Good spot for semi-bluff in 4-way hand?

I wouldn't call betting here a semi-bluff, if you're betting you are betting for value and protection. The K♦: and the are not ideal. That being said if they're passive betting is probably better than check.

Originally posted by BunBun00
The K♦: and the are not ideal. That being said if they're passive betting is probably better than check.

Why? The K♦: is a nice (future) blocker and the top-kicker dominates weaker top-pairs. The J♥: to a very little degree also reduces the likelyhood of someone having :Ax::9x: or :9x::2x: but other than this is quite a neutral card.

I like betting the turn, protecting against flushdraws after nobody has shown strength. Pretty standard, we are likely to have the best hand.

Originally posted by Mascherano95

Originally posted by BunBun00
The K♦: and the are not ideal. That being said if they're passive betting is probably better than check.

Why? The K♦: is a nice (future) blocker and the top-kicker dominates weaker top-pairs. The J♥: to a very little degree also reduces the likelyhood of someone having :Ax::9x: or :9x::2x: but other than this is quite a neutral card.

I like betting the turn, protecting against flushdraws after nobody has shown strength. Pretty standard, we are likely to have the best hand.

I would prefer to unblock :Jx::Jx: or :Ax::Jx: and get value from them:. The is nice, but again I would prefer to unblock the and maybe get some loose calls with fds. That's my thought.

Bluffing means we bet to make a better hand fold. Semi-bluffing means we have also some equity if opponent calls, and combined FE and equity is enough to make it +EV. When we bet with the best hand it's value betting.

PLO 2, I would bet this every single time for 20c. You get value from draws and weaker Axxx. I wouldn't consider Kd as future blocker as it's irrelevant. If diamond comes, no reason to bet at PLO 2 anymore. Almost no one folds a flush on the river, and on the other hand almost no one turns weaker A into a bluff if diamond comes and you check.

Keep it simple: valuebet turn, check river (unless A comes, when you can make a small valuebet). There are some trips/boats in their range. If K or J comes, you can bet small valuebet on the river to target weaker Axxx, if you get just one call on the turn. If you get 2+ calls, I would probably check-fold any non A river.

Originally posted by BunBun00

Originally posted by Mascherano95

Originally posted by BunBun00
The K♦: and the are not ideal. That being said if they're passive betting is probably better than check.

Why? The K♦: is a nice (future) blocker and the top-kicker dominates weaker top-pairs. The J♥: to a very little degree also reduces the likelyhood of someone having :Ax::9x: or :9x::2x: but other than this is quite a neutral card.

I like betting the turn, protecting against flushdraws after nobody has shown strength. Pretty standard, we are likely to have the best hand.

I would prefer to unblock :Jx::Jx: or :Ax::Jx: and get value from them:. The is nice, but again I would prefer to unblock the and maybe get some loose calls with fds. That's my thought.

I would not expect someone to call :Jx::Jx:. I dont understand the argument, you also unblock :Qx::Qx: (which usually should not call either). Furthermore that blocker-effect on kickers and overpairs is way more insignifcant than you think. Beside the :Ax::Jx: there are lots of other top-pair combos all with worse kickers and he still could have :Ax::Jx: anyways. Having a blocker does not mean it is impossible for him to have it and you would not want to give him that freecard if he has something like A♥:J♦:T♥:2♦:. But 4-way even bad fish really do not call underpairs especially not 4way, what you are trying to accomplish is getting protection against flushdraws and 1 street of value against worse kickers.

I think we definitely want to to give free card for A♥:J♦:T♥:2♦:

But yeah in my games I would use 1/3-1/2 pot size to value bet turn good amount of time. 2x is still quite rare even for wide ranges. Bigger can be fine if people call enough weaker.

Originally posted by ghaleon
I think we definitely want to to give free card for A♥:J♦:T♥:2♦:

For those who forgot the hand rankings... top-pair does not beat flush

Originally posted by ghaleon
2x is still quite rare even for wide ranges. Bigger can be fine if people call enough weaker.

2xxx is rare especially for wide ranges..

Well this got to off rail but A2 is boat on that board.

Also not sure what you mean with 2x being more rare for wide range. 2x is 7.5% of EP open range while its 13% of BU open range.

For 30% calling range, where 3bet would be 6%, 2xxx is about 10% of that range. If we widen the calling range to 50% (same 6% 3bet) 2xxx is 14% of the range.

If there is two deuces on the board, 2xxx drops to a bit over half of that.

Originally posted by ghaleon
Well this got to off rail but A2 is boat on that board.

Then take A♥:J♦:T♥:6♦: instead omg. I think you know what Ive meant.

...

Guys where did you get your numbers. Like if you take a 50%!6% range instead of a 30%!6% range that's about 66% more combos overall. The amount of trips someone you hit only increases from 3.3% to 4.5%. That's less than half. Proportionally you'd hit trips ~50% less often with the more loose range. The reason why you don't hit those lower cards more often when your loosen up your range is simple, the PPT ranges are sorted by ranks and for this matches better how fish pick their starting hands without regards to balancing ranks respectively. Without balancing ranks a fish prefers higher ranked cards over lower ranks (logically).

Tom Chambers described this Phenomen in his "Advanced PLO-Theory" and how to deal with the fact, that loose players struggle even more to hit well on light textures. Ghaleon you have very fundamental flaws in your theoretical understanding of the game but you always try to teach me... I do reflect my thoughts but most strategic concepts I know did not even grow on my own crap but is merely a repeat reflecting concepts from other succesful players and coaches with proven track record above our stakes so at some point when you're trying to outsmart me it just becomes ridiculous.

To me 4,4% is more than 3,3%.

I like to use PokerJuice ranges, on those the numbers for opponent having 99,2 on the flop are 7,2% and 9,3%.

I think Mascherano is trying to say that wider preflop range has more weaker trips in his range than tighter one. Which is true. But in this situation it doesn't really matter what kicker he has for the trips. Also wider preflop range will hit trips/boat more often than tighter one.

You said 2xxx is rare especially for wider ranges. Which to me sounds like it's more rare for wider than tighter, and that's just not true. The wider the preflop range is, then there are more often 2xxx. 100% preflop range has 99,2 whooping 17% of times.

My comment on AJ2x had fish grin emoji for reason (meant as joke).

Anyway as Kyyberi mentioned above 4.4>3.3. That already tells wider range has trips more frequently.

Originally posted by ghaleon
My comment on AJ2x had fish grin emoji for reason (meant as joke).

Kk. I did not get that. First reading your comment I thought I'd have to dig back all the way to the point questioning the concept of protection in PLO itself and wondered if that what I said actually meant made sense. Almost fell down from my chair.

The wider the preflop range is, then there are more often 2xxx.

Maaaan what a put-off. Of course more loose ranges have more of of a specific combos, it cannot be the other way round lol?!
Since value of action is dependant on pot-odds/equity which are always relative, absolute numbers actually have no meaning at all, I would never refer to such.

In the end it does not matter if its 3 or 4.5% since betting lets say 1/2pot (denying odds against flushdraws) we need 33% FE to be autoprofit. So counting vs. trips only we have that anyways even against 3 players (1 - 4.5% x 3 = 86.5% FE).