@4:00 KcQh, the first commenter asked what hands you would choose to bluff-raise river with, to which you replied "hands with an A and a heart in them". The only 2 combos I can think of that fall into that category and might be weak enough to turn into a bluff would be AdTh and AcTh.
a) do you think those 2 combos work better as bluff-raises than bluff-catches?
b) do you think you need a few more bluffs than that and might this KQ combo work?
Oct. 7, 2019 | 2:02 a.m.
Thanks for the video. At 25:27 with T2hh on 653 BB vs HJ. Is this is a spot we can/should have a flop donking range, and is this a decent combo to include in that range?
June 9, 2019 | 10:03 p.m.
@GT: the "one measure" is that KQJ9 makes better wraps and more and nuttier straights. I'm not saying that necessarily makes it a higher EV open, but a high rundown with a single gap at the bottom is conventionally a playable hand. (Personally I tend to open both these hands UTG at 6max.)
Aug. 26, 2017 | 4:55 p.m.
Off the top of my head, there's some misinformation about the reasons for betting in that book. He wrote that the reasons for betting/raising are either for value (to get called by worse hands) or as a bluff (to get better hands to fold), but it's been long understood now that that logic is insufficient at best, and flat-out wrong at worst, as it highly undervalues denying equity. iirc he also has a sentence like, "if it's a good spot to value bet then it's a bad spot to bluff, and if it's a good spot to bluff then it's a bad spot to value bet".
THAT SAID, I loved Easy Game when it came out and it definitely helped me early in my poker career, but the game was a lot different back then.
May 27, 2017 | 7:07 a.m.
This is something I've been thinking about in-game and struggling with (the seemingly incongruous ideas of a) betting large with a more nutted range and b) betting small with a high frequency and range advantage), this helps, thank you!
Sept. 14, 2016 | 5:57 p.m.
I'd tend to b/f this turn. Villain still has a lot of hands like QQTx and KKxx with a gutshot or FD that we can get value/protection from. x/c seems okay too. x/f seems too weak, especially vs. this sizing. There are no straights possible and we're only really beat by T9 hands.
"Blocking a set" is not really relevant here against a BTN vs UTG CC range... 55 combos should be a very tiny % of villain's preflop range. If anything holding the 5 likely reduces our equity because we have fewer 2 pair outs going to the river against villain's turned 2 pair (i.e. T9 on this turn, or J9 on a J turn, etc.). Blocking NFD is more relevant since it makes it less likely you'll get raised and you'll be able to turn your hand into a bluff on some flush runouts, so I like the cbet.
Sept. 11, 2016 | 5:27 p.m.
37:00 table 2: you say you bet this board quite frequently, presumably with somewhat of a merged range, but you bet 90% pot. Isn't a smaller bet on the flop usually more effective when you are betting with a range advantage at a high frequency? Why do you choose such a large size here?
Sept. 11, 2016 | 5:06 p.m.
23:53 table 2. You talk about "sizing up" here and conclude that $225 or $250 is a good size if you choose to bet. I understand why betting large is good, since your range is polarized and you can have trips and maybe boats (if you check back some 43) for value, and then bluffs such as weak FDs. But I don't understand why 80% pot is necessarily better than 100% pot. Do you just say "I want to bet big" and then randomly choose a size between 75% and 100%, or are there reasons to not bet pot?
Sept. 6, 2016 | 10:39 p.m.
Thanks for the video. 21:17 bottom left with KQJT, you say if you were to put more money in the pot you would rather shove than call... could you explain a bit deeper why you think shoving would be a higher EV line than calling here?
Sept. 4, 2016 | 5:03 p.m.
Thanks for the response. I guess what I'm asking is: are there any Axxxss hands you'd VPIP which are suited to the bottom card in your hand that you would not VPIP when suited to a higher card in the same hand, i.e. the J, Q, or K?
Aug. 29, 2016 | 2:53 a.m.
Clearly AKQ2ss with A2s is better than AKQ2ss with AKs (because when we have AKs we remove 2nd nut flush draws and 2nd nut flushes from opponents' ranges when we make the nut draw or nuts), but are there any situations in which you play one hand pre but not the same exact hand with the only difference being you don't have AK of the same suit? And if so, when? It seems like there must be some situations where the EV discrepancy makes a difference, but I don't know what they are.
Aug. 29, 2016 | 12:37 a.m.
Please report that incident to Bovada, include the date and table number etc., and they will look into it and likely ban the players in question if it's true. From what I understand they're actually somewhat proactive about banning colluders.
Aug. 14, 2016 | 5:22 p.m.
