PLO $500Z Session Review

Posted by

You’re watching:

PLO $500Z Session Review

user avatar

Raphael Cerpedes

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:

PLO $500Z Session Review

user avatar

Raphael Cerpedes

POSTED Mar 15, 2017

He's back! Raphael breaks down some freshly launched zoom tables.

13 Comments

Loading 13 Comments...

RegginaLeFay 7 years, 10 months ago

Great video,I learned a lot.Great break down of your thought process on each hand and the player pool tendencies! Footage was a little choppy btw

jdstl 7 years, 10 months ago

6:00 Not sure what the meta is on stars here, but if most of the 2pr+ and TP>+OE>, WR are getting jammed on the flop, and hands like kings are being bet/called a lot on the flop, I think you might get enough turn folds here to make jam>x/f. You'll have around 25% vs a calling range.

EV(shove)=x(646)+(1-x)(1018*.25)
=646x+(1-x)(254.5)
=646x-254.5+254.5x
900.5x=254.5
x=28.2%

I think this is quite close since EV check should be >0. It seems like if you blocked the 7 with your hand it would be a clear shove as you'd reduce a lot more of the turned 2pr combos.

Raphael Cerpedes 7 years, 10 months ago

If your assumptions were correct that would be a good turn shove.

But I certainly disagree that most strong stuff is getting shoved on the flop here. In fact I expect most regulars to always call with their sets, and somewhat frequently call with their 2-pairs or overpairs with a straight draw. With 1.35 times the pot left after just calling and having position I don't think there is much of an incentive to be mostly fastplaying.

It is also a situation where you will see quite different c-betting strategies in the first place, and some more variation on top of that in how they respond to the x/r. So without more information I would be worried with models that output me shoving super wide on turn assuming an unusually large amount of fold equity.
It is very easy to justify a lot of overly spewy strategies by tweaking opponent's range in an advantageous way. In that situation I don't expect the player pool to be particularly under-defending vs a turn shove so I will be careful to give up on some weak holdings.

Raphael Cerpedes 7 years, 10 months ago

If I had to guess I would say the most common c-betting strategy here is going to be high frequency betting (say 70% or so) for a sizing somewhere between 50% and 80% of the pot.

jdstl 7 years, 10 months ago

41:00 T873ds river bluff.

It seems like a spot where we might want 2 sizings here. A big one for our SET> that unblock and A, then a smaller one for say AJ+ and our AA/AAK combos since the blocker effects will reduce the calls significantly.

Do you think your exact combo fits better into the large or small sizing based on it's removal?

When we pot his folding range should be the 7x-QQ and missed draw region and his calls should be Ax+ and perhaps some of the better QQ/JJ combos depending on this turn strategy. We block the 7x and we block some of the missed draw region which is hurting us. We also block some AsXs which is a plus.

Vs the block sizing, he should be folding 7x and probably mixing call with some good 9x+. We block his folds and unblock most of his calling region.

Given that I'm assuming this combo fits better into the bigger sizing and we could instead use hands that block QQ/JJ/TT in the smaller sizing.

Thoughts?

Raphael Cerpedes 7 years, 10 months ago

In practice I am not even going to try to balance a rare spot like this one when I am pretty sure a very exploitative strategy (in that case way over bluffing) is going to outperform any strategy that tries to mix the right amount of bluffs vs the player-pool.

That being said, it seems "correct" to use multiple sizings in most situations so almost certainly having 2 or 3 sizes here is better than using just one. It doesn't seem right to me to always bet the small size with AA or AAK combos though, as you advocate. I would think those hands want to often go big as well.

My 80% bet was designed to fold out all QQ/JJ/TT which I think constitutes the majority of his range and is going to fold too often here. And some players will also fold Ax sometimes, I think.
You are probably right that we want to use bluffs that contain a Q or a J in the smaller sizing we use.

Infestus176 7 years, 10 months ago

Great video, I like your approach to spots and how you appreciate that it's still important to focus vs the weaker players etc, on their tendencies and to not get stuck auto piloting at any moment.

Good work!

Choparno 7 years, 9 months ago

11:00 QJTTcc on T43K

What bet/folds do you have on the turn at spr 2 such that your betting range wants a sizing less than pot? Seems to me that our range has some hands that are incentivized to pot so on a turn where we can't expect many folds from villain I'm curious what bluffs you might have to support this sizing.

Raphael Cerpedes 7 years, 9 months ago

As I said, I think we can sometimes bet again with weak Tx with a pair such as T998 or T887, that are prime candidates for x/r bluffing the flop, and fold to a shove. We possibly can also bet/fold some very weak bare straight draws like 6789.

I find those kind of spots where we x/r the flop and are out of position on the turn with an SPR around 1.8-2.5 tricky to play. To me on a lot of boards it is not obvious at all if we should just pot everything we continue with or have a smaller betsize along with some bet/folds.

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