Nice video guys!
One mindfulness trigger I have been using for a while during live poker tournaments is mindful hand-washing. Every break after using the bathroom I will spend a couple of minutes mindfully and thoroughly washing my hands. I have found it to be a nice way to symbolise washing away any lingering thoughts of bad beats or mistakes from the previous 2hrs of play along with the obvious hygienic benefits and the opportunity presents itself at regular intervals throughout the day so it is easy to build a routine out of it.
April 28, 2016 | 10:56 a.m.
So I have been brushing up on my PLO and was just discussing the following situation with a friend of mine who has a very strong theoretical understanding of the game.
PokerStars Zoom Hand #152351140068: Omaha Pot Limit ($2.50/$5.00) - 2016/04/24 0:04:43 WET [2016/04/23 19:04:43 ET]
Table 'Humason' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: miszczunio85 ($907.32 in chips)
Seat 2: dingdongderb ($834.26 in chips)
Seat 3: stevie444 ($542.48 in chips)
Seat 4: tonyfo14 ($500 in chips)
Seat 5: LcikingLab14 ($1055.63 in chips)
Seat 6: kareempirias ($1101.51 in chips)
dingdongderb: posts small blind $2.50
stevie444: posts big blind $5
Dealt to stevie444 [Kd 5c 8d Qh]
miszczunio85: raises $10 to $15
stevie444: calls $10
FLOP [3h 5h 3c]
My friend contends that we should have no lead range as the BB in this spot as we gain more from forcing a high checkback frequency and playing the 2 street uncapped branch of the game tree rather than splitting immediately on the flop.
BB has 18.5% trips+ in this spot vs just over 8% for the button and 49% equity range vs range. I know that with this kind of nut threshold imbalance in NLH solvers suggest the BB should have a leading range. Not having one doesn't sacrifice much but BB has the option to get all in with overbets which it obviously doesn't in PLO. I wasn't fully convinced by my friends arguments but he is a better PLOer than me so I thought I'd ask for some more opinions.
Do you think BB should lead this board? If so, what size and range composition? If not why not?
April 24, 2016 | 1:28 a.m.
WP Mikey! Great to see you crushing the games. Looking forward to more parts.
April 22, 2016 | 2:18 p.m.
Really enjoyed this video...looking forward to part 2. I also like when you follow up this type of vid with a crev/pio analysis of 1 or 2 of the most interesting hands.
General question wrt calling out of the sb...my limited study of these spots suggests leading is a thing on certain board textures but it seems like you are auto-checking them. I'm curious if this is because you design your preflop range to be less condensed, stack depths are different to the spots I've been modelling, the population overcbets vs 100% check, the difference in ev is very minimal and you just decide not to, or some other reason.
April 3, 2016 | 5:36 p.m.
But OOP should be mostly calling turn with QT right? Giving AQ/AT/QT nonzero showdown and slightly improving the EV of bluffing 59 since we unblock it. Especially given KQ=K5 for bb and in fact the worse his kicker the higher its EV for bluffcatching probably?
March 15, 2016 | 1:59 a.m.
Nice video as always.
29:00 with 95s, it appears in the video you are deciding on the river between allin and check but clearly you will have at least 1 non-allin betsize on this runout and this hand seems like as good of a bluff candidate as any so I'm surprised every combo of it doesn't get allocated to one of the betting ranges. I'm curious which combos you are bluffing with for a smaller sizing?
March 8, 2016 | 9:31 p.m.
I meant that if he is shoving significantly tighter than nash we will be making a lot of money from all the walks we are getting that we shouldn't be. This will outweigh the ev we lose from making incorrect calls vs the tight range so we make more money than if we were both playing nash.
If we have reliable info that he is shoving too tight we should def call tighter to exploit but I think you need to know a player quite well to say this. Just because someone is tight overall it doesn't mean their push/fold is incorrect.
Jan. 19, 2016 | 6:04 a.m.
I would certainly fold JT and probably QJ on the turn. I don't think its too weak given I'm not cbetting super wide 4ways. Regardless I would rather bluff my AsJx than KxJx since he will presumably be bluff catching a lot more with the As himself and can't have a hand like AsJs. Given ranges are narrow this should have a fairly significant impact on the ev of the bluff.
Dec. 11, 2015 | 10:44 a.m.
