3 Table $1/$2 6-Max Zoom PLO
Posted by Stefan Legat
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 34 Comments...
Nice content. I really like how you talk about your whole range in most spots. I also like the "3 tabling + 1 hand history table" format. From my point of view there is definitely no need to cut talking.
I have some questions.
What is your criteria for calling 3bets in position? I saw you defend with KQ92ss (37:00) and talking about an easy defend vs SB's 3bet with KJ65ss (51:30). So it seems you just need a 3 card hand (max 2 gaps) or two connected hold'em hands...
35:35 Would you fold QJ63ss to a ps open from MP? When deciding what hands to defend from BB do you just consider the open raise size or do you also think about range domination, e.g. having reverse implied odds when calling weak Axxx hands vs tight opens.
47:40 Rundown J864ds you said it is a standard open. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit in your next video. I would be interested to hear what is your opinion on gap structures and ds vs ss.
Thanks for you questions and feedback, really appreciate it!
I think it would be easier to tell you my criteria for folding to a 3bet. Generally I try to fold vs 3bets, especially in stealing spots, as little as I can. Reason beeing that I will be HU IP and I´m getting 2:1 on my call. Also I will be able to steal/float a decent amount if the board comes low/connected or if I flop some kind of blockers. And if I hit 2 pair+ I will often be able to get it in against an overpair with very good equity. Plus I won´t encurage my opponents to 3bet me more because I am folding a lot preflop.
I´d generally be more inclined to fold if:
My hand is really bad, like unconnected low to medium pairs, or very unconnected rainbow or 3flush hands.
Stacks are shallow.
The 3betters Range is very tight and my hand is likely dominated, like mediocre high pairs or weak Axxx hands.
I´m OOP.
The QJ63 I think I would hav folded agains a ps open and still called against 3x.
When I decide in spots like that whether to call or not, for me the most important factor is the pot odds. I just feel like I am able to win the pot often enough(which is not very often), even against a tight range with a marginal hand(which of course should have some kind of playability). If i feel that my opponent may be on the weaker side postflop I´d inclined to defend even more hands.
Where to draw the line exactly is impossible to say for me I think this is a spot similar to preflop open raises, where with the time you just get the feeling if it´s a plus ev play or not. Generally I just want you to be aware of you great pot odds you often get in game these days where people tend to open on the smaller side.
Another way to look at it maybe is that your opponent most certainy will be happy if everyone folds after he made a small open and not so much if he gets called by the BB even if he knows that the BB has a wide range.
17:00 (top right) - Sizing valuebet with boat
More or less any draw we could have had has hit. We probably don't have anything without at least some SD value here. Let's say that we want to use one size at the river, whether we are valuebetting or bluffing.
One way to look at it is that since we really don't have bluffs (as in, total air), we have incentive to valuebet small, rarely bluff, and hope he calls a lot. This is consistent with not having a lot of bluffs (we give Villain good pot odds, because we are mostly valuebetting). When he has good incentive to call, our few bluffs are targeting his very weakest hands.
Another way to look at it would be to say "ok, since I don't have any air to bluff with, I should turn more of my weak SD value into bluffs so that I can bet big anyway". Now Villain is getting worse odds, so he should call less. Our bluffs are then targeting his air + showdowable hands similar to the ones we've turned into bluffs. Hands he might have called a small bet with, but not a big one.
Is this consistent with how you are thinking about these sizing decisions in general? Or you do think about them differently?
Could you say a little about how you would think, if you had to choose just one size for your betting range (valuebets and bluffs) on this river?
Hey ZenFish,
The way you broke down the hand is consistent with the way I would think about it. I´m glad you asked about that hand because now when I think about it I feel like a smaller sizing with my whole range would generally better. I think I might have chosen the big sizing in that particular spot because I´ve just c/r against this opponent and I felt like the bigger bet would make it more likely that he levels himself into a call. Also if he folds I find that the big river bet against his somewhat cappet range could make him feel gotten run over a bit more or at least rise some suspicion about me bluffing in that spot with could be good in case i get involved with him again.
On more thing I want to add is that I think on this limit it is best to have a flexible sizing based on which opponent you play against to try to be maximum exploitive, as long as you make sure youre staying one level ahead of your opponents (at least most of the time).
