Muehlenzwick

very much agree with this and want to highlight the importance of your play not beeing a slowplay on the flop like devwil said. Its very important to understand that. Your hand is too weak and does not block enough of villains continuing range to be a slowplay.

Ruling out KK was apparently wrong since we ran into exactly that hand, but given the way everyone was playing (and general assumptions about the 5PLO player pool) I had ruled it out at the time.

you know the pool, so if thats really the case then thats okay, but i highly doubt that assumption. In fact, i think quite the opposite is true. A bunch of recreationals dont raise even strong KKxx. So if i played the hand versus unknowns i would even highly assume that a big part of villains range is KKxx there.

Its the most efficient way to maximize expected value. That's obviously the goal.

In other words, why is the money you gain from bluffing in these spots not offset by the amount of value you miss-out on when you have a value hand?

That is probably not true. I will speculate you make this argument, because you feel like your not getting enough value from your strong hands, when you bet big in these spots and your opponents are folding very often?

That is a reasonable point to make, but the solution you come up with is putting the cart before the horse. You shouldnt bet smaller to get more hands to call, but rather need to include more bluffs in these spots to gain EV from your opponents folding. In turn your opponents would need to defend wider, which is difficult for them, because you have so many good hands as well.

Think about it the other way around: In situations where the board does not support your range at all, you instinctively bluff less hands, because you know that you get called/raised a lot and therefore loose money. In this case your range does not have enough value hands to support you betting a lot of hands.

Assuming GTO, eventually both of you will reach equilibrium where your EV is positive in the first example with how the hand played out given that you are in a advantageous position range wise. Villains EV in equlibrium is negative, but he is minimizing his looses as good as it gets, because he is calling just the right amount of hands. In the second example its the other way around.

seems like a solid foundation too me.

I would suggest to keep it at that for now. dont overwhelm yourself with two many different things you want to learn all at once. Pick one spot, where you think you loose the most money in or feel most uncomfortable, work on it and slowly pick another one. You can always go for more if you think you got a good grasp on it.

After reading your arguments, i also really like checking. I always forget low SPR pots are much more equity driven and much less about blockers and polarity. Additionally I have this flaw of thinking that deep stacks equals high SPR and therefore overestimated the effect of the stack-size asymmetry. Still wondering what hands we can bet here as a bluff and if we should have different sizings like 100% and 25% or similar with different parts of our range.

I think we all agree that we have an easy fold vs CO betting, right?
But can we really ever x/call or x/raise vs BU jamming? Its reasonable to assume CO is trapping his value hands some of the time, knowing BU should jam relatively frequently. In this case we are toasted vs both their ranges. Sure, when BU jams, we call and CO folds we are not happy about it, but have enough equity to stack off. But with CO over-calling or jamming we are screwed.

I just realized how hard it is for me to articulate my thoughts well for this spot, which probably means im way off with my analysis.

will keep that in mind, but i think i have too much other valuable plo content to read that book. Also, i havnt played NLHE for years and wouldnt probabably even understand anything in this book :D

I actually disagree with God_of_War's idea of checking and very much like Rival_Dealer's approach of bet/folding small.

We dont have a polarity advantage for our range on JT2tt, which is bad. But on this board we still have a reasonable amount of hands in our range that connect very well. And most of them are either so strong we actually want to bet small and some (like this one) can bet small/fold. I dont think we have many hands that want to bet pot on this board. There will be the occasional TopSet, but other than that all hands that want to stackoff like TopTwo come anyway with some additional equity within our 3betting range.

This hand has weak to medium equity, bad playabillity, but great blockers to their continuing ranges, which already makes up a great recipe for betting. Add in the stacksize asymmetry and its even better.

Betting about 25-30% sizing puts SB and CO in a very tough spot because they are deep with each other and deep with Hero. Doesnt have to work too often. If CO continues, we have very clear visibility on which turns we are good and act accordingly. If CO folds and BU jams, we obv call it off. If SB continues we also shut down most of the time.

GodofWar:
So when CO checks, BU shoves, SB folds you can still come along
pushing out CO in the seat behind with a raise imo.

In my opinion, we neither can flatcall BU jam with CO behind, nor jam ourself over the top. Our equity is just not good enough.

Upfront: You should not ask for the reasons without (trying) to give a reasoning for each line yourself, so you can learn something from it. Even if it is nonsense, your learning much more than this way.

I agree with devwil here and am very confident that calling is higher EV than raising. With raising you very rarely put villain in a tough spot. He either snaps you off with AAxx:clubs/AAxx+GS/AAQx or he has a very easy fold with bare AAxx. By calling, you put him in a world of trouble, because the board will very frequently change the nuts. And that obviously benefits the IP Player.

devwil i just wanted to write the same thing you did, but in much less detail. Was gonna say something like: MW Pots - less equity than you think - therefore betting smaller makes sense.