Glad you liked the video. This kind of thinking can go in cycles...if all in is the natural play with Qx then I never fold to it so it becomes the clear size with KQ etc. Marvin is definitely capable of making the smaller raise to look stronger so I don't think I can read too much into it.
Dec. 10, 2015 | 11:57 p.m.
The only justification I can see for using a smaller size (or two sizings) on the river would be if it allows us to vbet a bunch more hands which I don't think it does in this instance. I think as I broke down in the video we can't bluff that many combos even when we shove and exploitatively if you think a shove will be viewed as really strong in this spot since every hand has showdown you can just bluff more of your worst made hands.
Dec. 2, 2015 | 11:49 p.m.
Glad you liked it. I definitely didn't feel great about calling the turn but think I have to when I beat some value combos and he is def capable of starting to bluff a hand like 56. I could see folding it vs some players.
Dec. 2, 2015 | 11:43 p.m.
Hey January, good question, sorry I didn't get around to answering this earlier. On almost all boards you want to have some amount of 2nd and 3rd pairs in both your betting and checking ranges to not leave yourself particularly vulnerable on certain runouts. Typically 2nd pair will be bet quite a bit more often than 3rd pair. I think the best bottom pairs to bet are usually the ones with the worst kickers and the ones with backdoors. On this board for example we would want to check a hand like Q3 more because when our opponent has Qx we have him in worse shape and it is better for us when we turn a Q and when we have backdoors we can continue to bluff with the hand on future streets. Its a tricky question though and it will depend a lot on each specific board and how our overall range/our opponents range are constructed.
Oct. 1, 2015 | 1:30 p.m.
Makes sense, thanks for the reply.
Sept. 11, 2015 | 12:56 p.m.
Of course on most boards you are correct but occasionally you see a flop like this where OOP has probably slightly more equity and crucially around twice as many 2pr+ combos as IP meaning if we play a 100% check strategy we allow IP to cbet with a very low frequency and turn the hand into a 2-street game often which benefits his range. I think if we were to check 100% on this board it should be because we perceive IP to be overcbetting and we should have a very aggressive x/r strategy.
Sept. 8, 2015 | 4:59 p.m.
Hey Teunuss, nice video.
15:00 with T3dd, I feel like this is a flop we benefit from having a leading range on, do you disagree? If we have a leading range this seems like a hand that should be in it at least some of the time and also after checking probably not calling every time, making it a great candidate to click that fancy button =) no?
Sept. 7, 2015 | 7:09 p.m.
With 98s I think limp/call would be more of my standard and limp/jam would be a player-specific move vs someone who raises very wide vs limps. I think it falls better into a limp call range along with most other suited connectors though the lower they are the more likely I'll be to shove them. My limp/jam range will include more weak Ax, and some good broadway hands that dominate some of his raise/call hands.
With the straight I think I prefer 160-180k on the river though I still don't think theres a ton of value there.
Sept. 4, 2015 | 1:35 p.m.
Hey Kaizen, thanks for the question. I think vs someone folding this much to a minraise you generally just want to raise all your trash. It is sweet to fold out some hands that dominate you when you have low cards. Only exception I think is if your opponent is especially bad post flop and you want to lower variance as much as possible and play post with a higher spr.
Sept. 4, 2015 | 1:18 p.m.
Hmm I just looked at it again. It has to do with the overcard that we have with A2o because with J2o and AA it again prefers the 33/33/33. I guess because on A turns villain gets to fold 100% and we lose that value.
Aug. 16, 2015 | 12:25 p.m.
ya and made it a rainbow board too so no bdfd's
Aug. 10, 2015 | 10:34 p.m.
Hey Dan, nice video.
I was playing around with this spot in an equilibrium solver and found something pretty interesting. As expected 33%/33%/33% had a higher EV than 66%/66%. However, when given the choice between the two it chose 66% on the flop and 33% on the turn to leave it with about a 20% pot shove on the river. This line had a higher equity than the 33/33/33 line by about half as much again as the jump between that and the 66/66. Any ideas about why this would be the case?
Aug. 7, 2015 | 11:55 p.m.
Yeah the problem with modelling this spot with HRC is that the sim assumes nobody can call so all these hands that would get flatted like T9s and 66 have to go in the 4bet range or just get folded. In reality button will be calling a lot and 4betting polar making the shove a good bit worse unless he is getting really carried away with 4b bluffs.