I stopped the video after oponent 3bet you on the flop, and started to think, what I would like to do with my range. I have similar approach to theese boards. I like to x raise a lot, but I don't like to do it with overpairs +FD beacuse it can easily call 2 streets. Even If I would find myself with that kind of hand I can't imagine myself bluffing the river with A,K or Q high flush draw. You said you wan't to call on the flop beacause it's hard to represent bluff by 4betting, but you can't have blufs in you range if you call. I know regulars on these stakes, and no one is bluffing any second barrel later in the hand. Fish could do it. You never folding your hand later, so if you just call, you give your oponent chance to draw with 788x 799x etc. (which I consider nice 3betting hand in his shoes btw) and sometimes double pairs (I don't think it's good to 3bet them, but I saw regulars 3betting my frequent xraises with it). So there is big chance your oponent have 10% (sometimes more) equity in a hand, and you always give him two streets for free. If he improves to full house he will take your stack. So you have very big reverse implied odds.
So my idea is to click back on the flop, and do it with some overpairs (he should fold with air, maybe call with double pairs, but at least you earn some $ more than by calling ). Or you can also start to call his 3bet with some over pairs, but I think it could sometimes be very frustrating when you misread something later in a hand. I have only problem with deciding what to do with bare 4 which I like to xraise in this spot. I'm not sure, but I think that clickbacking may still be the best option with them.
What do you think about it?
47min: AsKT8 on K55ss
Villains raising range is probably very narrow, K5+, and if he is not a total nitbot I think he will have a lot of medium pocket pairs plus weak flush draws in his range so I would have called at least once here. Also I disagree that he would've raised with a NFD in this spot as its too good a hand to float IMO.
55min: AK98
I have made peels like that a lot and I feel that against a random we are up against a boat way too often to do anything else besides folding.
17min: Also agree with ZenFish on the sizing. Against decent+ players its important to bet small with your whole range when we cant have air. (I also would've preferred a CiB vs a call in this spot)
Nice video(s) overall.
Hey Pingviini,
thx for you comment,
The AKT8 I think youre right with all you said about that hand, but I just felt that he´s a total nitbot beeing very thight preflop, having an low AF, having a low raise vs cbets and having a high WTS, just diden´t see him raise as a semibluff there. Still i got to admit that "easy fold" is an overstatment in any case and when one is playing very explitive he/she of course is risking to be exploited badly.
AK98, did you mean straight or trips maybe?
AK98 meant a flopped set.
Liked the format a lot and I thought you narrated well.
Sorry for this wall of text I'm about to post, but there were a lot of interesting spots.
3:30 Table 2.
You call a btn open from bb with KdKT4r and x/r a cbet on JJ2 2tone stating it's a board you'll x/r bluff a lot and your OK with merging your range here.
If your x/r'ing this hand, what types of hands are in your x/ca range(assuming you have one). Also, what types of hands work best as x/r bluffs on this texture? There aren't many hands that retain their equity well as we narrow villain's range over multiple streets aside from stuff like QQ,KK. I just find it interesting that it's a board you x/r bluff a lot on, but there aren't many hands that I'd consider great candidates to x/r bluff + barrel on JJ2 2-tone compared to a flop like 772 2tone where we'll have a lot of 88-JJ or hands with more back doors that will work well.
Around 1:00- table 1
CO opens to 7, folds to your BB you fold AsTc9c4d. Around 5:05 Table 3- Nit MP opens 3x, folds to your BB you defend KdQd9d4c.
Vs a CO opening range of 30%, AT94cc has 44% equity. Getting 2-1 pre, you'd need to realize 75% of your hands equity to profit.
VS a MP opening range of 20%(this exact villain is probably tighter), KQ94ddd has 38%. Your getting 2.25-1, so you need to realize 81% of our equity to call pre.
Are you just peeling vs nit b/c a) his range is fairly well defined and b) he's going to give up pots more frequently than most? If this is the case, it seems like you should be defending very very wide vs him (70%+?). If not, I'm curious why AT94 was a fold but KQ94 is a call.
Table 2 18:30
You min open btn w/ KKQ2ccc, BB calls. You c-bet 45% pot on A66dd.
Obviously the reasoning you gave to bet in the video is fine for betting in a vacuum, but I'm curious about how this hand plays best in theory.
Are you just c-betting range on this flop with these positions or are you mixing it in a check back range. It seems like btn v bb, you can't c-bet range here in theory b/c you just have too many bluffs. You also have this pretty significant KK-99 portion of your range that probably does a bit better by checking back(or at least KK,QQ,JJ-99[A-Q], so developing a healthy ch back range is probably optimal. My question is (in theory) do you think KKq2ccc is a c-bet or ch back?
24:00 Table 1.
You call UTG open + BTN flat from BB with Th9c8h6h, flop Qh6d3h ch UTG ch btn bets you call utg calls. Turn Jd, you check, UTG leads, BTN folds, you fold.
