Playing vs Unknowns: 2 Tables $.25/$.50 6-Max PLO
Posted by Tom Coldwell
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 37 Comments...
Cool vid! With regard to the 3bet pot where you had QJT8 and flopped the pair and the gutter OOP, wouldn't that be a good spot to donkbet? I'ts kind of hard for him to stack off with less than a FD or a 2p+ made hand and you can barrel off on a lot of turns. Also if you check call you can't really rep the flush since you would've probably check-shoved all of your FDs on the flop.
P.S. You might not be in such a hurry with the commentating if you added it later after recording the live play. I didn't think the pace was too fast though. :)
With regards to the QJT8 hand, I don't think I wanna donk there 'cas I don't make any money against his folding range and perform equally well/poorly when he gets it in. Depends on my impression of how widely he c-bets (if he's never betting misses, then yes, lead to avoid giving free cards to his random trash), but I think against an unknown check/shoving is probably best.
The other thing about donking is that if we get called, we can actually find ourselves in some really weird spots where we kinda wanna lead to continue our semi-bluff, but might get it in dead. Basically, we don't really know exactly how good a number of turns are so I'm not a huge fan of it. If we were deep enough that check/shoving felt spewy then I'd be more on board with donking I think.
As for the speed of the video/me opting to commentate live, I wanted to do something without hindsight or time to be super prepared because I thought it would let me give a more realistic representation of what I'm thinking when I play (as opposed to the more polished thoughts one can put together with time to reflect). If it's not been too fast for people (and on a re-watch I agree w/ you it didn't seem to be), I think this is a format I'll use again.
Cool Video,
I like it when you get mad or annoyed from stupid things, or get entertained with players. keep doing that, it adds fun!
I liked this video alot, keep doing it
really enjoy your vids...keep it up !
Entertaining video, but that fold at the 34min mark. That just seems bad. A high spade such as the king, ace or queen is actually kind of bad for him when most of his flush draws that he'll want to go bet bet with will be of that stronger variety. Also he bet full pot which I would think polarizes him even more so to a strong flush or a bluff, I'd be more apt to fold on a small spade then a big one such as the king of spades. I'm not much of a math guy simply cause I'm lazy, but I think this card shouldn't be very good for his full pot turn betting range, not to mention you could have 6 outs even if he does have the nuts. People at these stakes peel so wide on flops, and given this card isn't very good for his full potting range and you'll usually have outs when behind I think this is a check call.
I'm gonna have to disagree re: that fold being bad though. I agree that he will be calling much wider than he should and that I'll have the best hand on this turn a decent amount. However, when he bets his range narrows substantially. Without further information, I would suggest that his range is incredibly strong here - I just don't expect him to turn A864 (or whatever random junk he called) into a bluff. Most players who call stupidly wide are gonna check back here the majority of the time. I was expecting him to check back a decent amount, but when he bets I don't think I can continue.
6 outs is fine and all, and it's possible he'll check back river w/ his weaker flushes, but that doesn't really do a lot for me 'cas when he does that, I still lose the pot. I'm also hardly going to be able to bluff-catch if he continues a bluff here (more than possible given IF he's bluffing, I can expect a second shell when I look a lot like a set/two pair pot, check/calling).
So yeah, I both don't think I have the best hand a whole lot and those times I do I may struggle to get it to showdown. For me, calling here is basically taking 2:1 on hitting a 6-outer. If we were against someone more competent than a random 50PLO villain who has given me no reason to think he's playing well, I might consider something different, but with the info we had, I consider this a pretty clear fold.
funny video and dramatic closing lol
Enjoyed this very much your commentary is hilarious in the first half when you get really flustered trying to make notes and keep up with the action I think you should make a 4 tabling zoom video just for entertainment purposes
he's great! when they 3bet him light and minraise him it's so fucking funny! ehhhhh keep doing that and keep making that weird noises!
Really enjoyed the video, hopefully checking if you hit is representative of a bit of degen not bad player..
Why is position so important when the game is so passive you can just snap fold to most raises?
The reason position is still so important is that although we won't get bullied that much when we're OOP, we will still have less information which will make some of our decisions more complex, such as should we lead or check/raise a strong hand (ie will villain c-bet)?
