Exploitative Play: 2 Table $.50/$1 6-Max Zoom PLO
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 36 Comments...
first of all, great vid..
on minute 20:42, you prefer not raising the 667Tdd on 8794sscc, while saying that raising doesn't make a lot of sense.. don't you think we have value from 2P+fd/fd+Tx/dbl fd for a raise here to be profitable? obviously he does have JTxx in his range but that would probably 3b that turn given the board texture and let us easily fold, and I doubt all of his other hands mentioned (and a lot more) would 3b our turn raise and will just flat.
thoughts?
Thanks, man! And good question.
If there were just 1 flush draw on the board, I'd be less concerned about raise-folding. Since there are two, I'd just hate for him to shove a set+fd or a double flushdraw, or some other random hand that I'm not expecting. I think it's enough of a possibility to pass up the protection and the bit of value that I get by raising turn.
yess awesome video: nice explanations, nice speed.
@ 3:40 you auto fold 3588 on a K57 rainbow flop. I would always call here, because I can easily rep 86 or 89 when the straight hits,(and maybe try to rep the king, if a 2nd K comes) and often win at showdown when 5, 3, 8 hit. Since he raises pre and we block 8's, he is unlikely to have the hands we want to rep(minus the K).
Would love to hear if you think this is a leak and why
In my opinion it is too fancy. You end up overthinking a situation that is really a very straightforward fold. If your opponent understands your thought process, then perhaps there would be some merit to your play. But you have no guarantee that he does, and even if he does he may still not believe you.
What ends up happening is that you're basically drawing to a spot where maybe you get to bluff. But you're doing so with a hand that pretty much can't win at showdown ever. This is a very risky plan at best, and I would think that the risk outweighs the cost by a fair margin in this case.
@Jonna. Tnx for reply. I agree that this line makes much more sense against a reg. how understands what you are rep.
My problem is that it seem to easy for our opponents to open light from cut-off or button, and cont. bet if we don't play back on boards like this with blockers.
I think we have enough legitimate hands to continue with that can bluff later. We don't want to add a lot of blocker-draws as jonna said.
Keep in mind that, sure, two 8s is better than one 8 for a straight blocker, but we can still use some other single blocker hands to bluff with later when we call with something legit and end up at the bottom of our range.
Durian defends T652 to a pot CO raise in BB. Phil begrudgingly defends KJ65 to a pot raise from BU. Is this purely a rake issue?
No. I believe it's a divergence/disagreement in strategy. I fall closer to Phil's strategy for some reasons I've posted in Durians vids.
Zach is right. Divergence in strategy. I do think that T652 is actually not much worse than KJ65 though - perhaps as good or better in some situations, since your equity with T652 is more concentrated. You get a ton of playability on the 43x boards which you don't get on any boards with KJ65 (unless you have trips or top two or a made straight).
just wanted to say I thought some of the general thought processes that were brought up in this video were really valuable, and it's an elite worthy contribution for essential watchers (I've watched most of Phil's video's either elite or essential). I'm not suggesting that Phil lowers the bar for his content in essential videos, more that this particular video would be valuable for lots of elite members like myself that sometimes don't make time for the essential videos.
very nice work Phil.
Thanks, Jim.
After I recorded this, I thought it was one of the strongest essential videos I'd made. Glad to hear that you agree, and yeah, I think many higher stakes guys will still benefit from discussing exploitative play. At 25/50+ I don't get to do as much of it, but it's still a very important part of the game.
Nice video, it's good to see content on the lower stake games - as you pointed out at the end there are important differences in the strategy required to beat them compared to the 200PLO level and above. Of course the leap between .5/1 and 1/2 isn't going to be massive, but videos made at 100PLO are definitely useful for people like myself starting out at the 25PLO/50PLO levels just below.
At what level would you say it becomes important to always be cognisant of balance, e.g. constructing a range for each play that you make, as opposed to simply playing hands in isolation in the way you think will maximise value? I am a relative PLO noob - I moved across from NL MTTs as my main game where at low stakes balance is practically a non-issue due to the size of the playerpool. As a consequence, most of my poker thought process centres around ranging my opponent and I find it difficult to think about my own hand in terms of a range, especially at the table in real time.
At 25PLO/50PLO there will of course be many regs and some of them will be very good players who think about the game, but with the size of the Zoom pool at these stakes will they really be paying attention to and exploiting my imbalances, or just focusing on volume and exploiting the player pool as a whole? I have definitely adopted the aforementioned tighter strategy until my postflop game becomes better, although at 17/12/5 I think I may still be a little too much of a nit! :)
.........that's ubernitty.
17/12/5 is definitely too tight :)
It's good to start tight though, as you get used to the game. The guys at smaller stakes are drastically under-defending blinds and under-3betting though, so you can get pretty bananas with CO/BTN/SB steals, using a small sizing. This shoots your VPIP/PFR up quite a bit and I think it's hard to mess up. I'd suggest you start by opening your BTN much much wider, and only fold weak hands when there's a strong reg in the blinds.
I suspect that up until 500PLO zoom, you won't run into the same people often enough to make you want to be very balanced. Even if there are a lot of regs at 100 and 200PLO, they have so many players to worry about that they won't have the chance to catch on to your patterns for a long, long time.