Really sick fold here. I ran a sim and gave villain a pretty balanced range for taking this line and we do have ~46% equity vs my assigned range. However, he has a better flushdraw than us 55% of the time (after card removal) and as you stated none of our outs are to the nuts. Props for that fold, at first I thought you were crazy but it looks really good.
54:30 Table 1
You open MP Ac3c9s5s BTN ca. You cbet AsQsQc.
Are you just c-betting range on this texture or are you building a x/ca range here for your weak Ax/KK-JJ combos? This hand just seems like a nice one to x/ca with in particular, though I suppose with this texture being one he can rarely raise you on it seems OK to just bet everything and expecting to rarely get blown off of your equity.
hey jd,
thanks for your kind words and your questions.
The c/r with the KKxx is an explotive play in a sense that I dont expect to get bluff 3bet almost ever.
If I played that spot in a game/against an opponent where I felt I that I need a balanced c/c range I´d include pocket pairs (below and above J), flushdraws, and mabe some AKT2 type hands with a backdoor FD.
I think flushdraws work very well to c/r bluff but you could go even weaker exploitively with only some backdoors/overcards and be prepared to give up a lot on the turn since you expect to get a ton of folds on the flop from his weak range.
KQ94 vs AT94:
I like how you broke down the math on this one. I still feel that the KQ94 is plus ev and the AT94 is not. What I like about the KQ94 is the tight opponent which might bring some good bluffing opportunities. The opponent of the AT94 seems more agressive and also the fact that he is raising pot leads me to belive that it will be much harder to win without making a hand.
KKQ2
I think theres no "best play" for that spot. Whether bet or check is better depends on your overall style and on your opponent´s tendencies.
A953
On a borad like this, especially hu oop, I like to cbet close to my range (maybe with some air that I c/f against a very aggressive/sticky opponent). I don´t feel like I need a c/c range on a board like this especially after opening in mp.
"The c/r with the KKxx is an explotive play in a sense that I dont expect to get bluff 3bet almost ever.
If I played that spot in a game/against an opponent where I felt I that I need a balanced c/c range I´d include pocket pairs (below and above J), flushdraws, and mabe some AKT2 type hands with a backdoor FD.
I think flushdraws work very well to c/r bluff but you could go even weaker exploitively with only some backdoors/overcards and be prepared to give up a lot on the turn since you expect to get a ton of folds on the flop from his weak range."
I've taken a similar strategy to this, and what I've found by x/r'ing mediocre flushdraws or hands like 88**, is that when I improve on the turn, I'm almost forced to go into showdown/bluff catch mode now that I've narrowed their range on the flop. When you get into this scenario, is the correct strategy it just a function of their flop calling range and playing as close to perfect vs that as possible? For instance I x/r KTdd92 and the turn is the 8d. This is a spot where my hand can't get 2 streets vs villain's now narrowed range, yet I'm fairly high up in my own range, so there's this push-pull going on of "His range has been narrowed too much so I can't bet/bet for value, but if I check and face a bet, this hand is fairly high up in my range. If I'm folding here, I'm probably opening myself up to floats."
Preflop I gave villain 17%.
Flop I gave him this x/ca range: ((2NFD>-(PR>, GD>), 3NFD<+(GD, OE, PR), TP-(2NFD>, OE>), ({AKQ*}25)-(3NFD>, 2PR>), QQ**+NFD)-2PR>))
That's second-nut-flush-draw or better minus (pair+, gut shot+), 3rd nfd or worse+(gutter, OESD, PR), top pair minus (K high FD or better, open ender or better), a couple AKQ* combos, and top set+nut flush draw.
On the turn:(T2P>, ((PFD+WR, TFD+WR)-(-MP>))
I simply had him leading a range he was always going with, namely QJ+, hearts+wrap, or diamonds+wrap.
Vs his turn range, we have 39.6%, so clearly we can't jam.
I guess the next step is to break down his range on various rivers, assume he bets them balanced and with the right frequencies, and see how we do overall. I'll save that for another day though, my brain is fried. So far Stefan's fold is looking pretty solid.
very good analisys. In the hand I wasn´t aware of how much equity I got even against a very strong range. So maybe just c/c the turn and be prepared to still fold a lot when we make our hand hoping that hes not bluff very much is best?
Exploitatively, I expect villain to play worse than GTO against us on our hits, but our lack of nut draw equity certainly hurts us.
When you break down ranges like you did, I think it is also interesting to look at an 'Equity Breakdown' for the river. I think it's a good intuitive way of getting a feel for how much equity we can realize on hits, without doing more tedious analysis.
When you do the equity break down, can you just average your equity on the various subsets of rivers.
