Calling From The Big Blind in PLO
Posted by Tom Coldwell
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 26 Comments...
Your best yet.
that's what I am really curious about thesedays ! Thx a lot Tom :):)
Tom - Would like to know your winrate at 50plo if you dont mind?
Maybe another question you don't want to answer, but I'll try anyways. :) If you're winning at such a high rate and prolly already have played quite some hands at 50plo: How come you haven't moved up yet?
Thanks for the comments guys, glad you enjoyed the video :)
Do you still do the check raise if you blank or just give up?
Could you be more specific - without referring to a situation, I can't answer that.
Tom,
what would you say is a "standard" CC% from the sb and bb...Yes, so much depends on the situation and the different factors involved in the hand (as you explained), but can you say either your %s are, or what you think is a good % that could serve as a guideline number.
P.S. I really hope you make more similar videos where you explain different standard situations from a fundamental perspective. I strongly believe such videos are very beneficial to novice players.
With regards to defending stats, I honestly don't really know what 'standard' is, but I VPIP around 26% from the BB in 100bb games (which works out as about a 32% defence against raises once I filter it down). Obv this varies wildly depending on all the factors mentioned in this vid, but it's a start.
These numbers rise significantly in short-stacked games (I'm VPIPing between >35% in them and defending against in excess of 40% of raises).
I trust that answers your question, although I can't promise these numbers are reflective of a standard as it's just not something I've really thought about quantifying too rigorously because it varies so wildly - I'm much more interested in understanding, and by extension teaching, the thought processes that drive the decisions I'm making.
Hey Tom,
Firstly i want to say: great videa, this is a one part in my game where im still not 100% sure what to do and how often to call in the blinds.
I know you dont like to share your bb/100 but you mentioned that it is >10bb just wondering if this is pure winnings or already with rakeback? I have been playing Zoom PLO 25 for a couple of months and now im finally movong up to PLO 50 and i m pretty interested how much bb/100 would be possible. I thought that 5bb/100 without rakeback is definitely possible.
Any comments or advice is appreciated! Thanks!!!
Glad you enjoyed the video :)
But with regards to winrate, I'm always talking before rakeback 'cas I don't track/give a crap about my rakeback (mainly 'cas I like to buy stupid shit like cuddly sharks with my FPPs much more than I wanna buy money meaning I don't even get rakeback on Stars. Seriously, I'm saving all my FTPs just praying for them to open a store with branded shit I can spew on - I would freakin' kill to be able to buy chipsets etc. with my FTPs :p At least they send me rakeback I suppose).
Advice for other people: DO NOT DO AS I DO (at least if you wanna take poker seriously)!
Nice video and very important concept. Quick question, on the 5566 hand on 38min, what are the reasons not to 3bet?
Basically, when I'm 3-betting I'm looking to increase the amount of money I'm gonna win in a hand either by putting more in as a favourite or by making the hand play out in my favour across future streets (or both obv). In this spot, I didn't think I would achieve either.*
Firstly, we aren't pushing an equity edge here. Our hand is fine, but if the money just goes in here we aren't particularly happy so I certainly can't use that as a justification for 3-betting. It won't be a disaster, but I don't think I'll make money this way.
Moving on to playability, the 3-bet would reduce the SPR which OOP is nice and give me an amount of deception which is also cool. However, deception clearly loses value with very little money to play (they can't make big mistakes) and the short-stacked villain could 4-bet which would gets stacks in and that sucks 'cas I don't think I'm pushing an equity edge.
I'm also not happy getting called 'cas against the deeper player I'm bloated OOP w/ a hand that doesn't flop well that often (and when it does a higher SPR is fine 'cas my hand is strong), whereas the shallower player ensures I can't really bluff my bad flops too well 'cas he's just calling off too much with so little left to play. This massively reduces the value of my deception with regards to picking up pots where I'm behind.
We could also 3-bet to get pots HU/isolate villains - we do this a lot on the button - but acting last here we can't expect to change this from 3-handed to HU so that's kinda irrelevant (also, the hands we make with this are strong enough that we can play them fast 3-handed being only 100bbs deep so aren't that concerned about achieving isolation).
Hope that all makes sense!
*There are also range considerations against some villains - what Phil calls board coverage being the most common - but I would select other hands for this, double-suited ones for starters (although I wouldn't 3-bet 5566ds either).
Hi Tom,
I was re-watching the video and a question come up to my mind that seems somewhat important.
There are a few spots where you c/r on the F, and you explain pretty well what the correct raise sizing thought process should be when a short stack is involved. However, the majority of the time, we'll be in a standard situation where we are HU(sometimes 3-way) and the stacks are ~100bb.
