Originally posted by VorpalF2F
One of the +EV aspects of streaming, is that you are almost forced to evaluate your hands as you play, and by "thinking out loud" as you talk yourself into calling, raising or folding.Where it gets bad is when you hear yourself say something like, "Well logically this is a fold, but what the hell, I'm just going to shove"
yup..... i am not that tilt resitant and for sure has happend on my stream ♦ but i do think its a bottomline positiv in the learning experience. i play for entertainment and fun first, embarrassing moments are quite the opposite of that when you close the session and you are confronted with, fuck people could watch me donk off like an idiot. And i mean not my in general not well developed game, this i know i need to work on, but specifically tilting / going bonkers for no good reason... if you do it by yourself its easier to forget about it ^^
Can just say thanks to everyone who gives me feedback here, this interaction and almost daily reporting really keeps me motivated to also become better at this and not just play for the luls.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Small stakes PLO preflop is easy. Always pot, don't open mediocre hands from early position, don't call preflop opens unless you have a really good hand, and 3bet your premiums.
probably true, but i'd rather include concepts that are maybe a bit off on these stakes, but potentially become needed on higher stakes now, instead of later.
So coming to betsizes i found for 6 max roughly broken down - pot from the first two positions, ~3bb from 3rd, and go even smaller on the button (at the moment i think i am using 2.6bb which could be even smaller according to this approach)
Not sure if you would agree with this, but i liked the reasoning given, i think it was somewhere in the runitonce forums.
Where i also found simplified betsizes for certain boards and positions aswell for 3bet sizes depending on position.
That its not the best solution and you still need to adjust is clear, but it was something that felt easy enough to incorperate for me without having to think about it too much and felt very natural while playing.
If you thinks this sounds stupid, please let me know^^
*edit - the long version for betsizes on the flop and what feels like an important reply that struck me as interesting - hope its ok to post this here?
" PLO Board Types Bet Sizing:
Connected rainbow: 80% pot
Connected two flush (high cards): 90-100% pot
Connected two flush (low cards): 60% pot
Connected three flush (high cards): 60% pot
Connected three flush (low cards): 50% pot
Unconnected no pairs: 60% pot
Unconnected low pair: 50% pot
Unconnected high pair: 60% pot
"Hi guys, I think OP's list is reasonable. In general. The way I think about it so as to be an easy heuristic is:
Very Dynamic flops - generally speaking this means suited board with significant connectedness and/or high ranks (2 broadway). (e.g. KhTs7h, AhTs9s, JcTc6h)
Dynamic flops - generally speaking suited boards with max one broadway and not that connected, or the most connected rainbow boards when they have high ranks (e.g. Ks8s4d, 9s7s6h, KdTs7c)
Static flops - Mostly rainbow boards that are moderately connected or have moderately vulnerable possible straight, but typically don't have 2 broadway (e.g. Th7s5c, 8h6s4d, Ks3d2c)
Very Static - Unpaired cases are mostly rainbow and wither 2-broadway + disconnected flops, 1-big broadway + very disconnected, or barely vulnerable possible-straights (e.g. AhKc9d, Kc8h2d, 9s6h5d). You can also lump paired boards and monotone boards in here (and I will now for convenience), but in practice there are meaningful differences among the unpaired cases and the three classes of paired/monotone (XXY, XYY, and monotone). Parsing monotone to # high cards --> set frequency is decent idea, and should cause slight increase in sizing.
In general the idea is to bet your whole range a given size as a function of board texture, position, # players, and single-raised vs three-bet pot.
So the basic heuristic I use is:
Single Raised Pots
OOP HU on Very Dynamic/Dynamic/Static/Very Static, bet 90%/80%/70%/60%.
IP HU subtract 10% from each from OOP HU
OOP MW add 10%/10%/0%/0% to each from OOP HU
IP MW subtract 0%/0%/10%/10% from OOP HU (I guess 2nd/3 go +5%/+5%/-5%/-5%, but do't sweat that detail too much. It's not that important)
3-Bet Pots
Take all the above and subtract 10%.
