$25/$50 HU 250bb Deep Ante PLO Vs Ravenswood13 (part 4)
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 22 Comments...
18:20 Left table.
I think if this hand went down like you described, this is a clear call. However, you assumed that you were leading in this hand.
Villain limped the button, and you raised from the bb, so you were c betting. (I guess it is still leading but you know what I mean)
Considering this, I would fold the river because it is much more likely he has hands that contain 23.
Btw... If you were commenting on this hand to me in person, and I caught this then, I wouldn't have stopped you from one of your "rants", as they are always so spot on and informative. ;)
Ahhh, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. That's what I get for making assumptions given the pot size.
I agree... he's much more likely to have 23 hands, and his flop raising range is not quite as tight (polarized) as I'd expect it to be if I'd led into him.
04:35 the very common spot where you 3b with KQT8, flop zilch and make a small cbet on the nut board for your range. I'm just thinking that it looks like a good spot for him to float with air given you will occasionally but usually won't double barrell turns. You will give him credit for at least Ax and his float doesn't need to work much.
Was thinking the same thing. To be sticky there with a $400 float must be pretty good in his spot?
It's definitely an interesting situation because I am giving him a good price against my wide betting range.
This is a spot that becomes very opponent-specific and you really need to stay on top of adjustments if you're going to play it like I do (rather than have a more balanced approach).
The problem with floating is that Ax doesn't usually bet the turn when checked to. So, when he floats and bets, he's repping trips+, and he won't have it that often. He also is in an awkward spot with floats if I 1/3 pot the turn (which I've used as a very effective strategy against opponents who float).
You're right though, his float doesn't need to work too frequently. If I don't turn a backdoor draw (and don't have Ax+), he can successfully steal the pot pretty often on future streets. I think people don't float enough in this spot which is why I can get away with the strategy I employ here.
07:10 The KT99 call on JT3,J,Q. I agree that you can make a tight fold I just don't think its as exploitable as you might think. In fact its likely not exploitable, its just that his range dominates yours given the runout once you removed most boats by checking turn and he has very little to bluff with on Q river.
You need 31.3% equity to call river.
The range below is probably considerably wider than his actual betting range and its still a fold. The simmed range has every KQ combo betting, has a float of 3456, and has every T3 combo bluffing. As you mentioned KQ will most often check.
If you use KQ only betting half the time by (33,tt,jt,j3,t3,k9,ak,jj)@100,kq@50 you drop to 25% equity.
Thanks for looking into this spot. The numbers are surprising to me. I wonder how much of a difference it makes when we start to add a fraction of KK and AT**. You also left out (maybe I did too) Q9, Q83ddcc.
phil,
you need a 30hr day and an 8th day of the week between saturday and sunday
Tell me about it.
@17min, AK83hhss on 5h4hKdJdAc you lead/call raise/ x x turn. Sure, you can't rep QT, but neither can he. You'll have random garbage like QhTh7c6c that you decide to lead with on the flop once in a blue moon too. He has soooo many Axhh combos imo that hit a worse hand on the river and you have so many possible wraps and missed hearts.
I'm pretty scared of A32 tbh. And even 32, esp Ah32xr.
Good points, as usual. I still feel like he can have far more random QT hands that I can.
That said, I probably am overreacting to the fear of him raising the river. You're absolutely right that he has a ton of worse 2pr hands and I have enough missed draws to VB AK in this spot.
I'm totally wrong. Looked at a sim and he should have a straight kind of a lot here, probably close to 20%. Given stacks, check/call looks like the play!
I wish we were less honest people so we could just delete this conversation :)
27:20 with the 6789 on Q4538
It seems like a spot where it will be hard for us to have many bluffs since he has so many combos of the nuts himself and we won't have that many good blocker hands like you said. Based on that, is there merit to making a smaller river raise, maybe even just a minraise? It basically accomplishes the same thing as allin in terms of folding out his bluffs but is a lot more likely to get a crying call from a worse straight.
The more I think about this, the more I agree with you. I started to write a response disagreeing and realized I couldn't :)
His value range is so narrow that risking a lot to make him fold is, well, risky. We could run the exact numbers, but I'd expect that without 66 or 77 in our hand, we run into the nuts at a frequency high enough to make min-raising a better option.
We'll just have to make sure to have a very value heavy range given the price we are laying him.
Was going to make same point as djk on river check raise sizing. It solves the problem of finding more hands to turn into bluffs given our c/c turn line up till the river.
Considering that our range almost never contains 66 or 77 here as a turn c/c due to the reasons you pointed out, and I'd expect him to play his double blockers exactly like this, how much of a concern do you think we should have to fear a river bluff 3bet from those blockers if we c/min raise the river?
We should have no fear because if thats the sizing we use for a bluff its also the sizing we use for value and given the pot odds we are laying we are bluffing seldom thus we encourage him to 3bet bluff our c/min raise river range.
I mostly play NL so I may be off on this, but in NL your reasoning makes sense as hand combinations are so much fewer overall and thus in specific spots that when our value range is narrow and we give our opponent great odds we almost lower his appropriate bluffing frequency to zero as we are so value based.
In PLO as we drive up significantly the combinations of possible holdings doesn't this problem actually merit some concern? The majority of my concern stems from our preflop ranges lining up where 66 and 77 as blockers factor much more frequently into his holdings than say if the blockers were JJ and QQ we were trying to represent, though this probably just drives down significantly our c/r bluffing range on the river to begin with so I might just be writing a circular argument haha.
He shouldn't 3-bet bluff the river since our value range for c/r is strictly 67-straight.
There are times he doesnt have enough SD value to beat our bluffing range so he might need to raise.
As Zachary said, its a fairly common occurrence given that he is foregoing his SD value and using his blockers to bluff that he will make the same decision again a non-insignificant amount of the time and given the polarization of our c/r range we may come into a situation where we are losing far more than the risk we are trying to mitigate in the first place by not c/shoving.
22:43 left table - Phil says the Q of clubs blocker is less relevant because he'll be checking back Q-high flushes.
Could anyone address the larger question of when (if?) it becomes viable to start merging in these monotone flop situations (i.e. - Raven betting Q-high, J-high, T-high flushes)?
The problem is you get pushed off a lot of equity if you get played back against on the flop and future streets, but isn't there value here against a particularly sticky opponent?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.