3 Table $5/$10 6-Max Zoom PLO (part 2)
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...
"all the stronger" sounds right to me
thanks for all the videos phil. sometimes i wonder if video makers are holding back on their thoughts, but when i watch your videos i never get that impression. as the game evolves and regs pick up different "trends" in the plo games it's cool to hear your thoughts on them (for example bet sizing things).
I get the impression people hold stuff back to. In reality, it's probably just that Phil is better at relating the underlying concepts that he's employing in hands. Some people can play at an elite level and be subpar teachers. I've watched a few on here where people say "I'm going to bet xxx" or "I'm going to call here" but don't explain it (when it isn't an obvious spot). It's pretty disappointing tbh...especially in PLO videos where there are more variables than NLHE.
Thanks, guys.
Lots of players perfect their games off the table, but I do most of my learning while playing. So, when you see me make a live video, that's me trying to figure the game and my opponents out further.
Even with pre-recorded footage, I'm thinking of new ideas for strategies as I'm watching the footage, and you usually just get my stream of conciousness. I'm definitely not holding anything back!
Hey Phil, at 44:53, with your AAQ5, what were your reasons for c/f the turn (and not leading turn) with top set blocker and nut flush draw blocker.
Hey omg :)
Good question. I think a lead there would be fine. I wasn't expecting to face a pot-sized bet, and was probably going to call had he bet something like 60% pot.
I think we end up getting called a lot, and we have very few outs to improve our hand to a value betting one on the river, which means we'll have some reverse implied odds, especially being OOP.
That said, yeah, we take down the pot sometimes and we do have a good amount of equity when called. A bet would be fine.
Phil - why do you pot raise on button? You used to min raise
These days, people don't fold their BB to steals almost ever.
In the past, a 2.2x raise may have caused most BBs to fold over 1/3 of the time (longer ago, over half the time!), so I would raise a very wide range on the button for preflop fold equity.
Now that no one is folding, we are no longer raising to steal. In a very simplified view, we are raising to get them to put their money in behind (and OOP). So, we want to start with a tighter range and we want to charge them the maximum (since many are willing to pay it with 80-95% of their range).
So what's your button raising range now? Around 55%?
Depends on the game (mostly the BB). Against tough competition I think I'm around 50%.
Hey, Phil. Enjoying the video, as usual, though I've not quite made it through yet.
6:39, top left, vs. 29:44, top right. In the former you turn the nut flush heads up after check-calling flop, in the latter you turn the second nut flush with a set redraw after the flop checks through three handed, and you're oop in both spots.
You say you don't have a leading range on these kinds of turns in the first hand, and that makes sense. And clearly, if you do have a leading range in the second example, your hand is one of the absolute best to include. Slam dunk, well played, super excited to lead that hand.
My question, as is probably obvious by now, is why you have a leading range in the second multiway situation if not in the heads up spot. Thoughts:
1) you don't need to defend as much, but you also need to defend with stronger hands;
2) you're more free to c/r turn vs. btn but not nearly so much vs. bb (can't bb probably pot-pot an awful lot after you check turn?);
3) while bb can have ~everything (we can exclude a chunk of (particularly nut) flushes that would squeeze pre), btn probably has a lot of giveups but can have some delay cbs, say KTs8x.
Basically I think the initiative has kind of shifted to the bb when the flop checks through, and it would make sense for you to be checking a lot in the sb - not necessarily 100%, but if not 100%, then it's not clear to me why your frequency should be different than it is in the first spot - especially if btn isn't defending a ton after missing cb (not a trivial assumption).
In sum, I think this should in theory be a situation where we're pretty concerned with sb defense, and maybe concerned enough to not lead even this hand. Again, if we do lead, this hand is a great choice, but the two situations seem so similar that I'd think that not leading the second is an option that merits some consideration. Why lead one and not the other?
phil are u beating this level?
Yes
yea u show them the thug side of phil!
hi Phil at min 25:00 you state that J875 plays better as a check then bet on T74o. Can you explain why? I think you a) push equity against his range and b) I dont think you want to give free cards in these spots... on the other hand it is nice to cb some oesd / double gutters to protect the cb range, and maybe having a pair in our hand is better as we get to sd more often as if we had a naked oesd. Im curious why you think the hand plays BETTER as a check than a bet.
2) 27: 30 you cf KTh43 on AKThh, is that your default or an exploit vs the player's tendency? I tend to peal one of here...
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.