This is not perfect. It is not supposed to be. It is supposed to be easy(ish) to remember. Seacombe is correct that every flop is different. I do think it is correct to vary bet sizing as a function of those four factors (# opponents, position, texture, and single-raised vs 3-bet.
There is one serious point of debate. Which is that multi-way pots have lower SPR (say 9ish for an average 100BB case versus 13ish for the average HU pot).
So a) HU you are betting more frequently with weaker hands and your opponent has weaker hands than two combined --> bet a bit smaller
b) MW you are betting less frequently with a stronger range and your opponents collectively have a stronger range (i.e. you face the best of the two or sometimes both) and therefore when you choose to bet you are more willing to stack and more often need to charge another good (hopefully worse!) hand --> bet a bit larger
Except
c) With SPR 13 HU if you do want to play for stacks you need to pot-pot-pot (but this one is less of an 'except' than d) because as noted our want-to-stack:bet ratio is lower
d) With SPR 9 MW if you do want to play for stacks you can do it while still betting smaller on the flop, and you may encourage good action that way, especially if the board is less dynamic, with fewer hands to protect against. Which is why those texture classes adjust differently multi-way.
So on all boards, but especially on the dynamic+ boards, there's more to MW than that. Specifically if you can get away with it in terms of opponent awareness, it is good to subdivide hands/situations into the ones where you want turn SPR close to 4 and where you want it in the 2-3 range. And bet higher/lower accordingly (within each texture/position class). I'll leave that for you to think about.
Last thing - never underestimate the value of max exploiting fish, or to be kinder and just say other words that mean fish, people who will be inelastic to bet sizing and not notice differences. If you flop the nut flush HU with SPR 13 and someone who will fold any non-flush/set and call pot-pot-pot with any flush and pot-pot-fold any unimproved set, don't read my chart, pot the damn flop.
"
I think you make simple things way too complicated. 
Preflop is always pot in PLO. Solver favors it, all the good players in the world favor it. Equities run much closer than in Holdem, and FE for 3betting is a lot lower, which takes away bluff 3bets from PLO. Those two things remove the need to adjust sizing preflop, as no one is able to exploit if you open pot even from later positions. Position has more value in PLO than in Holdem.
For flop sizings, PLO is so complicated in terms of gto'ish approach, that you need to simplify things. If you are going to have 10+ sizings for different flops, it will make your general strategy really complicated. Complicated strategy is hard to follow, and if you don't get the results you are looking for it's hard to start fixing things. Because you are not sure if the problem is your strategy or the lack of being able to do it all the time. You end up quessing, and then there's a big chance to change things that are not your problem.
My advice is to simplify a lot and start thinking about balancing (why, how and when) that range first.
For starters, here's what I mostly use:
HU pots:
Dynamic flops (draws possible): 75% sizing
Locked flops (disconnected/rainbow paired or monotone, rainbow straight): 50% sizing vs unknowns at small stakes, 33% vs decent regs, aggros and at PLO50+
Really dry flops: as above
In 3bet pots: two sizings, pot and 33%/50%. Small sizing depends on SPR, board, opponent and my actual hand. In general, 33% sizing is for locked/dry boards.
That makes your life a lot easier, as in single raised pots you have just one sizing, based on whether the board is locked or dynamic. Then it's easier to start working on the ranges. What to check oop/ip, what to bet-fold, bet-call, bet-raise etc.
For multiway pots, I add pot sizing for 4way+ and very draw heavy flops.
I tried to think why having so many different sizings (as you have) would create better EV, but can't really think any. I definitely agree that the more info you have on your opponent, the more you can deviate from your standard strategy (including sizing). But you should have solid standard strategy that you follow vs unknowns. That way you have a good starting point, when you start to analyze your game and look for spots to improve.
P.S. that preflop guide I told you is very practical, no matter what the stakes are. One Finnish high stakes crusher is always saying, we don't make money in PLO by calling preflop. That holds to small stakes, high stakes and everything in between.
wow i will need some time get though this 
but yes, i am not following this "postflop guide" to a word, and it just inspired me to something similar to what you described and comes down to basically 4 sizes i'd use + pot. 30/52/65/82% which are also set in the ggsoftware, so i don't have any calculating/manually setting the size to do.
preflop i will definetly reconsider aswell, also i am not really calling much and ofc never limping, but against certain players i sure do (the crazy i pot as soon op checks kinds) and ofc pretty much only in a decent positon (bu/co) and not oop unless again dude is serious crazy(meaning the 75% + vpip kinds that swim around on my tables).
