$25/$50 PLO: Disagreeing w/ Past Phil
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 15 Comments...
Hey Phil, great breakdowns!
min 20: AdTs7d3s. I am curious what you think of villains turns checking range. If I was in villains shoes i would bet here very wide and quite merged,and to have 2 sizes makes most sense to me. One hand class that doesn't really fit in either a small- or a big betting range is a hand like SD+PP(88-JJ,=/>Qx), so hands like TT47,Q899 or 9957. Also, i think once villain checks the turn the field is vastly over check-folding, if i would be in your shoes I would be stabbing quite liberal.
Im wondering what you think about these thoughts.
Thanks, GPFTW, and great points!
I agree that the field is over check-folding, but I think you and I are included in that field :)
If you're betting wide and merged, that leaves your checking range very air-heavy.
Since we realize we're overfolding after checking, we can know that we are deviating from optimal strategy - I can't imagine a solver would overfold a spot like this. This means that we're supposed to be doing some more checking, and the hand category you listed seems like the best candidate to make sure to include in the checking range. We should probably also do a little bit of check-raising and more check-calling with 2 pair & similar strength hands.
Hey Phil,
Another superb video as usual..! As I've mentioned in your past videos I really like that you have a full ring game in the mix, when I play live PLO it's always full ring and it's very difficult to get to heads up flops. So I really appreciate getting to hear your analysis in these multiway pots. I want to point out that at 20:42 the player that bet pot on the river against you on the river on Q4568 is the same player that put his stack in on the turn on the bottom left table with two pair, not having top pair, and no redraw. This would imply to me that he's not a very good player and has a very shallow value range. Given this I think it might be possible that he's even value betting Q8 or 23 on this river spot, his range may not purely just contain air and 8/9 high straights. Also on the top right table on the A22TJ board you mention that it's possible our opponent has slow played AA but is it also possible that he has a single ace that he wanted to show down but because of our river bet he now thinks he's behind and has decided to turn his top pair into a bluff? Anyways just a few thoughts I had on the video, I really enjoyed watching you play..!
Best Regards,
Emal
Thanks, Emal! I agree about the A22JT board - I think my fold there was probably too tight.
With the Q4568 board, it's pretty rare that a player pots 'for value' with a hand worse than mine. That said, I also think this was a close one and I kind of wish I called. Past Phil is a nit!
I enjoy the 4+ tabling videos you make, the 40 minute length is nice, although I would probably watch 1 1/2 hours.
Your discussion around 12:50 @ bottom right table was my favorite part of the video.
What do you think about his pot sized bet at the 15min mark with jack deuce? Dont you think it will be hard to mix in bluffs with that sizing?
Thanks, mesmart! Really glad you enjoyed it. More on the way!
mr_burrito23 I think a lot of people struggle to come up with the right bluffs here because they don't bet Jx on the turn and want some blockers to bluff. I think I probably need to bluff hands like 345 with a single heart and QTxx in order to bluff enough.
Great video Phil. I'd be happy to see more of this footage. In this video you definitely did a good job expressing your thoughts very intuitively, which I appreciated.
Here are my notes for anybody that wants them.
thanks for this
Thank you! Ask and you shall receive :) More on the way.
Many thanks for the notes, very useful and well put together!
Hey Phil:
Going to post about that first QJ over call when I'm more awake because right now I want to plant a flag/die on my sword and whatever other hyperbole you want to use that check over-calling after the button calls that sizing is -EV for a bunch of reasons that I'm going to think about further before potentially embarrassing myself at 4am.
For now a more generic question: Seems like you disagreed with quite a few of past phil's decisions all around the 24 minute mark while 3 fairly complex hands are going on at once. You are about as experienced as anyone when it comes to multi-tabling high stakes plo, but how much do you think these hands happening at the same time lessened your ability to come to the best decisions here, if any, versus simply disagreeing after further evaluation later? When these spots come up how do you approach it from a mental organization standpoint?
For me if I try to pause and breakdown multiple streets of a tricky hand while analyzing a tough river spot, I find I often forget/ignore important information for other hands I'm in.
Great question, Thallo! I think that multi-tabling proficiency is like a muscle and I used to be in much better multi-tabling shape than I am these days :)
I don't consciously have a method in spots like this, but I often find myself making the easier decisions first so that I can get them out of the way.
There's some risk of giving some info away, though, so I need to be careful there. I definitely only think about one hand at a time (I assume that's what everyone does?) until the decision there is made, or until I 'pass' that decision and come back to it after the others.
There's no doubt that I'm more likely to make mistakes and not consider all the relevant factors when put in spots like this on multiple tables. I think that more practice can help, but everyone is going to have some level of skill degradation when they add tables.
Hey Phil just subbed back to RIO and I can already tell ive made a good choice on doing so. About the 15 min mark you start talking about potting or 2/3 bet with the J 2 I feel no one ever bets pot with a bluff there so as a result no one does it with value either . How good do you think it works ? It just feels unnecessary to bluff by betting the pot there since other smaller sizings will get the job done.
Welcome back, mr_burrito23 :)
I realize now that I just answered a similar comment from you above, but I'll talk a little bit more about it.
It's important theoretically to first decide what most of our value betting hands want to bet. Sometimes I decide to only use one sizing - other times I'll use two.
On this board, trips no longer wants to bet large - and even a small bet with trips is kind of thin. Same with straights. I think weak flushes might want to bet small, but I'd say something like 2nd or 3rd nut flush or better can pot comfortably. So I'd probably use two sizings - pot for my strong flushes and my boats, and 1/3 pot or so for my small flushes. Then I need to make sure I distribute my bluffs into each range somewhat appropriately. More have to go into the potting range, otherwise my small bet is going to be way overbluffed.
If you want to make an exploitative adjustment to the player pool, you need to decide which it is:
1) Are people going to overfold to a pot sized bet but not to a smaller bet? If so, bluff for pot and bet smaller for value :)
2) Or are they going to call the same range, more or less, against each sizing? If so, pot for value and bet smaller with your bluffs.
There is a risk that when you're in the moment, looking at your hand, you might think "he's gonna know I have value when I pot it here because he won't expect me to pot a bluff," but then if you had a potential bluff you'd think, "he's gonna know I'm bluffing if I pot it because why would I pot for value and risk scaring him off?"
Because of that bias, I think it's safer, at least to start, to use a sizing that's theoretically good. After you see how people react over a large sample, then you can adjust.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.