For example find our average equity on:
non-board pairing hearts (Ah,Kh,9h,7h,5h,4h,3h,2h)
non-heart straight completing (K,T,9,8)o
board pairing hearts Jh
bricks (everything else) seem fairly obvious.
I was thinking it would be cool to look at villain's range on each of these river subsets and see how often he can bet a balanced range and make us indifferent, and then check back everything else and we'll expect to win the pot some % of the time. Is that a reasonable approach? I don't mind doing the analysis as long as I'm approaching it correctly.
I´m not sure thb if this is 100% correct way to do it, but it looks good. Would be very interested in the result.
First off, I assumed villain would play as close to optimally as possible, meaning his ranges will have as close to the right value:bluff ratio as I could get and we'll just always fold when we hold a bluff catcher and he shoves.
Secondly, there were a couple rivers, namely the Kc,Ks,Tc,Ts,9s that at first I had thought leading would be better, but after looking at villain's range and doing some sims, we should still be check/folding on these. The reason being villain's range contains <2% air on those rivers and ~26.5% of his range will be nut or 2nd nut straights. If we lead, he needs to call with 52% of his range to defend optimally. So, ~51% of his calling range will be better hands, ~1.6% will chop, and the rest will lose. So, since A) our hand won't be called by worse >50% of the time, and B) I assumed villain won't turn hands like AJQ* into a bluff, OR value jam worse(sets in particular) on these rivers, so his jamming range will be far to value heavy. Given that, check/folding will be >>leading. In fact, even if we give him the best QJ combos to turn into a bluff, namely AAQJ,QJTT,QJ99, he still won't come close to being balanced. So, on these rivers we're check/folding this combo.
Thirdly, four other river cards that posed a somewhat difficult decision were 8c,8s,6c,6s. On the 8's, villain's range contains ~7.5% straights, ~14.5% bluffs, and ~78% 2pr/sets. I compared the EV to check/calling vs open shoving ourselves, and open shoving was better by 32.66bb. It's also nice to be able to have an open shoving range on this river, so we can jam a few bluff combos with it. It seems like a reasonable strategy on these straight completing rivers is to open shove our nut combos, along with some % bluffs, and check/fold everything else(because his range contains virtually no air and we're going with the assumption he won't turn enough made hands into bluffs to make our decision close). So, on 8s,8c we'll be open shoving this combo. I'd like to point out on the 8o rivers, we need a x/ca range, but on K,T,9 we don't.
On the 6c,6s, I had villain jamming a range of KK+ (23.2%) and 11.3% bluffs, giving him a total jamming frequency of 35%. We'll obviously be calling here since he's value shoving enough worse combos, coupled with bluffs. I don't think it makes sense for us to be leading this river since A) neither of our ranges contain many 6x combos, B) his range contains a good number of bluffs or worse value that may play differently vs a lead, and C) our range is technically capped where as his is not, or less capped than ours so fundamentally, leading seems like a poor strategy.
Every other river became a fairly easy check/fold, either due to the fact that I assumed villain would play optimally, or more likely, he just wouldn't be showing up with enough bluffs to making us indifferent.
I'll briefly post the math below. I used the stack size method to do all of the EV work as it's fairly simplistic and as the equations get more lengthy it makes the numbers a bit easier to work with.
Stacks on turn if we check/fold=181.
EV(Ah,Kh,9h) (3/44 rivers)
Villain jams 17% of the time and we always fold and end with a 135$ stack. 83% he checks back and we always end with (current river stack+river pot)=(135+147)=$282
EV=.17*(135)+.83(282)
EV=22.95+234.06
EV=273.3 - 181(turn starting stack)
EV=+76.01
EV(7h,5h,4h,2h) (4/44 rivers)
Villain jams 27.9%, checks back 72.1%
EV=.279*(135)+.721*(282)
EV=37.67+203.3
EV=240.86-181
EV=+60
EV(Kd,Td,9d) (3/44 rivers)
Villain jams 29% checks back 71%. When he checks back, 16% we lose, 84% we win.
EV=.29(135)+.71[.16(135)+.84(282)]
EV=39.15+183.52
EV=222.67-181
EV=+41.67
EV(8d) (1/44 Rivers)
Villain jams 38.6%, checks back 61.4% I assumed he's jamming any flush and the right number of bluffs, and checking back all others. We have so few chops that I decided to not include them and assume when he checks back we always win.
EV=.386(136)+.614(282)
EV=52.11+173
EV=225.25-181
EV=+44.25
EV(8c,8s) (2/44 rivers)
We decide to lead this river and assume he calls down enough to make us indifferent. He has to call with 52% of his range. So 48% he folds, 52% he calls. Of that 52%, 14.3% he calls and chops, 85.7% he calls and loses.