I tingle between 28-31 vpip on avg - would you say this is to lose?
Anyhow I see i have still lots of work to do, i will take some more time to go though your post carefully later or tomorrow, as now still want to eat something, start a little session and hopefull chip up regardless my leaks ^^- also discoverd your blog - you will find more of my fishsauce there in the future ♦
Originally posted by padman400
This is starting to become a great thread. Thankshaha - agreed! unfortunately its not me adding the quality here - but i do like it aswell
big thanks to you, kyyberi and all others who take a look from time to time.
becoming at least somewhat active here and seeing how this community works really is big part of my motivation that this little challange i started has a chance to become something actual adding value to my life (refering to mostly the fun of it, hopefully one day also money ♦). Without it my aim to imrpove would be far behind and i would just play for the luls with my limited knowledge. still not sure if i can manage to achieve what i set out to do in my challange but again big thanks!
Originally posted by naDanje
Originally posted by padman400
This is starting to become a great thread. Thankshaha - agreed! unfortunately its not me adding the quality here - but i do like it aswell
Dont be too humble in your own blog
The only reason you get such quality response is because you put your thoughts out in the open!I must agree with Kyyberi when it comes to betsizings - dont overcomplicate things! (that concept is applicable to life in general as well ;))
/AlcopopDK
Like AlcopoDK said, if you give you shall receive.
One more reason to simplify things is time. Timebank is a big opponent for quality decisions. More tables you have, less time you have for a decision. And the more tables, more distraction and things to focus on. Now if you use half of your timebank to figure out your sizing, you have to do everything else in a hurry.
One big thing is learning stuff to automatic level. Like riding a bike, you don't have to think how to do it. That's how you can focus on scenery or thinking something else while riding. In poker, the more you standard strategy is automated, the more time and brain resources you have to think if you should deviate from it. And the more you can exploit your opponents.
To learn something to automatic level (your subconscious mind does the work) you need to make quality repetitions, a lot. The more complicated the thing, the more repetitions you need. This is one reason why simplified strategy usually is a lot better than complicated one.
Originally posted by AlcopopDK
I must agree with Kyyberi when it comes to betsizings - dont overcomplicate things! (that concept is applicable to life in general as well ;))
true words, will indeed apply the concept for preflopopening potsize from now on, the other approach also has its merrit i belive, but does for sure complicate the thought process for something thats rather simple and the advantage if there is any for sure is not that relevant / i am not playing good enough on later streets to profit from it.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
To learn something to automatic level (your subconscious mind does the work) you need to make quality repetitions, a lot. The more complicated the thing, the more repetitions you need.
tomorrow i will look closer into the sizings postflop from the post i quoted and your simplification that should result in quite minor diffrences in the end if i understand it correctly (its late and had a quite hard workingday in my yard aswell) and see what conclusion i can draw from it. most likely will adapt more towards your recommendation and just try to keep some of the rest in mind for the little bit "harder" spots where taking more time is justyfied (e.g 3bet pots + mw or so with the idea to just have it in my toolbox to take out when needed - how often i'll actually think so far maybe quite rare anyway^^)
Anyhow this quote about "automatic level" speaks worlds to me and have to strongly agree, so i should start to internalize this first and the rest can indeed come later.
Also the quote about calling doesnt make money in plo feels very straight forward and if not abused (i already see myself 3betting crazy ♦) should be a good guideline.
Ended the day with some nice plus with br now @ ~310$(professional luckbox was active i think), but will post this as seperate update tomorrow aswell with the usual details.
Thanks again for the kind words and helping to put my head straight.
now its time for bedy bed.^^
Well. as mentioned - professional luckbox was active again... "marginally" over ev in the session + ggcare mincash....
