4 Table $50/$100 HU PLO vs Jungleman (part 3)

Posted by

You’re watching:

4 Table $50/$100 HU PLO vs Jungleman (part 3)

user avatar

Phil Galfond

Elite Pro

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Duration -:-
Remaining Time 0:00
  • descriptions off, selected

Resume Video

Start from Beginning

Watch Video

Replay Video

10

You’re watching:

4 Table $50/$100 HU PLO vs Jungleman (part 3)

user avatar

Phil Galfond

POSTED Jan 16, 2017

Phil continues to break down his high stakes PLO match against Jungleman.

9 Comments

Loading 9 Comments...

Thallo 8 years, 2 months ago

Hey Phil,

More generic question here but one I think is relevant giving the timing of this video and the lack of more recent heads up footage. You mention a few very specific spots over the course of the three videos where your past sizing differentiates from what you would currently choose (example the 234 board last video), would you mind elaborating a little bit on some more generic situations that we could watch out for that your current HUPLO bet sizing differentiates from Past Phil? After making this video have you noticed any macro situations where either your philosophy on sizing has changed or the meta has dictated change?

P.S. To answer your question, your tangents this video were particularly strong. If after your weaker tangents you balance your range with days like this, I don't think any of us mind the frequency with which they occur.

Phil Galfond 8 years, 1 month ago

Thanks, Thallo! Glad to here that my rambling was welcome.

If I have to generalize about sizings, I think that I spent a long time betting 2/3-3/4 pot just out of habit. I actually believe that I still bet smaller than would be optimal in a lot of situations, but I'm getting closer. I believe I'm finding the theoretical reasons to stray from my default sizings more and more often.

I've said this in the past, but I think you should be careful when changing sizings from what you're used to, because it changes the stack:pot ratios that you'll see, along with how opponents will play against you. They will continue with different ranges than you're used to, so your intuition will be off.

I'm a player who relies heavily on intuition and experience (at least in terms of players now - I used to consider myself more analytical than most but the game has changed), so it's especially relevant for me. For players with a more technical approach, it likely wouldn't be much of a problem.

jonna102 8 years, 2 months ago

Hey Phil, nice video as always!

There was a hand that caught my attention. 4:45 Bottom left table, a limped pot where SB calls down with 93 on a straight board runout. You said the calldown was too wide, and it's not immediately obvious to me that it is. I'll present my thinking, maybe you (or someone else) can suggest where my assumptions might be off.

Preflop I'm giving you both 100%!$FI50. I have no reads to say whether that is accurate or not, but it seems reasonable and I'm not sure that it influences turn and river decisions all that much in this case.

On the flop, I'm assuming you don't have too much of a leading range, and that Jungleman checks back middling hands.

On the turn, I'm assuming you bet straights, sets, 98, flush draws with nothing (your actual hand could be a x/c if it was only slightly stronger?), and some hopeless hands (though you do seem reluctant to bet no-equity hands, so I'm not sure). This gives you a 30% betting range on the turn. I'm assuming you prefer to x/c flush draws that are a bit stronger, and bluff with weaker ones. Jungleman continues with 73+, flush draws and open enders. This has him calling around 60%. I'm not giving him much of a raising range. He does have some hands that could raise, but he probably needs them for the river. His actual hand is in the top 30% of his turn starting range, so I'm assuming the turn call is super standard.

This gives the following equity distribution for the river.

Someone suggested to me that you would be value betting 65+ on the river. This is in some sense a worst case scenario for him, but you also have the opportunity to overbluff in that case. If he thinks that you don't underbluff, then 93 must be a call as far as I can tell. Similarly, your actual hand is a clear bluff just based on where it is in your range, and it has very little to do with blockers.

If you also start value betting sets and maybe some two pair, then his blockers are actually somewhat relevant (33 being your most frequent set as far as I can tell). So his hand may very well still end up being a fairly clear call, unless he thinks you're underbluffing.

However, given how much stronger you end up on the river, I think you get to bet both wider and larger (as played, the river bet was 80% pot). He can have traps, but not enough to discourage you from that adjustment I think. I think you get to bet larger on the turn as well, fwiw, though that would depend a lot on how you construct your betting range.

Limped pots can be tricky, when ranges end up being less defined. I'm sure my assumptions can be way off. For example, you may not bet hopeless hands on the turn, and end up with too few bluffs on the river and his hand could become a snap fold. I also don't know much about the players in this hand aside from what I can derive from videos. From what I can tell, his calldown is marginal, but quite reasonable and something I'd expect a good player to be capable of. I'll be curious to know what others think.

