Thallo

Hey Sergey very sorry to hear this. Will try to help spread the word.

Hey Richard, at 28:22 of the video. No question. Just nice life.

That was definitely a Jungle video

at 6:10 don't really think the sim is reflecting that data point you intended unless I'm misunderstanding. Syntax is too vague and leaves in K9 and 99 combos that are mostly betting, doesn't actually show the middling range discussed. Think we wanted less than 2 pair.

Like your coaching style in these videos and think there's a lot to learn from it. Would request that you edit out a bit more of the dead zone sections for the purposes of RIO videos. Training vids are already time restrictive formats, best to have as high a density of educational spots as possible in them.

Interesting, we are definitely viewing how to adjust exploitatively vrs population differently here. I agree skewing aggressive when checked to can't be terrible, and doing it with a hand that unblocks top pair makes solverland sense, but my read on how humans are playing this spot is they are over-cbetting with fd's and fd blockers on flop then checking most Twopair w/ high fd blocker + flushes on turn resulting in the value of having a fd blocker when bluffing turn being higher. I'd rather turn a hand with more sd value but also better blocker components into a bluff over this combo which unblocks almost every hand that's checking to check call. Even more so with this sizing where we are getting wide continues but have below average double barrel properties on rivers unimproved.

Text me a PO box that can fit a case won't be the first or last time I purchase poker EV with wine :)

Lot to unpack here. First of all there is actually very little crossover from the skill set to win in a 50-100 8 handed live game with non plo pros vrs PLO 500 on ignition. Your adjustments will be massive between the games and I think trying to "prove they can cut it online" is a trap a lot of players in similar positions to yourself have made. Second you very well could "just be running that bad" but you are correct that it's likely more than that.

Back when I was advertising coaching on here couple of years ago ( https://www.runitonce.com/plo/live-gamemtt-plo-coaching/ ) I specifically offered a 1 hr "leak finder" session for exactly what you are talking about, taking a broad view at your data base and seeing what stands out. If you don't have visions yet I'll make you the same offer I had listed back then, sign up for a month of visions (which will help you out tremendously anyways) via my affiliate link and I'll do an hour leak finder session with you. If you'd like something more in depth feel free to PM me, I've been on your exact path before an can hopefully offer some more detailed insight.

31:50, think I'm missing something here. 3 qualities for bluffs 1) blocking flushes, 2) equity vrs flushes, 3) unblocking pairs. You state we have 2 of those 3, I see #3, I'm not seeing our second one.

This also intuitively feels like the wrong hand to start bluffing with, as you mentioned ranges are pretty snug by this point, in a check check line our straight outs and even our 8 maintain equity, once we bet and get called we basically never WASD and our hand makes a terrible bluff candidate on the river.

I'll do some research into shipping costs to the UK for that NRH series :)

Keep the nrh hands in :)

Great video, quickly picked up on a potential leak, verified it throughout the video, and found clear path to improvement for the hero in a spot that they likely wouldn't notice.

Been enjoying this series as I try to brush up on my nlh cash. Good stuff, looking forward to having time to watch the next part

Seems like my feedback is might cross from constructive to just criticism on this vid but at 18 minutes what are we learning from visions here when this game tree is built off a btn opening range that's so much tighter AND a btn call vrs 3b range that's even tighter again? QJ85ss isn't even an open from visions here.

When we try to run simplified solves like this without accurate imputs we end up with results where small changes snowball into large effects in the game tree. In this case IP has far more 2p combos than solver thinks it has in this spot. Having more 2p combos on the flop allows IP to continue more judiciously, altering their range on the turn, thus altering what solver would shove into said range. Seems dangerous to try and take too much away from visions responses in spots like this without a deeper dive.