Equally, we have less control over the sizes of the pots by limiting our ability to take free cards or put in a bet when villains have chosen not to (see the hand where I bet KK on the flop to allow myself to check turn for example. If I'd led OOP then checked turn, I would basically have been giving up without getting to see the complete runout. The three pair hand I check/folded could also have been simpler with position - if he checks, I have the option to take a free card).
So yes, whilst passive villains do reduce the difficulty of playing OOP, the fact that we are at an information deficit makes planning hands and getting the amount of money in we want much more difficult. We should therefore play tighter even against passive villains.
It's also worth noting that if loads of people are calling, we don't wanna be super loose 'cas we're more likely to require the nuts or close to them to win the pots. We should therefore be looking to play strong hands which are capable of achieving that for us. From CO and BTN, we have the liberty of playing a bit wider (much wider if villains fold to us) because of the extra information we will be able to leverage postflop.
Good stuff. Informative vid imo.
J977 hand (3:30)
why did you choose check raise line in this hand? i would think you would only get real action from hands that beat you (e.g. KKxx) or are close to flipping (wrap) and there aren't too many hands that you crush versus an all in range. wouldn't a check call line be preferable here?
1) I believe I said during that hand that I would have preferred leading. I don't hate either betting or check/raising, but I wasn't that happy at the time with my decision. Looking back, I'm totally fine with it though. I think check/calling is just not going to get enough money in with what is a massive hand.
2) I don't agree I only get action from hands that I flip with or beat me. Whilst it may well be true that I'm not in amazing shape when he gets it in (although that's pretty debatable versus an unknown imo), he can call here at which point I'm making a load of money (and making turn play a lot easier). The other factor which I felt may alter his range was we were super early in the session, but I'd already won a few pots through perceived aggression on tables villain was at so I kinda hoped he view me as a monkey and maybe do something stupid. After all, when you're flopping it every hand, you have to make sure you keep up the aggression so that people can think you're going crazy and make a huge mistake.
So yeah, I think we could argue for leading, but given the dynamic I'd created by winning a few pots, as well as the strength of the hand I'd flopped, I'm perfectly happy with how I played it. In fact, I think not getting aggressive given the hands we'd seen would be a massive mistake. I would not be check/calling this very often regardless though, it's worth more than that.
oh what an ass lol live video is cool
Thanks. Glad you found it entertaining :)
@ 22:05 you flop the nut straight 8-Q on the right table, and you mention that at your present eff stack depth you'll just get it in OTF if you can. I take it you're implying that if you were deeper, you'd consider just calling a raise OOP with the nuts on the flop instead of getting it in to limit your variance then? How deep do you think you would have to be to consider not getting it in on the flop? And surely you can never ever fold the nut straight OTF can you (in a cash game)?
I'm not entirely sure of an exact threshold for not just bet/jamming here, but certainly the deeper we get the more careful we have to be about just sticking it in with naked nut straights. It isn't to limit variance, but rather to avoid making mistakes. 80bbs deep, I think we do pretty well against getting it in ranges, but once we get deeper many players will only get it in w/ the straight or better (so straight + redraws). In those cases, we are just sticking our stack in praying to fade cards to get our money back which is a total disaster.
I guess as a rule of thumb, if my 3-bet against a raise isn't gonna pretty much get me all in, I would be hesitant about shoveling it in w/ the naked straight (this is also nice 'cas it means we can have the nuts on blank turns).
As for folding the nut straight, it certainly can be done but it would require a very specific read + situation. Honestly, I don't remember doing it but can certainly imagine some situations in which it might be best (not that it means I'd be disciplined enough to do it). I guess against the most passive nits in the world, you should be folding to a raise as you are, at best, chopping. However, against those guys there is something to be said for flatting to bluff those cards which reduce the strength of the straight.
Nice vid. IMO muuuuch better than the 7 or 8 hand replayer vids. I'd stick to this format. You're also funnier when you have less time.
Also, I'd argue for NOT screening your taping sessions to see if they're 'worth posting.' I would hate to think that you had 4 other videos ready and just decided to post the one where you flopped something nearly every time you opened. I'm not saying don't show us when that does happen, but that it's educational to see sessions where things don't go well, too. Dolle's very good at that, and his unguarded videos are some of the most useful ones I've seen on this site. (Plus, I don't think I've ever run this good, and it's frustrating to watch these idiots give you money, whereas against me they always backdoor low straights when they thought they were value betting their overpair against my flopped trips.)