Here's the PJ file for reference.

midori 8 years, 2 months ago

Just looked over the ranges you assigned, and I disagree with some of your assumptions:

a) SB will and should have a raising range on the turn, not sure what you meant by "he needs them on the river"

b) BB's turn betting range might be a bit wider than the one you assigned him

Of course you can say these go hand in hand -- if BB bets only 30% on the turn, SB doesn't need a raising range (although I still think he does need one), etc. But after SB checked back the flop, I think BB can get away with betting a bit more often.

On the river his calldown is either good or bad depending on his perceived turn raising range. If he flats all or most strong hands ott like you said, BB has less merits for value betting thin and bluffing a lot. And he will have enough strong hands to vbet on this river. His actual hand is very likely still a bluff because of its low SDV, but I suspect he might be underbluffing in overall. In that case the calldown with 93 seems a bit thin.

If SB raises the top of his range (and some bluff) ott, SB now has an easy thin vbet (most of which still beat 93) otr and, because of that, he might once again be underbluffing.

Either way, the turn ranges you assigned him seem to have worked in BB's favour.

Another thing worth mentioning is the river card. Intuitively BB seems to have more Ax preflop and slightly more on this river too, given the action. It's a small difference but still can add up when ranges are narrowed down.

-- midori

jonna102 8 years, 2 months ago

Hey midori, thanks for your comments. You make some fair points, let me give you my thoughts.

Either way, the turn ranges you assigned him seem to have worked in BB's favour.

Yes, I did set up the ranges conservatively, but loosely based on how Phil likes to play in videos. I may or may not have got it right, and we may never know. Fwiw, the ranges I set up do not necessarily represent what I think best play would be in this situation, neither do I think it's anywhere close to what equilibria might look like, though the actual hands might actually be played like this. (since Phil referred to "GTO play" in the video)

SB will and should have a raising range on the turn, not sure what you meant by "he needs them on the river"

I suspect Phil might be a bit careful with betting middling hands against someone as good as Jungleman. And Phil has a lot of middling hands on the turn. I assumed that Jungleman might be aware of this, and would tighten his turn raising range as a result. In my games, I would certainly bet this turn much more frequently myself, but I don't play for $10k stacks against Jungleman either.

Here's what I mean with "needs them on the river":

The picture may be a bit hard to see, but even with the current ranges, Jungleman is in pretty bad shape on most rivers. If he introduced a raising range on the turn, his river range when calling would be quite a bit weaker, and he would (should) just get destroyed on rivers. It's possible that he's already in such bad shape that giving him a raising range on the turn can't actually hurt him any more on the river. I did not calculate that situation, but that was my thinking.

Would you like to set up some alternative flop/turn ranges for comparison? Maybe even pre-flop, if you think that makes a difference.

jdstl 8 years, 1 month ago

I don't mean to derail the thread, but how would you guys rate PJ overall compared to other analytical tools for PLO?

jonna102 8 years, 1 month ago

I personally rate it highly, and use it for all the PLO Fundamentals courses. If you're asking for a comparison though, then please name the other tools that you're thinking of.

Phil Galfond 8 years, 1 month ago

Thank you very much for the well thought out questions, Jonna, and thank you for the well thought out response, Midori!

I am a bit surprised to see that this hand is as high up as it is in his range, even on this brick river.

I think it's important to note that his hand contains zero blockers to my value range unless I add sets.

He also doesn't block my bluffs too much. The 3 very slightly does and the 4h does as well.

So, I don't think the blockers are great for a call, but it's likely the case that he's just too high up in his range, even after taking blockers into account, to want to fold this hand.

The main thing I will take away from this is that I was overestimating the strength of his range in comparison to mine. The fact that he will have hands like T8/T9/96/95 (and I basically won't) has a pretty large effect on brick rivers. His range becomes so much weaker than mine when no draws come in.

With this large a range advantage and the more polarized range, I can capture a huge % of the pot.

FWIW, I am unlikely to bet hopeless hands on the turn unless they contain a couple of blockers, but that shouldn't matter too much in terms of him deciding which hands he should call the river with (if we assume I have the right bluffing frequency).

midori 8 years, 1 month ago

Traveling now so I'll reply slow in general, but I'll post some thoughts in a few hours. Although Phil covered pretty much all of it and I have only so much to add.

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy