3 Table $25/$50 Deep Ante PLO Live Session (part 1)
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 14 Comments...
I think the 8763sss hand would be a good candidate to c/c. A super tricky player like Odd he can turn his 5 high straights, or even 6 high straights and sets/2pair into bluffs (if checked too) as he can credibly rep a flush. And with you having 3 spades in your hand and blocking basically all of the small flush combos, it seems like hes going to have a hard time to call with worse.
I think you're right. I felt there were times I'd run into the nut straight and get called, but it's going to be hard to get looked up on this board when I have soooooo few bluffs in my range.
X/C would've been better.
cool video though, I like the live format
Hi Phil,
Near the beginning, around 5:00, D2 pots on a KKJK and you mention his valuerange is pretty narrow (aces, quads), and talk a little bit about how you perceive ranges that use that sizing.
I know our hand is a clear fold, and you speak a little about how you think people construct said ranges, but I was hoping you had thoughts on how to best exploit people who use chose to use this sizing (either as a split strategy, or with a smaller sizing too). I think most midstakes regulars tend to be too value heavy with the large sizing, and on certain boards (not this one), overuse blocker value and be too bluff heavy with the smaller sizing. Basically constructing polar or merged ranges "by feel".
I know it's hard to discuss this productively without research, but you mentioned you had other thoughts in the video and just didn't go into detail. Thought I would inquire.
Thanks,
Great question!
You're right that it's hard to figure this out without some research.
In a situation where my range is truly capped, or where my range is almost truly capped, I don't think he's making a mistake by potting, and so there's nothing really to exploit or counter in his strategy unless we can make a read that he is unbalanced with it some way.
Even when I am uncapped, I'm not positive that he's making a mistake (but not confident than he isn't, either).
The first basic adjustment I can think of (in a vacuum) is when deciding between a bet for value and a check to either x/c or x/r, we should be more apt to check, since his larger than average bet-size will mean more money for us.
We'd really need to learn what his balance is truly like, and if his value range gets narrower because he doesn't think opponents will call two larger bets with enough weaker hands (than his potential thin value hands).
If he's narrowing his value range a lot, and we find this out, he's giving us some info to work with, and we can now not make any value raises with hands that we were on the fence about, and we can consider some stronger hands pure bluff-catchers and base our calls more on blocker value. In addition, we'd want to lower our x/r bluff frequency since our value range is narrower.
Thinking about this a bit more, I think we can be confident this sizing is not a mistake provided he doesn't do it too wide with bluffs (quite easy to do in practice). That's basically it. Even when you are uncapped, there are solutions out there for games where you have a certain low percentage of nutted hands.
Phil, rewatching the video, your comment that he was unlikely to bet TT for value was helpful.
Given how much equity the bettor's value range has (90%+), this turn spot isn't far off from a toy game: two-street polar-versus-bluffcatchers. I know that MoP covers the clairvoyant version of the game. Are you familiar with the solution structure? I've been meaning to re-read the book so I can understand things like this.
Hey Phil,
In the AKT2cc hand against Zucs' turn x/r, river 3/4th pot on KTxAx, you actually don't want a Q or J in your hand to call the river bet. Here's why: assuming villain makes the river bet with either QJ, QQ, or JJ, he'll have around a 12:13 ratio between nuts and bluffs (fwiw, I'm just counting all combos of QQ and JJ without 2PR or better, I'm not taking into account the PF action precisely, and I'm putting zucs on a relatively wide range pre). If you hold a Q or J, you block every combo in his range. However, since he won't xr bluff turn with 2pair, but will xr for value with a straight+pairs, then relatively speaking, holding pairs blocks his value range more than his bluffing range. It ends up that with a QJ dead, his bluff:value ratio is 8.5:8, and with your AK dead it's 16:13.5. Not a huge difference, but it's something.
On the other hand, clubs look terrible for your hand in this spot. Since he led the flop multiway, it seems optimistic that he'll have many dry QQ/JJ combos in his range. The most plausible non 2pair+ backup for that hand is clubs, and you have 2 of em. So still fold river, but for different reasons.
Can't argue with math :)
I think that he doesn't have a ton of dry QQ/JJ because we went multiway to the flop and he still bet.
So, I did feel that a lot of QQ/JJ bluffs were removed from his range. (But I still didn't overestimate the extent to which blocking a Q/J helped me. Ty)
In hindsight, though, I wouldn't expect him to show up with a tonnnn of non blocker bluffs here anyways.
And obviously if you think he's capable of making this play a wider range than QQ/JJ as a bluff, the above analysis is void and any hand containing queens or jacks is by far the best bluffcatcher.
Hi Phil,
Could you explain why you prefer to c/c with 3355 at the 2s6h8s flop as a preflop 3better instead of b/f?
Ty
This is a board on which I don't want to bet too frequently, because my preflop range can't support a very high cbet stat.
By this I mean, by cbetting very often, I expose myself to being value raised and bluff raised, as well as floated and beaten up on later streets, because my range isn't very strong on this flop, and it's extremely weak and bluff-catcher-y (new term) on a number of turns.
So, I'll be checking this flop often, and 5533 is a great candidate for it. I get to keep his range weak and bluffy, so that when I turn a set or straight (on cards that are terrible for my range), I'm very likely to get barreled by a huge portion of his (now bluff heavy) range.
I also would hate to be raised with this hand on the flop (and with my other marginal hands... Which is why I check a lot of them).
Hey guys. Sorry I'm a little slow lately. I'm on a family trip. Thank you for the questions and comments. I'll get to them as soon as I have a chunk of time.
I was about to post exactly what Christian Harder said - I strongly agree. I think he is heavily weighted towards sets that can easily turn into bluff on river - I agree with Phil that in odd's view you are unlikely to CR turn with the turned FD, so ur range is weighted towards straights and he can rep the flush credibly to make you fold that range
30:00 AKJX on AQQ. Its an easy argument that checking this specific hand on flop as PF 3btr is best in a vacuum but I was a bit surprised that you said you would be checking a lot of your missed low rundowns. Isn't this the nut flop to make a small cheap cbet bluff on? Ace-pair flops will get folds from all his weak hands and its a flop people "never" play back back on. If we are 3betting most AA combos good-KK and a range of rundowns and double pairs. We will have Aces-full+ very often to back up the above FE.
The image below shows that with this 3bet range (which I found pretty shocking only amounts to 3.63% of hands, am I missing something?) AA comprises 52% of our range with no card removal effect.
Board - asqdqc
PLAYER_1
(aa$ss!rrr),(aa$ds!rrr),(kk$ds!rrr),akq$n,AKj$n,6543+$ds,6542+$ds,(RROO$ss!aa!kk),RROO$ds
How often do(es) PLAYER_1
5-card hand type is at least a full house on the flop 46.6282%
Because our range is so strong on this flop, betting makes it very tough to get value with this exact hand. However betting has merit given we don't expect to get bluffed much and by x/c we turn our hand fairly faceup. You also often mention that you like to keep your range uncapped for several reasons so betting this flop cheaply seems to be good if we choose to barrel to fold out Qxxx. Basically, vacuum play I see check. But was surprised you had a significant range that you check on this flop.
Thoughts?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.