Day 16 results
Hands played : 1115
Profit: $+53,44
BR: $348,18
Originally posted by Kyyberi
HU pots:
Dynamic flops (draws possible): 75% sizing
Locked flops (disconnected/rainbow paired or monotone, rainbow straight): 50% sizing vs unknowns at small stakes, 33% vs decent regs, aggros and at PLO50+
Really dry flops: as aboveIn 3bet pots: two sizings, pot and 33%/50%. Small sizing depends on SPR, board, opponent and my actual hand. In general, 33% sizing is for locked/dry boards.
So after comparing the 2 approaches i am sure for me at this point your approach is best and i only have one tiny modification - to include very dynamic boards((e.g. KhTs7h, AhTs9s, JcTc6h) as something with a closer to Pot sizing HU.
That i think keeps it simple enough for me and may combine the best of the 2 approaches in an easy to understand way?
So what i am looking to internalize is structured like below and has the 1 adjustment - people, please let me know if there is some reason that its a bad adjustment besides adding 1 more factor to internalize^^ from my understanding i can't see the downside if there is one, so hope its not a mistake.
HU pots:
Very Dynamic ((e.g. KhTs7h, AhTs9s, JcTc6h) 90% ---- being the only modification ------
Dynamic flops (draws possible): 75% sizing
Locked flops (disconnected/rainbow paired or monotone, rainbow straight): 50% sizing vs unknowns at small stakes, 33% vs decent regs, aggros and at PLO50+
Really dry flops: as above
In 3bet pots: two sizings, pot and 33%/50%. Small sizing depends on SPR, board, opponent and my actual hand. In general, 33% sizing is for locked/dry boards.
*edit - as this modification also comes in handy mw drawheavy / 4+ mw if understood correctly i think can almost consider it a simplification between HU/MW ?
Having a good time playing with the new adjustments (again thx to kyyberi), execution probably not great yet, but at least there is a string i try to follow.
Day 17 results
Hands played : 1160
Profit: $+30,23
BR: $378,41
didnt play great on every street either but ev graph gives me hope i am starting to do things "right-ish"
Worst Hand of the Day...
This was the biggest pot lost last night and i think a big misplay by me.
As played i think i cannot fold in the end, but preflop with this type of AA could've just called the 3bet to have some AA in that range aswell and if 4bet / villain call i think i should've clearly checked behind that board.
The FD in my hand HU let me donk it in(blockingAT aswell), thinking about villains range thats just silly and not neccessary. With the heart suit to the A maybe a diffrent story, but like this i'd say was just srsly bad.
Well it stuck in my head, at first it felt like a "setup", but after further thought at least i feel like i got a good learning experience from it and realized, the poker gods didnt turn against me, i just played it badly.
*edit - btw, i think villain played this pretty much perfect(not 100% sure about 4bet call OOP, but should not be a big blunder if its one?) and for some reason he was on my radar as kinda an idiot - so also gotta work on how i evaluate my opponents plays.
Don't be results oriented. You don't need to have AA in your call 3bet range under 200bb deep. If you think you do, give me one good reason?
Second, opponent played it far from perfect, TT(98) is a fold preflop. If it was double suited, there should be a discussion whether to 3bet or call with it. My small small stakes sims show either low frequency 3bet or pure call.
With SPR2 you can't ever bet fold, and with AA blockers+fd I think check-folding is way too weak. Check-calling doesn't achieve anything, so what's left it bet-call, and only sizing with that hand is definitely a pot.
When you 4bet and opponent knows you have AAxx range, the mathematical threshold to stack off on any flop is around SPR 2. If opponent has double suited, non-pair, and connected hand (like T987ds) the threshold is 1,5 if opponent plays perfectly versus AAxx range on the flop. In reality opponents have pairs, single suited and disconnected hands so the actual threshold is SPR2.
In other words, once you 4bet with AA and SPR is 2 or less, you can stack off on any flop and opponent can't exploit you. The stack off itself is 100% quaranteed +EV move in the long run. Of course there are flops where we can fold dry AA. But I would be REALLY carefull when starting to make check-folds in SPR<2 HU pots with AA. There's a high chance that you start to see monsters everywhere and make more bad folds than good ones. The only boards would be suited straight boards, and you have 0 blockers or extra equity with your AA.