But wow, you really did hit the nail on the head. I would not be able to articulate these thoughts nearly as good as you have. This post should be stickied somewhere. its pure gold.

Where can i see what this Janda guy had to say about multiway pots? Its not on Runitonce, right?

they are in the text of this very opening post

Flop bet is bigger than I would bet due to a few factors: our broadway-heavy range, rainbow texture (no FD semibluffs for you, no FD calls for villains), multiway flop (in short: you have less equity), and our blockers to JT and 88. We just shouldn't get a ton of action, so we should size down. I probably bet $2.

that makes a lot of sense to me and i will definitly implement this next time.

I generally only pot blank turns (which this isn't quite; spade draw is new), and usually only heads-up.

i think this reasoning contradicts what you said in the first paragraph (bc you said you size down, when theres no FD semibluffs and no FD calls). So i fail to understand your reasoning for only potting blank turns. could you try to make me understand your thought process?

appreciate your reply. While being tight preflop is generally a good idea folding this hand against a 3bet is way too tight. Were talking BUvsSB calling a 3bet from a Loose/aggressive / close to maniac villain.

Thinking a little more abstractly about it... facing a PSB from the preflop 3bettor... I honestly don't think I have a raising range at all here.

thats an interesting idea. i think that makes sense, because you dont have many bluffs in that spot although your taking away your ability to raise a hand like JT9x repping a 8 and taking the pot right away like in this hand.

Any thoughts about the KQJ8 and A832 examples? Really would love to hear about that.

the longer i think about it, the more i am shocked that i raised that sizing.

Any thoughts about the KQJ8 and A832 examples? Really would love to hear about that.

I also fold flop, bc
- hes betting potsize into 4 people
- high SPR OOP with a hand that has marginal redraw potential. (Outs to twopair, BDFD, BDSD)
Although im not as confident that its the right play as koky .

As played i think im only c/c turn. Apart from the Th we have no blockers or redraws and there are a billion ugly rivers. I think your settting yourself up for exactly the spot your ended up with very often.

Call me a nit, but as played im also folding river. KT8x is a reasonable hand to call with here, because of the T, but just from a population read stand point i dont think you are getting bluffed enough here on the river. Additionally, villains line makes absoulute sense to have a hand like JT9x or something like T876 or 5678. I would also assume in villains shoes that with you checking the river your capped having no straights as you would be shoving them OTR i think.

interesting hand though

i appreciate your in detail reply and realize i shouldve elaborated a bit more on the preflop dynamic. Your definitly right in terms of opening AK86ss. Im not opening this hand under regular circumstances. However, in this specific case there were a few things coming together.

• we were only 5 handed
• CO a huge nit/playing very straight forward
• BU Loose/passive guy like 44/9/3, so im not at all concerned.
• SB is a straight forward TAG to which im in position with 200bb
• and obv biggest factor in position the huge maniac (villain) with 360bb in the BB

I am by no means thrilled to open this hand UTG, but it will be veeery difficult to convince me not to open this hand under said circumstances.

regarding OTF and OTT:

IP with almost no redraw, OTT I think there's merit to checking. Against this villain we can win a bet from worse on the river pretty often. Against a more passive player, I do think it's a pretty easy value bet. Even here, I don't hate the bet, but the high SPR, our precarious standing (no redraw hardly at all), and villain's tendencies could be reasons to check back.
Blockquote

wholeheartedly agree here. could not have said it any better. Do you mind sharing your opinion on the decision what to do against the c/r as played here? devwil

thought that too at first, but i think 30 seconds is just right, because often times there is a key concept, that takes something like 1-3 sentences to explain and i would like to hear that again to take note. 15 seconds may be too short, but you could obviously argue that i could just press the button twice, which makes 15 seconds probably the better option.

sorry, no chance i can read it. resolution is way too low

could you include a table of contents? im on the verge of buying it, but wanna see whats in it first

hijacking your thread to add, that you should include the table of contents in the read sample.

Hey, really enjoyed your video, but have one idea for improvement:

Please include a short VISUAL summarization at the end. For example some bullet points with the key concepts your trying to get to your audience.
Im making notes, while im watching, but its good to have a reassurance at the end, that i got the point of the lesson right.

you dont have TopSet here. you have TopPair weak kicker and a BDFD. Definitly checkback flop. Probably also checkback turn, as that card does not improve your hand at all, but it could very well improve villains range.