Nice video as usual. Your explanation in one spot didn't make complete sense to me though:
28:40 table 1, AQJ9ds on AK2Thhhh. First, you say that you could cbet flop with 100% of range and imply that you have the range advantage. I understand you have more sets, but intuitively I would think BB has more flushes, since a large chunk of your opening range that makes a flush on monotone boards includes an ace or king, whereas BB is defending a bunch of lower suited hands. Then you say you wouldn't use that strat on 872hhh, but to me it seems like you do have at least a slight range advantage there since you have more nut and 2nd nut flushes. Is my logic flawed here? And if not, could BB perhaps even develop a leading range on boards like AKQ monotone, vs CO and earlier positions?
Aug. 13, 2016 | 9:12 p.m.
I'll try to help... Ben is saying that it is more important to not cap our range on earlier streets because it can be more costly, i.e. what you infer from #3 is correct.
In reference to #4, keep in mind that "capping your range" is not always the same thing as "not betting". Whether or not checking IP on an early street caps our range depends heavily on the board texture, effective stack size, etc. In regards to "avoid applying these principles on early streets", I could be wrong but I think he was implying to probably not use multiple bet sizes on any given flop unless you really know what you're doing.
Aug. 6, 2016 | 1:08 a.m.
I'm pretty sure in most spots where one player has a more nutted and polarized range, they should be betting some hands, despite potentially having an equity disadvantage. Balancing that betting range and a checking range is a different question.
July 31, 2016 | 3:45 p.m.
I did not say that at all; in fact I mentioned in my original comment that I would usually check back this board vs. regulars as well. All I was implying is that there are most likely a few more 5x combos in a weaker player's checking range than a strong player's checking range (again not saying good players will lead all 5x combos, but I assume they should lead some).
This makes sense, thank you.
July 31, 2016 | 3:40 p.m.
Hi Raphael, thanks for the video.
2:30 QJT6 on 554: You say you would be more inclined to cbet vs a weaker player than a stronger player in this spot, but my logic would actually have been the opposite: A weaker player is more likely to check trips on this board since they are less likely to develop a donking range in spots where they have a range advantage (and the BB has more 5x and 44 than we do, whether it's a weaker player or not). Therefore I'd be more likely to check back vs. a weaker player, since after they check they likely still have all their trips combos (though I'd prob check back here vs. most players in general). Am I missing something?
July 29, 2016 | 5:41 p.m.
I'm relatively new to PLO (been playing seriously for a couple months now), and I found it helpful to make opening rules for myself by position, divided into these 5 "hand groups": Pairs, Rundowns, High Cards, Suited Aces, and Double Pairs.
For example, we could start with UTG:
pairs: All AA, most KK except for the very trashiest, decent QQ (QQds with some degree of connectedness, QQ98+, etc.), good JJ (maybe like JJ87ss+), extremely good 99-TT, like 99TJds+.
rundowns: 9876+, or if it's double suited I'll go a bit wider, like 9875ds and 8765ds (not that 9-hi suits add much value when we're UTG), and T986ss+.
high cards: any 4 cards 9 or higher either double suited or suited to the ace, any 4 cards T or higher.
and so on for the nut suit hands, then the double paired hands, and then go through this process for each position. This is not ultra precise but if you make rules for yourself ahead of time then it helps prevent tilt-opening losing hands, and of course you can always adjust your ranges as you see fit (either by altering your rules or by adjusting to a specific table).
I haven't watched Steve Paul's videos yet but I'm sure he has more specific advice.
July 18, 2016 | 1:56 a.m.
Hi, thanks for the video.
@6:36, Q953ds on table 2: is there any merit in checking back flop? My reasons are: a) It seems like we will have a tough time realizing our equity vs. a calling range, since we will likely check back many turns and villain can bet a lot of rivers, b) we likely don't want 3 streets, c) getting raised on the flop hurts, and d) we don't need a ton of protection vs. pure air hands. On the other hand I understand this board favors our range so we're probably unlikely to get raised. I'm pretty new to taking PLO seriously so sorry if this is a dumb question.
June 17, 2016 | 6:04 p.m.
Let's say we have AA72r, and we are in the SB or BB. CO opens for pot and it's folded to us. Assuming we are readless, how shallow does CO have to be for you to re-pot here? 50bb? shallower? deeper?
May 31, 2016 | 5:52 p.m.
Thanks for the reply. 3betting pre seems good. I don't really know how wide I'm betting on the turn; I pretty much just started trying to play this game seriously :p I'd guess my betting range would be jack high flush plus and then some hands like AdQQJ or something. Would you either bet larger on the turn with this hand, or not bet at all? Would it be make sense to only bet big and more polarized like nut flush and nut blocker?