But what I have seen, even on those scary boards people still stack off with naked fd, pair and all kinds of hands that we are ahead or flipping with. I can't remember when I have folded AA after 4betting in SPR 2 HU (if I have ever?). There might have been few occasions where fold might have been marginally better than stacking off, but those don't affect the long term EV of AA almost at all. If I had folded every time I think the flop is super bad for me, it would have affected my winrate with AA way more, cos I remember a LOT of times where I am surprised how light opponents stack off in 4bet pots.
hey again thank you so much for the feedback.
i think i can't agree 100%(for now), 150bb deep these aces are not super great imo, not saying i should always call 3bets and not 4bet, but the hand really is not that strong to exclude option to just call here preflop completly, maybe just me complicating things again, but i dont think it can be a big blunder since i am sure HU and IP and dont need to worry about others coming along and can just play it like a regular hand and chances of stacking of making an actual strong hand are nicely increased, because after 4bet with A high board the action is dead most of the time.
Anyhow i also still like my 4bet, but including the factor that we are not 100, but 150bb deep makes his call quite ok imo. The 3bet as mentioned maybe questionable, but i would also not fold this to a simple raise, even oop, its just has great playability and like this he gets more info about my hand. even not double suited he has close to 38% if you run it against all AA combos, against my particular AA even ~43%
And on this flop his whole range has me kinda crushed, i mean what naked pair does he hold here? which other aces(always having the heart) dont potentially dominate me hard here? what naked fd would he even hold here? he for sure cant be comforatble with his hand either but to stack off on the flop feels not very clever from my position because i cant think of enough hands where i am ahead here and i have the option to see a free turn and evaluate again after what he does. best case scenario is pretty much having a live weak fd that even when hit will still be outdrawn by all the potetial sets he has here making a boat quite often. I really think as played i get barely any fold from betting (if he calls 4bet oop his hand will not be a lot of low rundowns anymore and i will mostly see his type of hand and up) and am ahead against very little aswell. Also again, if my Hand was suited to the Ace no question, i wouldn't think twice bout it.
I mean you have much more experience with these spots and probably lots of handhistories, i'd be suprised that if looking it up we are printing here in this spot (4bet KsQsJ flop) with weak AA hand like mine(no Ace suite + low cards), even 100bb deep. his hand on this flop is 81% favorite if you run it against all the AA combos. again preflop agreed, questinable and maybe the solver doesnt like it, but the playability of his hand is quite huge and the solver "decision" should be very close and not super clear. knowing he is up most likely against aces 150bb deep i think he can still comfortably call the 4bet and play check fold / check raise depedning on the board, assuming he understands that most AA hands at this SPR are "supposed to stack of anyway" which basically is exploiting what you say is not exploitable.
And i mean that in a rush scenario he develops a read that he can bring my AA to fold in some rare cases and exploite me specifically is far less likely than him trying to exploit the "meta" way of how people play AA hands.
As always this is my stubborn dickhead talking and i will think about what you wrote some more and i am sure its not wrong what you say, but i do think at the moment this is not a black or white situation and so far i feel my train of thought here is not negligable either.
Also its nice to hear that it wasn't the big misplay i made it out to be and i hope you do enjoy the discussion as much as i do (favor goes to me, i am for sure the one learning things but i hope you do like that i am trying to challange your thoughts aswell
for now will head to the tables and have some fun ^^
AAxx has usually bad playability on most flops, as you have just that overpair often. Sometimes you get some additional equity, and on some rare occasions you hit the flop good. When you 4bet, you remove that problem as SPR is so low that you can quite happily stack off on most flops, even when opponent knows you have AA. There's nothing he can do about it.
When you call 3bet, you create low'ish SPR with hand that has horrible playability as preflop caller. You end up folding a LOT of flops, especially with mediocre/bad Aces. And then 100% +EV line is changed to most likely -EV line. My advice is never calling 3bets with Aces unless really deep or some other reason, like maniac yet to act etc.