Not trying to be a party pooper here but I hugely disagree with Hunter Cichy on this hand. I think we have a very clear check fold to that sizing multiway oop when the 3rd blind bets out for a number of reasons and I don't think it's a particularly close spot. Protecting raw equity with this hand class is a trap I think a lot of players in live games fall into when at this spr we need to be much more focused on our hands visibility, or lack there of. Additionally the largest blind often has the least incentive for leads on a texture they don't have a clear polarity advantage, and this qualifies. While this board is "fine" for their range, it isn't 246 it's 2J6 and we just aren't going to see much betting out here by players even with middle set or wraps without bonus "stuff" like a pair or hearts.

When we see players make this type of lead in live games it's rarely theory oriented as and most of the time quite polar and "human". Our hand plays atrociously vrs this type of range as it virtually never improves, their bottom of range with the type of blockers that are betting out here will continue to bet when unimproved and we have potentially as little as 1 out vrs hands we trail.

The second issue is you build a theoretical based platform for justifying the flop call using all sorts of assumptions about his range then ignore that entirely on the turn and fold for purely exploitative reasons based on your feelings about his bet size. Ecstatic to see some live PLO content on here so hopefully I'm looking too far into this hand or other people can weigh in and maybe they have a difference experience with how populations plays here.

Phil Galfond are app games ok for your review footage or only want on traditional sites? Posting the question here as others may have it a s well.

This is an exceptionally high quality video, great insights throughout. Thanks Richard

18 mins: Would be curious to see the solver output here for river bets. You mention FD blockers weight towards betting of course, but doesn't the fact that all of your FD blockers are also pairs negate that for your specific hand? While most Top 2+3FD blockers want to lead for value in this spot, your specific clubs blocking all non club pairs actually weight opponent towards more likely missed spades (or other clubs) without enough showdown value to check back. With your exact hand the Suit if the T would probably be the decider for me, if it was a club/spade this would be a lead, if it's not a check to induce.

I personally don't feel Breaking up the action this often to double check fairly intuitive preflop play is a good video format. Would recommend either doing a video on solver preflop ranges or doing a video on live play with occasional solver verification.

I'd check out some of the newer videos in the learning path tree or any of @empty's current videos for similar

And what makes you think you are qualified? If you are so smart why don't you go write a book or something?

xPerry Won't let me reply direct to your comment, I think because it's already a reply in the thread, but yes it is included with a 1 month subscription as well.

Ya renting if far cheaper than buying a computer to run monker sims on for sure

Again, "realistic" just very hard to quantify and hugely depends on where your game is at. In general running MTT specific solves on monker is very time consuming and inefficient, i'd recommend other forms of studying first until you more or less feel like your game isn't progressing without it.

Thank you! Feel like I owe a commission on my next 5 lessons or something with how good this advertisement is haha

I second the Runchucks recommendation, and not only because I have an episode on high stakes private PLO games with him :)

"Enough" is really hard to quantify. In my opinion visions is a step before Monker. If you haven't done solver work on your own I would definitely recommend visions before using Monker as it will allow you to study and improve at a more efficient rate. If you are looking to do more in depth dives into specific scenarios, Monker is where you want to be.

I do offer a free 1hr leak finder session with a purchase of visions via my affiliate link, so if you are interested in trying it out makes it a bit of a better value. Can find that info here:

https://www.runitonce.com/plo/live-gamemtt-plo-coaching/

https://www.runitonce.com/vision/?affiliate=Thallo

Q442 has crossed the line from "opening a bit wide ep" to "next stop, punt city". While I'm sure some of this is an intentional adjustment to take advantage of his perception that you are playing snug from the button and Rollz being oop, still interesting to see how far players are deviating pre.

Unfortunately I'd imagine it's relatively proportionate to the amount of plo players vrs NL players. Need more people playing PLO in general

Would recommend trying out visions as well, by far the most efficient way to practice and study your preflop game

Hey Cory, like this concept a lot, for me your friends audio was very difficult to hear. If done in the future anyone joining in on the review may need a crisper mic.

this seems to sum it up