PLO20 JT85ds in 3bp ott

Problem with cbeting , the flop does not hit Your range. Only hand Velue Bet this board is (set) or straight. I dont think You need to protect your Velue Bet range. Maybe total air without backdoor flush Draw is a hand to balance.

Originally posted by regie
Problem with cbeting , the flop does not hit Your range. Only hand Velue Bet this board is (set) or straight. I dont think You need to protect your Velue Bet range. Maybe total air without backdoor flush Draw is a hand to balance.

The flop cbet is not a value-bet. In PLO before the river you don´t put hands in contained categories of either value or bluff.
We have to cbet here with a 50%+ frequency and I think it would be hard for me to find enough random bluffing hands that would fit better than mine. Without blockers I´d agree that checking back bare oesd´s in general realizing mediocre equity is the way to go.

Yes Solver prefers to cbet having 2 bdfd´s (60% over 30% with just 1 bdfd) but the bet-call is actually not a mistake in my eyes.

When You Bet this hand You need to call a reraise. Probably 30% Bet and 70% check back this hand. 1/3 pot Bet is fine. AAxx is a check. Set is a Bet 70% of the time. Straight is a Bet 100% of the time. You need Some total air in range like AKQJ without backdoor flush Draw 80% of the time.

I would like to check 2 pair 100% of the time. Two pair and TJ open ended straight Draw with a backdoor flush Draw is a Bet reraise all in 100% of the time as well I believe.

I think it is balanced by overall range with 1/3 pot Bet.
When we Bet 2/3 or 1/2 pot, it is more Velue Heavy, but no reason to do this.

In trainer high rake game JT85ds is breakeven 3bet versus CO (wide range). So at least questionable 3bet imo.

Using smaller sizing will allow wider bets but 50% sound pretty high for me. Anyway I thought to check this spot also as BUvsCO just thinking that someone playing 50/35 is not going to have tight EP range:

But perhaps the most cruzial point in this spot is this:

So when trainer says to bet 32% (with half pot) in this BUvsCO spot it also assumes CO is leading above range. So 60% of time villain is supposed to lead this as its so much better flop for him. But we all know this is very very far from reality with any opponent and we should expect way more checks. That means opponent check range is way stronger and our cbet frequency should go down a lot. So in this case 32% with half pot might really come down to more like 15% or so versus opponent having little to no leads.

I think my range balance is almost correct according to solver.

Yes, the 3bet is marginal looking barely at solver solutions, so let me bring up some further details and an explanation to appease your worries. PLO-Vision 3bets 70% with JT85ds against a 30% GTO-Opening range from CO. His RFI´s were around 35% and equally distributed among those positions. The lack of positional awareness also indicates he will do bad postflop. Furthermore I relied on the tendency of an average villain to not adjust properly against facing an extended 3-bet oop (he should 4-bet more, have a solid flat-calling range) which culminates in a 3bp setup where we are in a positional advantage with a better balanced range. If we manage to not mess up postflop we should be able to do better than folding which has an EV of 0bb or -3,5bb (depending on how you calc it).

PLO-Vision cbets 33% pot as a default here. The GTO-Frequency with that sizing is 47% to be exact which makes sense mathematically when half-pot is 32%. This sizing suits my gameplan, as I like it to have one 1/3pot sizing that fits all different lockdown textures in 3bp´s, easy to memorize and quickly to apply ingame. Be aware when sizing it up reducing the frequency we are allowed stab on this hard-to-hit lockdown board can be suboptimal exploiting fit-fold strategies on the flop since it is difficult to defend here from villains perspective. I am not sure but afaik the 1/3pot sizing strategy also has a slightly higher overall EV GTO-wise but it won´t be a lot in a GTO environment so that is fine too I guess (but a little counter-intuitive for me).

I agree that folks do not match the required leading frequency, in fact they barely lead at all. This will strengthen their check-calling and check-raising ranges but not change too much before that, as all hands from preflop are still in his checking range, we do not have that information which line he´ll take before betting ourself. So villain who also should bluff-lead will have those air hands wihin his range aswell. Summing it up his range will remain wide enough for us to bring a profitable bluff cbet with our particular hand. It is important to distinguish the difference of a checking range to a check-calling range and not be fearful towards events that did not come up yet. It is a mental leak I discovered and pointed out already in some other hand you have posted Ghaleon..^^

Finally here is the PLO-vision flop strategy. We bet almost all JT85 with 2 bdfd´s and 31% of those with 1 bdfd. Facing a raise we call 100% but the call imo is not set in stone as we´d just face a 50% pot-sized check-raise. My actual question was about the turn-play but if I have managed to clear up doubts from my previous actions ..

Problem ultimately with preflop 3bet is lack of fe. Sure we can have edge postflop but these sort of hands are obviously not doing hot in domination game. So good amount of EV in solver land does come from that preflop fe as well. In simulation I checked CO is supposed to fold almost 50% of time and that range include lot of Ax rundowns, big pockets etc. that are actually doing pretty nice versus hand like ours. So I would be careful with these kind of 3bets and focus more on better connectivity and higher cards. Its better to widen 3bet range with like ss broadway combos versus these guys imo.

