
Of course, can also argue that you can choose a larger sizing for both but some board textures/actions just better with a smaller sizing?
So are you saying that in this particular hand he should both bluff and vbet with a larger sizing?
Also, same hand on turn i agree that his sizing is good. But hypothetically speaking, say you were to have a monster hand like fd and straight draw, would you shove there on the turn? if so, how would you play Villian's hand then?
In this spot, I'm suggesting he use two sizings. Maybe something like 35% pot and 75-100% pot.
I think his hand in particular makes a ton of sense for the larger range because he blocks Tx (which may call a smaller bet) and unblocks Ax, which is likely to call a larger bet. He also unblocks draws, but he's not going to get value from draws regardless of his bet size.
In other words, I think his hand should go in the range that is targetting Ax.
We've still got a lot of money behind, but I would often raise a strong draw on that turn if I'd checked it, which I sometimes would.
He would be in an ugly spot against a pot-sized raise. I'd fold if put in his shoes because he's either wayyyy behind or slightly ahead, and there aren't any rivers that make him a hand worth raising.
ty phil
Phil the right hand table at minute 8 you're analyzing it as 3 bet pot but we limped and he raised we called pre.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.