That said, it's only better to play unbalance if you pick the right spots for the right reasons, so I'd suggest you don't throw balance completely out of your mind. It's a good place to start and it keeps your game less leaky.
GL!
Favourite quote: 'on the 2 and the 7 i make a straight so some of my bluff outs go away, not that it's bad to have real outs' LOL
What do you think you could beat 100 plo for, given the large rake.
If I gave you an answer, it would be completely made up. I'm sorry, but I don't have a good idea. How many bb/100 does a LAG player typically get raked at 100plo?
Phil, please continue making vids like this. It gives incredible insight in your thought proces.
q: At 18:53 you bet the 4 of clubs. I think you were representing a made str8 there? Would you have bet a heart as well?
Thanks, Penny! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I am repping the straight here, or a rare set + fd maybe. I could also bet 2pr this way for protection, as he should have very few straights in his preflop range. I don't think I'd be betting a heart with none in my hand, but it wouldn't be the worst play, especially for a smaller sizing - to target his dry overpairs.
If he called the turn, I would definitely not bet a heart river, as I think too much of his range would be made up of overpair+fd. (I realize this wasn't your question, but oh well)
best thing about this video: Phils Note on himself "cool". LOL
That's not a note! It's my color label description :)
yeah i thought it was a glitch or something :p
Hi Phil,
At around 47:00~ you talk about an interesting concept:
"if they're gonna bet the river with a polarized range, it lets them leverage the value portion of their range. the luxury of betting with a polarized range does add value; it adds ev to you. whereas the player who is not doing the betting and is doing the bluffcatching against that polarized range loses some value, in terms of their relative equities against each other."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a polarized range being able to 'leverage its value portion.' My guess is you're saying that the polarized range is almost always going to contain the full extent of its value portions, whereas the bluff portions may or may not be less represented, which makes it hard for the bluffcatching range to know how often to call. (I dunno if I'm anywhere near the ballpark with this interpretation.) Also, does the polarized range's ability to choose the bet sizing have anything to do with it?
In any case I'd love a video about this concept. I greatly enjoy all your concept videos!
Phil - Thank you so much for doing a two tabling video. For those of us who are still students of the game there is a lot more value in understanding what you are doing on two tables rather than quickly trying to just keep up with more. I am so excited to see you back teaching. You are my hero for how you represent the game.
Hey Phil great video. Two table format allows for a lot of more in depth discussion than videos with more tables I think.
At ~51 minute mark on the right table you call a 3bet out of position and flop a nut flush draw on an Ace high board. You check call and turn the nuts and you lead out. If you're the 3bettor in that spot what would you do with AA? Call turn and fold unimproved river?
Hey Phil, min 29:20 u foldet A3dK8c from utg on table 2. Is this a standard fold for u? And u foldet it because it doesnt connect so good?
It's really good vid Phill like always.
I want to ask why you folding AK83ss from UTG (29:19 on right table)? Is it terrible to open with that hand from UTG?
very good video.
i appreciate the time you take to stop and explain things. and the fact that you show us tools you use and do some math.
very good "speed", not boring and fast flow with enough hands covered but everything you say is relevant.
thank you. please more like this also from other coaches.
so far im not liking many vids other than from the master.
"Hey Phil, min 29:20 u foldet A3dK8c from utg on table 2. Is this a standard fold for u? And u foldet it because it doesnt connect so good?"
I was thinking this too. Seems that UTG+1 you opened a lot worse. This seems to me a good hand in these levels, making nut flush vs lower flush often enough. You said that preflop is tricky and depends on a lot of things but would like to hear your comment on this. Thanks for a great video, finally got to watch it!
The above interested me to.
Hello Phil,
Another vote to get the above question (and already asked a month ago by another member) answered :)
Hey guys! AK83ds is definitely too weak for a UTG open in almost all game-types. It plays poorly against 3-bets and it plays relatively poorly multiway (which there's a good chance of when all 5 players are left to act), since it relies on hitting flushes (or two pair). Two pair with this hand won't do well in multiway pots (AKx and we rarely get a lot of action, A8x and we often get beat by higher two pair by the river if a lot of money goes in) and flushes don't get paid off very well in a multiway pot.
Connectivity is extremely important in PLO, and while AK83ds is a high equity hand (HU vs a random hand), it has much less playability than you may think.
Thanks for your answer Phil. I was always in doubt about this hand whether to play it or not when dealt in the early positions. Thanks for ligthening up the fold.
Hi new to the site. I understand why most videos are two or four tables. But do to the speed of Zoom Poker, have you ever tried just one table for an educational video?
Hey Phil,
first of all, I love your videos. There is so much knowledge in each of them, that the 10$/month already pay back with each of your videos.
In this video I didn't understand, what you were saying about betting to not get bluffed on the river (starting at 46:34). Could you or someone else explain to me, what you are saying at 46:46? Maybe it is just, because my English is to bad, but I don't understand, what you are meaning by "It lets some leverage to the value portion of their range". Would be great to get an explaination of this.
Thanks a lot for all the great videos ;)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.