About his range crushing you, what is counted as crushing? If he is 3betting THAT hand IP, he should 3bet all kinds of hands from top 20% range. Versus 20% excluding AA you have 40% equity. Not the best situation, but at SPR 2 you need 40% to stack off. So if he is stacking off always, it's break even. I think he is stacking off there quite often, including hands that have less than 50% equity versus you. That means that in the end you quite often get the stacks in and in the long run it's break even. And this assumes his 3bet range is logical to top 20% of hands, which is almost quaranteed not to be true.
When someone 3bets that hand, it has nothing to do with good and logical strategy. It's either lack of understanding PLO hands and the concept of EV and how to make money in the long run OR urge to gamble. Often both. Therefore it would be silly to even think that he has 3bet range that he know. That 3bet is not based on strategy, it's based on feelings. When it's based on feelings, he might 3bet almost anything when he feels like it. We all have seen those weird 9622ss 3bets haven't we? Your opponent is a player, who might do that every now and then. If we widen his range to contain hands from top50% range, suddenly you become favorite vs his range on the flop.
We don't know if he mislooked his hand, has a bad strategy or is just gambling. But if in worst case scenario shove is breakeven and in best case scenario significantly +EV, I would just get it in.
P.S. If he has solid 3bet range, your equity goes up. Versus 6% 3bet (BTN should 3bet MP open 6% of times) you have almost 45% on the flop.
hey thanks for the rather big reply,
i've played him quite a bit and think for sure he doesnt play perfect, but he is not braindead either. so sure his 3bet range maybe to lose, but i don't think he is calling the 4bet with the hands you mentioned oop but this hand more likely being the bottom of his range and more often holding KKxx KQJ QJT9etc when he is calling the 4bet.
And again, i think your approach overall is for sure correct and if the situation was a tiny bit diffrent, like me having the suit to the Ace its a no brainer for me aswell.
Its a very specific spot where i think to shove it in doesnt generate tons of money. Since i don't have any solve can't prove it, but i just can't give him a lot of hands that missed this completly and even singlepairs should be rather rare.
You mention him being IP? which he isn't, he plays OOP and checked, i can check behind / take a free card. If i am OOP agreed, not much else i can do but to send it.
n the turn he will still not have it super easy to just send it, because there is so many strong holdings i can have that he doesnt get to fold so i'd assume this could go check / check quite often also.
So not sure. but i think we are talking about two diffrent situations at the moment
Also hands like TT98ss I would not describe as having great postflop playability. Especially in 3bet or 4bet pot it doesnt do well because its quite rare to flop something you are happy to continue. Often you actually flop stuff that are somewhat ok like pair+gs but not nice spots to be in. In BU I would call in villain shoes but definitely not 3bet and from SB even call is very marginal at best.
PS: Btw one of reasons in gto for calling AAxx is to keep KKxx type hands in 3bettor range. Those hands should fold to 4bet very high frequency but in small stakes reality is that those and hands like AKT8ss etc. likely call 4bet anyway.
Originally posted by ghaleon
Also hands like TT98ss I would not describe as having great postflop playability. Especially in 3bet or 4bet pot it doesnt do well because its quite rare to flop something you are happy to continue. Often you actually flop stuff that are somewhat ok like pair+gs but not nice spots to be in. In BU I would call in villain shoes but definitely not 3bet and from SB even call is very marginal at best.PS: Btw one of reasons in gto for calling AAxx is to keep KKxx type hands in 3bettor range. Those hands should fold to 4bet very high frequency but in small stakes reality is that those and hands like AKT8ss etc. likely call 4bet anyway.
great playability is an overstatement by me indeed, but i think they are not very hard to play / easy to let go in many instances.
Also in villains shoes i would've called and not 3bet here in the first place against someone like me (i do open to much most likely ♦)
Against a tighter player a fold seems fine to me.
But as played again i think this should be also bottom of his range to 3bet / call 4bet and most of his range will hit this board well.
your "p.s" this AA / KK gto approach feels right and even without being able to formulate it like this, it would fit in how i play i guess.
Anyhow many things for me to think about and trying to understand. appreciate the input!