OneTimeG27

OK thinking they will stack off with 55 here is probably a bit delusional lol you are right. But I still like a shove over a call. Call it what you will.

I play 1/2 games on bovada everyday I and I think across the board most players on bovada will stack off w/ 55, KQ, even possible straights or bare Q's with no boat, Q5 etc...maybe you have a higher opinion of the competition on bovada then I do. I am making a broad assumption about the player pool as a whole, based on my experience and without any player specific reads. You may be correct against the specific player you were up against not to raise. But agains the entire player pool of 1/2 bovada as a whole I do think shoving here will be profitable.

Gotta get it in here and stack all his worse full houses, of which he will have plenty more combos then his AA ones.

Wow this video is great. I personally liked the audio only stretches (the banjo fills helped). Felt like I was listening to a book on tape and I think the absence of video content allowed space for some of the material to sink in a bit deeper.

Thanks!

Thanks for the insight and quick response,

I agree I would not have played the hand the same was as your opponent did.

I like his check on the flop OOP against the button opener, but his lead on the 5d turn is questionable IMO. What does leading here with his hand accomplish? That's to say what hands are really calling the turn that his two pair is ahead of? Especially given that he has blockers to the lower two pair combos.

I think he should just check/call the turn. The button opener will have a lot more incentive to stab with hands that the BB's two pair is ahead of once he checks twice. He is also pot controlling against all of the hands that are looking to get value (mostly flushes) and he is not bloating the pot or opening himself up to awkward turn raises (like the one he found himself facing against you) by leading.

However that being said, once he gets to the river taking the line he takes I can't see how he can call off the remaining 2k in his stack after he check raises and gets jammed on. As a general assumption most competent players will not jam over his re-raise with a flush, even an A high flush. What would be the point once the board pairs? Unless they have previous history/reads. They are just going to call and take their showdown value. What hands would bluff with this SPR? Again..without reads/history I think the probability of a player re-shoving over the top as a bluff against his check raise is incredibly low given the SPR. So really he is looking at nuttier full houses that slow played the flop like AA with a Flush draw (exactly what you had) or a set of 55 that hit the turn and filled up.

My 2 cents.

Hello,

At around the 29:00 mark the AA108dd hand. I am wondering if we can reverse roles and look at this hand from the villains point of view? I am curious, if you were playing the villains hand and assuming you took the exact same line all the way up until the point he check raises the river for half of his stack. Would you call off here with the AA222 full house in his position?
I am also wondering if there any hands in YOUR range that would shove over his check raise on the river as a bluff or as potential value that would lose to AA222. If so why?

Thanks

You had roughly 32% equity against their exact hands and you are getting 3:1 so its fine.

As far as did you make a bad play? Given the action I can't see how we can ever fold here once you make it to the flop.

Perhaps adopting a pre flop strategy that contains a lot of limping and calling in order to see flops cheaply with a wider range of hands (including your premiums). This would allow you to pot control, draw to more hands for less of your stack and decide when to bloat the pot when you have very strong made hands or draws. Nothing much you can do about set over set scenarios. Welcome to PLO. However, when I used to play full ring 100/300 PLO live I too realized nobody was 3 betting and so I tried to "exploit" that by being aggressive pre flop with strong holdings. It would backfire as well. I just wasn't pushing enough equity pre flop for this to be profitable (although I didn't realize at that time)because as we know equities run much closer in PLO pre. So to counter this I started limping (like everybody else was) with a ton of hands and peeling as often as possible. This allowed me to reduce my variance significantly. It was just a matter of accepting the type of game/players I was in and adapting to it. Instead of trying to be a 3 bet crusader. It's like that old saying if it can't beat them join them. Only in this case you are joining them so you can exploit them.

Hi Phil,

First off I was stoked to see RIO merch at the WSOP, Now I have a cool hoody to impress my friends with haha

Secondly, At 29:00 w/ the 5522 you 3 bet OOP and the board falls 932. You mention that this is a really interesting spot. First you say you would always bet so that he can turn something if has a 9, then you say you would actually always check because it is bad for your range.

Can we explore this a bit more?

Because my initial gut reaction was the same as yours, to bet, precisely for the same logic that we want to allow our opponent to draw to two pair. Especially given our perceived range should have very few 22, 33 combos. And a lot of AA, KK combos.

When you decide to check because it "is a bad board for our range" it makes me wonder when we are playing on an anonymous site, "don't we want to bet exactly for that reason?" Allowing our opponent to think his 1 pair+ draws are good if they improve to two pair? Is our opponent ever really folding any holding that contains a 9 or even a 3 to our C bet (assuming that we go with a small sizing?)

Just curious to hear you elaborate on this spot a little more. Because I think I would always bet this board in this spot and I am wondering if I am making a mistake.

Thanks

Loving these Bovada vids. Thank you

Yea that is what I thought too. Thanks guys I appreciate it.