EV=.48(282)+.52[(.143(208.5)+.857(417)]
EV=135.36+201.34
EV=336.7-181
EV=+155.7
EV(Kc,Ks,Tc,Ts,9s) (5/44 rivers)
Villain jams 29.5% and we always fold. He checks back 70.5% and we always win.
EV=.295(135)+.715(282)
EV=39.83+198.8
EV=238.63-181
EV=+57.63
EV(6s,6c) (2/44 rivers)
Villain checks river 65.2% and we always win. Villain jams river 34.8%, 23.2% value, and 11.6% bluffs. We call. Of that, 70.7% of his value beats us, 29.3% we win.
EV=.652(282)+.348[(.707)(0)+.293(417)]
EV=183.86+42.52
EV=226.38-181
EV=+45.38
EV(all other rivers) (24/44)
We check and lose regardless of the action.
EV=(-turn call)
EV=-46
Putting it all together.
EV=(3/44)(76.01)+(4/44)(60)+(3/44)(41.67)+(1/44)(44.25)+(2/44)(155.7)+(5/44)(57.63)+(2/44)(45.38)+(24/44)(-46)
EV=(.068)(76.01)+(.09)(60)+(.068)(41.67)+(.022)(44.25)+(.045)(155.7)+(.114)(57.63)+(.045)(45.38)+(.545)(-46)
EV=5.17+5.4+2.83+.097+7+6.57+2.04+(-25.07)
EV= +$4.04 so slightly over 2bb.
So, assuming my math is correct, a turn ch/ca makes +2bb relative to ch/f.
If you guys do find any mistakes, feel free to correct me, but show work. My brain is mush after this so I won't be in the mood to re-do my math a few days.
nice! looks solid, only in one szenario you made it 29% jams vs 81% c/b.
nice video Stefan!
i like the format with playing 3 tables + 1 replayer.
I'de prefer to see more hands tho and a little less strategy about the hands. We got this comments/ forum where u can explain specific hands more detailed if needed.
interesting how a highstakes/nosebleed player plays 1/2.
defending with that K733 seems super wild to me. you have to c/f so many boards... but well
keep it up!
hey xaxa,
good point with the forum so I may be able to speed it up just a little bit.
The K733 defenetly on the wild side but the ladies love it so I´m willing to give up a little ev there =)
unbuwoha,
valid point, but wouldnt you say that you could get boared watching a video if theres a lot of explaination going on about things you already know?
For example when watching one of Phil Galfond's vids for the umpteenth time I don't get bored when he is talking about stuff I already know. P.G. asked in his essential vids whether he should cut the time he is talking about a single hand. What would your answer be?
I feel youre totally right about that slightly changing details about a hand and also talking about villains decisions is a very good way to go about it so that it´s a lot of content and still not boring.
And my answer would be no ofc =)
Hi, nice video.
I want to ask about K974ds hadn on table 2. U said this type of ply will not 3bet you bluff on those boards. I mean if thats the point and you don't have to take care about balancing that much so why you x/r a hand that strong which blocks a lot of hands that he can continue ?
Looks like he is stilling <30% from the BU which is vveeeeeery low . So he is not connected with this board so when we start to x/r so strong hands it feels like we lose value. I don't know how often this guy can barrel this board but it seems like a board when u can add so strong hands to your x/c range and x/r more naked 4x.
sry nvm missuderstand your thought process :P
About this spot. In KKxx hand u x/r JJ2ss u said this guy will almost never 3bet bluff you, so why u say that on the river in 744ssQs3x his range is mostly air ?? Tbh i think in this board i prefer shoving flop cuz vs his air i think we'll not get to much value ott cuz this kind of players takes one shot and give up a lot after calling(our flat even with this timing looks strong). If he has 4x its the best time to get value on the flop and u said before he will not 3bet bluff you on the flop(even with this history i dont think his range is much more air heavy) so vs especially this sizing i like shoving and calling vs very small sizing.
And i haaaaaate your sizing. I mean there is no single hand u want to bluff otr with this sizing. Flush and str8 gets there so there like maybe feq hands in your range you want to bluff. Most of your range is made hands so this sizing for me is transparent that u have FH in this spot always. Yeah maybe u can level himself that u have a lot of hands that want to go smaller in this spot(flushes, some 4x, maybe str8) and by betting bigger u try to get value this way. But like i said there almost no bluffs in your range so this sizing is bad for your overall range cuz i think u will not get called as often as u want.
hey,
plz tell me the time of the hand your talking about.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.