I just wanted to point out that solver assumes huge lead range. That means lot more stronger hands in villain range but also more weaker stuff as you said. Our hand can bluff out some better hands or equity. But it also play really well in check range as we often lack hands to continue on straightening turns. Hand can continue on most turns versus probe. Plus it does pretty well versus those air stuff that should theory wise lead anyway.

On turn its close for sure. We likely get all money in often when hitting nuts. On flushing card we can potentially fold straight though its close with those pot odds. If villain check on 5♦: or Q♦: I would value bet. Question is do our two pair or trips hits have value or not. I think overall its not much of difference whatever we call or fold.

In position sometimes it is better to 3bet fold similar combos to avoid multiway pots. Its difficult to play them. We are fd dominated often. Have to be very carefull .

Assuming he's checking 100% range, yes he still has air in his range. But he has 2:1 or 3:1 value to bluff ratio. Meaning he still has a lot of value. Also when betting the flop your opponent could be overestimating/overvaluing his middle strength hands that the solver purely x/c. Also vs his value on the flop you're in bad shape. If is overly aggressive you have to call the raise, but if his x/r frequency is that high then GTO would opt for a check back on the flop.

I think we have range equity , looks like set +straight Draw, but we dont have equity with given hand so fold. I dont know what the betsize means. Perfect vs our hand.

think ive matched the handsample of villain
should be something like 20 hands (5 3bets, 2 open-raises, 3 calls) would fit perfectly for 50, 35, 25.
preflop the thing is we are not at the button and we have one shortstack behind.

turn, think monker would just call. took the ranges from ghaleons picture and JT85 is barely in there but nevermind^^

as long you dont fold, its somewhat ok, i would say. but mostly im still in camp fold pre^^

e. might be more interesting think about just stack off flop.
about the odds. think thats too conservative by saying just having 6 clean outs

JT85 is barely in there but nevermind

You took the BU vs CO 3bet range? The handsample was like 50 hands.

as long you dont fold

I thought it might be a fold. In game in fact I did call. I did not like it very much afterwards, it felt so soaken into something that was far away from "solid". The river was a blank and I folded against the min-shove which was weird and maybe a mistake too. I know solver calls marginal turns more often but another thing with being almost allin is, I feel like it makes sense to shove some of the marginal turn-calls when we know we´d call most river-cards to end the hand right there. I did not find out yet, why solver is shoving some turns at spr ~1.5 but calls on some other textures.

think thats too conservative by saying just having 6 clean outs

I know, but when I don´t know how solid defense looks (with my betting range, also check-raises are more straightforward in players´ tendencies) like I fall back to counting clean outs to not invest money bad.

Calling and Folding balance your range agaist marginal hands. Dont mind it. Problem with calling is not enough equity on turn but enough equity when You hit so it was not a disester play from your part . From his part small Bet is bad, because it indicates a push when he had similar hand to You but better with flush Draw . From this point of view it is an easy fold. Probably he tried to fold your hand with no Fold equity on River .

I don't think 3bet is neither standard or good. Versus active player we often have close to 0 FE. There is also a small difference whether we 3bet from CO or BTN, as BTN will always have the position postflop and there are only 2 players left to act. From CO there are one more player to act (that is 50% increasement from two players) and we might not have the position. Of course BTN should fold very often, but PLO20 you never know...

Without FE even solver wouldn't 3bet. JT85ds becomes a call, when suited to J and T.

Another problem I see is that with aggressive opponents it's hard to estimate your medium strength hands. Especially in 3bet pots the money goes in quite easily. But JT85ds is a hand that will hit something very often, but is more often dominated than dominating opponents hand. That is not a good combo.

Postflop I think relying to solver strategy versus opponent who is very far from solver strategy is not the best approach. It would be good if opponent was unknown. But as he is not, hero really needs to adjust his strategy. Now we come back to poker basics, how do we gain edge versus aggressive player? 3betting medium strength hands and betting small to the pot with medium strength hand/draw is not the way to go imo.

Versus aggros we gain edge (=make money) by pushing the money in when we are equity favorites and letting him being aggressive when we have a hand. Every aggro is a bit different, and as we gain more information we can adjust on how aggressive we play draws (do we have FE or not), how much we want to slow play (how aggressive he is and in what spots) and how much we want to value bet or raise (how much he makes bad calls).

Problem with calling is not enough equity on turn but enough equity when You hit so it was not a disester play from your part

Yes that was my thought ingame too, speculating a little on implieds.

Without FE even solver wouldn't 3bet. JT85ds becomes a call, when suited to J and T.

I know but again, we are not up against solver. I don´t want players in the blinds to come along when I have no nuttiness and I am betting on other edges I already explained.

Versus aggros we gain edge (=make money) by pushing the money in when we are equity favorites and letting him being aggressive when we have a hand. Every aggro is a bit different, and as we gain more information we can adjust on how aggressive we play draws (do we have FE or not)

Okay I get that. Anyways, I know that hand performs marginal equity-wise but if villain calls like 30% oop, we should do fine with our hand that is double-suited and semi-connected and performs decently in low SPR pots being in position. He won´t check-raise balanced, he won´t find the right action with the right hands at the right frequencies on different textures. That together should translate in an higher EV overall. Aynways, to find out more details I´d need to make further details analysizing similar spots in the database but I´ll keep your and Ghaleons point about the preflop line in mind for the future.