$10k PLO MTT: Limping, Multiway Pots, and Stiff Competition
Posted by Richard Gryko
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 17 Comments...
Love the Mtt content Richard, thank you very much. It’s pretty cool that the best coach on the site puts out videos as often as you do
Thanks - tbh, I built up a massive backlog as a result of going on a vid making spree to help fund our recent move to Canada, so I asked RIO to release vids more often so I wouldn't be in a situation where I'd recorded a whole series before seeing how ppl had reacted to pt1. I'll try and keep up the pace going forward though :)
I’m interested in opening more discussion about the KT99cc hand specifically about betting the turn and what to do when facing a check raise there instead of the river.
It always gives me a precarious feeling when checking back flop and then betting turn and/or river in these spots given we’ve just capped our (perceived) range and the majority of our value betting range on the turn is a flush that is clearly facing trouble when facing a raise and instantly goes into bluff catch mode. Looking at the turn specifically, especially given your commentary about how much more likely it is that villain has trips or boat in his range here (because the board pair is Ax), I think it’s pretty intuitive for OOP to want to go for a check raise on the turn since a new hand class has just emerged and that will likely want to go for some bets (the flush) and makes betting a flush therefore somewhat dangerous. And even if he doesn’t have a boat, if he checks and then faces a bet, he will (or at least I do) get the inclination to start piling on pressure vs the capped range, especially or even if it’s just trips, or board pair blocker(s). Further, although I get the reasoning behind betting small on the turn, I believe in practice it also induces raises given the “weak” sizing of the bet. All in all, I find myself often checking back the turn as well to avoid the situation of getting check raised for size and a follow through pile on the river in similar instances as this. I do so also because I find it also sort of hard to get the second full street of value. (I think this is why you probably went smaller on the river when you played this hand, you knew your range was somewhat capped and you felt betting pot would make it hard to get value from worse.)
Obviously, we will want to bet flushes on the turn as they are often good, especially the big ones because they beat lower flushes. What factors differentiate a flush that bets turn vs check turn? If betting turn, are we always calling a check raise with a flush and then following the advice laid out in the video vs a river bet or is it different?
One idea I had was to bet the flushes that contained a board pair on the turn, and check the ones that don’t (while also favoring higher vs lower flushes), this should make facing a check raise less likely and also make my range more robust in terms of being able to make call downs. But it also seems that strategy may lead me to be under value betting in these situations, so I’m not sure.
What do you think?
Hi Matt,
I think one of the main strengths solvers have over humans is that they won’t suffer from the “precarious feeling” you allude to - obviously its a thing, and most of us recognise and have experienced what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t make it less of a hindrance to executing a robust strategy. I think we need to play turns in a way which factors in the potential for OOP to chkraise relatively often due to all the factors you mention, but whilst attempting to suppress more emotionally rooted reactions such as feeling trepidation about an incoming barrage of chkraises every time we dare to put a chip in the pot - part of how we do that is not betting big, part of it is chking back some flushes, but we can’t overreact and start chking back way too often or OOP gets to realise too much equity with stuff he’ll have a lot more often than full houses - mid pairs, 6x/5x+ straight draw etc - and lose too little with his potential 2 street bluffcatchers vs our strong flushes.
To your questions - linearity and pair blockers differentiate flushes we usually bet from those we usually chk, vs XR calling significant majority of our flushes, possibly folding our worst valuebets. So seems like you’re broadly where I’d be in that sense - I’d just be careful you don’t under value bet, but seems like you’re conscious of that already. More broadly, poker, like fortune, favours the bold - dont play turns in fear of a chkraise you haven’t gotten hit with you, thats like conceding territory on the battlefield without making your opponent risk anything to acquire it.
Welcome to the new world, RG! If you’re ever around Detroit, meal/drink/coffee on me.
Re 7765s hand
You mentioned that you could both vb a 7 and bluff a 6. In game I often think this way, but it feels contradictory to believe that both cards are higher ev than average for opposing reasons. How do you rectify this contradiction? Sizing choice? General idea that you can realize your existing equity in some way part of it?
Thank you :) As my recent UberEats order history will verify, without any sport going on right now coffee is the closest thing I have to a hobby, so I'll let you know if I'm ever in the area. Its a while since I recorded this but I assume what I meant was that when I bet there are several things that could happen - PFR could call, BTN could call, both could call etc (obv someone could also raise but I'd likely just b/f in that case so no real consideration required) - and under different circumstances both those things could be reasonable - ie, im likely not vbetting a river 7 vs two turn callers but if PFR calls then he has a smallish amt of 64+ given preflop range so I can consider vbetting against A5/A8 region; similarly I'm potentially chking a rivered 6 HU bc it can both win in a chkthrough or chkraise bluff, but if both players call I have an OK bluff combo since evchk is far lower.
What is the thought process in the hand at 15:30 ish with the AKJ8, DS, is there an argument for not 3-betting that if you know a decent percentage of the time you'll be getting it in vs AAxx ? Can you explain why this is right to do ?
Basically I win more than enough when he doesn't 4BAI to make up for losing a decent amt of equity against the top of his range (which I obv somewhat block).
ty for the reply, you were great in " Night At The Roxbury " btw
I swear, one day someone’s gonna walk up to Richard Grieco and say “I just had to tell you, I really love your RIO videos!” :p
Hi Richard Gryko , nice video! What are you representing with you bluff in the last hand on 532J3? Would you have bet Jxxx for value? Would you have bet a mid pocket pair like that? Because if not, and you talk about how little you interact with the board from SB, then you don't reprersent anything and he might just call you with A-high. I think he might have folded a worse hand there.
Hi,
Repping primarily broadway overpairs, likely not betting Jx - agreed on him folding a worse hand quite often, but quite often some of the EV of blocking lies in not chking and being bluffed by that worse hand myself.
WAY 2 GOOD
:D
Thanks man :)
at 43:00, could we think check-jamming blank turns? He shouldnt have that many sets or straights either.
if IP double barreled? I think hes smart enough to know
a) that as you say, he doesnt have many sets or straights in his overall distribution
b) nor do I :p
so I think he barrels a tightish range and handles chkraises pretty well, by the time he bets turn he doesnt need to defend too often in order to make chkshoving my hand -ev. Other NFD hands with better blockers like A765 would be fine for that purpose though.
This is more of a theory/conceptual question. I get the point and logic behind digging deeper into your range o find "lighter" XR on boards that doesnt favour your range in order to hit proper Raising freqs or else IP will get away w aggressing you and realising his eq way too much. But have you come accross any situation where for instance say IP PFR has such an advg in polarity and range , that thet way for OOP's range to combat IP "justified" overaggression could be to "superstrengthen" his XC range a lot (since you have to XF a lot of your range anyway)and put almost all of his potential XR along with all the other more medium stuff into his XC range?
Don't know if I'm making myself clear enough, to illustrate my point I will give an example of a mid str8 board for 3btor OOP where 3btor's OOP gets to slow play almost all of his strong stuff in order to protect his XC, since he will be XF or XC XF plenty of his range alrdy. I know in the example PRF is OOP and is a bit different, but I am most interested in expanding on this concept of having to fine absoluet weaker hands to build continues on these bad boards. Basically in extreme cases how low you move the standard for XR , and when do you override this logic in favour of choosing the line that best suits a particular given hand in play.
Sorry If my question is a bit confusing, I tried my best :)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.