4 Table $3/$6 6-Max PLO (part 4)
Posted by Raphael Cerpedes
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 7 Comments...
Hi Raphael, thanks for the video.
2:30 QJT6 on 554: You say you would be more inclined to cbet vs a weaker player than a stronger player in this spot, but my logic would actually have been the opposite: A weaker player is more likely to check trips on this board since they are less likely to develop a donking range in spots where they have a range advantage (and the BB has more 5x and 44 than we do, whether it's a weaker player or not). Therefore I'd be more likely to check back vs. a weaker player, since after they check they likely still have all their trips combos (though I'd prob check back here vs. most players in general). Am I missing something?
barely anybody good is leading there with any sort of reasonable frequency
many other things matter rather than just the amount of nutted combos in your range. how do you plan to have a balanced checking range when you have an equity disadvantage on the flop and start developing a leading range? big blind has more 4x yes, but he also has a ton more air.
I'm pretty sure in most spots where one player has a more nutted and polarized range, they should be betting some hands, despite potentially having an equity disadvantage. Balancing that betting range and a checking range is a different question.
@oblioo:
1. Your logic definitely seems flawed here. You are basically saying "this is a good board for BB so he will lead so often that whenever he checks he doesn't have anything and I can just c-bet 100% or close to it".
Now, how favorable that board is, and especially what kind of leading strategy BB wants to have here is very much up for debate. One property that this leading range should almost certainly have, though, is that if you assume a "good" MP c-betting frequency should be fairly low versus an auto-check from BB, any "reasonable" leading strategy from BB should not allow allow MP to dramatically increase his c-betting frequency whenever BB checks.
2.The reason why I will c-bet 100% for a small size as a default vs weaker players but much less frequently vs regulars, both assuming no other information on the player, has actually nothing to do with my assumptions about whatever leading strategy they may or may not employ. I just think weaker players will underbluff and overfold on 554r after defending the BB, and by a significant margin. That will also allow me to comfortably bet overpairs for at least the first 2 streets without fearing getting raised much. Against regulars, I think 554r is a bad board for my MP opening range with very few hands capable of going 3-streets but lots of hands that would like to go to showdown for 1 bet or 2 but definitely not for 3. Also, overpairs do not gain much protection from hands that fold to a c-bet; and unpaired high card hands often improve to the winning hand by seeing a free turn card. So I will have a low betting frequency as a default.
I did not say that at all; in fact I mentioned in my original comment that I would usually check back this board vs. regulars as well. All I was implying is that there are most likely a few more 5x combos in a weaker player's checking range than a strong player's checking range (again not saying good players will lead all 5x combos, but I assume they should lead some).
This makes sense, thank you.
I think the problem of your argument comes from you using terms like "more/less 5x combos" in an absolute sense when it only matters in a relative sense.
Let simplify for the sake of argument and say BB has x% strong combos and y% weak combos. If his leading range is x% strong and y% weak, when he checks he has less strong combos from a combinatorics point of view but his range composition is still the same, x% strong and y% weak.
Obviously that is a big simplification and it is very unlikely that an optimal leading range leaves relative range strengths unchanged.
So it still seems to me that, when you say MP should c-bet more often vs somebody that has a leading range (a regular, as opposed to the weaker player who does not), you indirectly imply that said leading range was skewed toward value. And the more you can increase your betting frequency the more skewed the leading range was.
@Assad91:
I do not really agree with you. It sure seems the game is moving towards more and more regulars developing leading ranges on low paired boards, or any board with 3 cards 9 and lower really.
I also am very confident having an equity disadvantage does not necessarily prevent you from having a leading range on any board where you still flop lots of strong combos relative to your opponent.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.