Thanks for the comment. Certainly does seem that this format is popular and I'm very much intending to produce more like this.
Regarding re-watching the footage, it's not for whether I've played/run good, it's for whether something interesting has happened. I don't really think there's much point showing 45mins of raise-and-take-its. I assure you, if I have a session with interesting spots in which I get beat up, you'll be seeing that as well.
Yeah, but something interesting doesn't always happen, and I'd like to be prepared for that, too. If that makes the slightest bit of sense.
is this for real?? or some sort of joke? i had to stop the video and puke at 37.31 when i just saw u fold KJJTdd vs a table of fish. so many sub optimal tight folds pre vs these villians surely..wtf?
With regards to the KJJT fold, I agree with you, it is a touch on the tight side, but not nearly as ridiculous as you suggest. In reality, we just don't make much money UTG even against really bad opposition - it's not like I'm printing a ton of money playing that hand from that seat.
Personally, I play very tight OOP as it is (something I note regularly in my videos) because I really dislike acting first. I originally started doing this as a reaction against stuff I learned from another training site where one coach was like, "Oh, AQT, obv I play that from any seat" (he had AQT6r). I attempted to imitate these ranges and found it worked pretty terribly so I went the other way and play very few hands from EP.
More than that, I'm attempting to offer advice on how to play PLO in a way which is fundamentally sound for beating low-stakes games and, because of that, I would NEVER want to recommend (or appear to recommend) wide OOP ranges because I don't think that's a good starting point for any player. If I make the odd fold which is the wrong side of tight, I am okay with that. It's far from the most egregious error imaginable and will certainly lead to viewers making far fewer mistakes than the content I originally watched.
41:15
Why is QK78o an isolate vs 1 limper, but a fold behind 2? Shouldn't it be at least an overlimp?
The thing about KQ87r is that it basically sucks - it's really rather difficult to flop anything good with it - so playing multi-way will not work out very well for us at all. Had there been one limper, I was gonna isolate because position and high-card value is just about enough backup for my plan to profit by barreling flops and turns.
However, once another villain comes into the pot my ability to simply pick up the pot early and easily is substantially reduced so I need to actually be able to make a hand. Without a suit and with such a massive gap in the middle of my hand, I don't really think I can do that (hence the lack of an isolation).
With regards to not limping behind, again, my hand's weakness in multi-way situations would make me very hesitant to make a play like this. In reality, it's not something I had ever considered as I almost exclusively pick hands which flop huge occasionally and nothing frequently as my overlimps (JJ93r, As8s55 etc.) as opposed to things like this. There may be a small amount of money to be made playing this hand for a limp here, but I wouldn't be confident of that and it's not a play I want to be incorporating into my game because getting into pots with unsuited trash cannot be a fundamentally sound play.
Ya cool, exactly the same reasons I had in my head, just kinda nice to see it. it's like raising a fish limper in hold'em with K3s in the Co or button but folding when 2 fish limp.
haha, me too. but NL mtts are fun
wait, let me rephrase, NL mtt Final Tables are fun.
Hi, you say you rarely overlimp, but I find myself doing it quite a lot on the CO and button (maybe this is a leak in high rake games). What about weak suited aces and dry JJxx for example?
I wouldn't over-limp dry AA though. The equity edge we have over whatever villains have, as well as the value of our position makes me wanna raise to isolate. Unlike JJ, AA is a hand which will often win a HU pot. By just limping, we make it much less likely we win the pot and will now be more reliant on making a hand/opponents not making one which sucks. Also, opening the betting with AA and giving people the chance to 3-bet us is clearly great 'cas then we can 4-bet and get loads of money in.
In games like this (ie short-stacked ones), it's even more important to not limp AA 'cas deception is worth less and pushing the preflop equities is worth more as there's less money in play.
Just FYI, this doesn't apply to SB play. If people have limped in, I will just complete the SB with a decently wide range - well, a range much wider than I would have over-limped the BTN anyways ('cas I would have raised a lot that I'll complete OOP).
One other thing you say a lot, in various situations I'm going to raise/bet get it in here. As a new player a lot of them I wouldn't know to. How much experience does it take and is this from studying equities or mostly from handreading?
GREAT VIDEO! you are one of the best coaches on this site easily. leep upthe great work Tom!
-Nightly
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.