Could you tell how you decide your c/r size in such spots - what factors do you consider? You mention that at low stakes balancing is not really important, so what factors guide your decisions? How much of it depends on our actual hand, the board, and their range, and how much on other factors?
I suppose, this is somewhat general and hard to give specific answer to, but any advice on how to think about this decisions would be appreciated!
Thanks!
When I'm looking to check/raise flops, I think we need to think about the board texture, what we're trying to achieve, what we're representing, what villain's range looks like, and how the turn could impact things. In general, the more dynamic the board, the larger we need to raise - being OOP when most turns are going to change things/villain has many with legitimate equity, we want to charge him a premium to come along.
We will then look to deviate from this strategy once we develop reads - for example, against someone who is hugely stationy on dry boards, I would substantially increase the size of my value-bets on stuff like TT3r to win the maximum from his continuing range. This wouldn't necessarily translate to my bluffs if I thought villain sucked (ie wouldn't notice huge bet-sizing tells) 'cas if he's stationing, I might as well bluff super cheap (if at all) 'cas his continuing range is probably pretty inelastic (ie our bet-size doesn't impact his call/fold decision).
the first hand where you check raise 6T95 on 837...if the turn pairs or comes an ace/two what is your play, and why ?
I'm gonna treat the 2 as a hit 'cas all the made hands in my range are perfectly happy with that complete blank and villain's range isn't improved by it really at all. I would probably have gone slightly bigger than I did in the video - closer to $15 - intending to shove most river cards. This is because my plan when I don't hit here is to represent the made hand and put a ton of pressure on villain's overpairs etc.
On board pairing turns, I will also continue to rep the made hand, but with a smaller bet-size (similar to the one I used in the vid). This is because obviously those times I have it, I am not protecting so I'm trying to induce action and can subsequently bluff cheaper. It also saves me money those times villain happens to have filled up and shoves which is nice (although I'm kind of not expecting this to happen often at all).
For the A, without reads, I would probably check/call. It's a bad card for me 'cas it hits villain's range so I am probably going to simply try and realise my substantial equity. I suppose I could check/jam the A of spades which also brings me a flush draw if I wanted to ever check/raise as a semi-bluff on the A, but I wouldn't hate a check/call there either.
Hope that answers everything :)
Great vid. I would like to see more hand review videos where hero defends his big blind both by flatting and 3betting. But the hands should also include marginal spots like flopping a bare OESD on a 2flush board or top pair weak kicker on Ace/King high boards. I think the big blind oop play is my biggest leak. When calling wider it feels like I have to give up a ton and then I try to get tricky with a marginal hand.... Would love to see some more vids about this topic.
I would think on hand #3, the mistake of incorrectly folding when the board pairs on the turn far outweighs any such gains when you are correct. What are players jamming at these levels? I wouldn't be surprised to see them jamming any 2 pair, most flush draws and/or any wraps. I would expect all of these hands to jam the pot on the turn whether or not they hit or not.
I'm not saying putting it in now is wrong - it clearly isn't given our equity vs. QQ - but I think our ability to save a ton of money on our worst turns (board pairs) whilst losing no profit on all our hits (SPR so low that it's very unlikely he'll fold QQ to a donk-shove and if he does, it's so close that we kinda don't care either way 'cas him not getting his equity in the pot works out similarly well for us, but with less variance which is no bad thing) makes it a beneficial flatting spot once he re-raises given I think I will make almost 0 mistakes OTT.
So are you check folding in on all paired turns? If so, I think that's a possible spot for us to make a mistake. You are correct in that QQ is never folding but by waiting for a safe turn we are also giving them the opportunity to make a correct laydown the times they do hold a worse/dominated draw.
Note: I have only been able to play on Bovada recently so my idea of a 50-PLO player may be a bit skewed from the rest of the population.
If this isn't true on Bovada and people really can have any random flush draw or two pair or w/e in this spot, then those games must be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD and by all means, put it in on the flop. But you aren't doing this to avoid mistakes, you are doing it for straight value!
I know this video is quite old but just watched it on my way through the PLO learning path. Wanted to comment that I found the description preflop in hand example #7 of how stack size/position dynamics will shape how the hand will play out postflop to be extremely valuable. Something I don't give enough weight to in my decision process and IMO something that is far more important than in NLHE. Really useful info, thanks!
Theme seems to be call in the BB with weak holdings, x/raise/GII on the flop as an underdog, and donk away your stack...This video is pretty bad.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.