KK99
5-10 PLO. V1 in utg is a huge whale aggro station. V2 in straddle is a decent reg and is only 4b aces. Hero has 1.7K and
It is not about fear. It is more profitable if you take it down on the flop than get allin versus someone with 34% equity. You just don't lose that much if they fold. Not that they will probably, but no point trying to lure them in.
Then it could get checked around and any heart or A 8765432 means you no longer have the nuts. That's about 3/4 of the cards.
Honestly it seems a bit strange that a guy with AA always calls a pot sized bet, but doesn't put the 3rd player to a tough spot by betting if Hero checks. I don't think it can work like that.The 3rd player should be betting many hands that can outdraw Hero's hand, because they are doing ok vs aces. In cases they both check how much equity do they have combined vs Hero? Not much
So are you saying the guy with AA bets 100% of the time when checked to? That obviously isn't right - I think it's fair to say he's going to call a PSB when we jam with all his AA combos. We don't know what he checks back - they are 5500 deep and we have no idea how they'll play. He will have some hands in his check back range here that has viable equity at some frequency.
So even you don't read what I write? "I'm trying to wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand, but are drowning in a sea of nonsense. In vain, I know." Maybe that is too confusing, but let's just leave it that way.
The biggest reason is of course helping myself to have clarity.
It's not that I don't read what you wrote, it's that it's contradictory. You said before that sentence 'I'm not trying to persuade anyone'. What, then, is 'wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand' if not an attempt at persuasion?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to persuade people. It's part of the reason I'm here. It's part of the reason I'm having this discussion here with you now. It's just useful to contextualise the responses. If everyone is persuaded by our argument, that means the argument is more likely to be good. If no-one is, we should more consider re-evaluating our arguments. The purpose of the attempt at persuasion is not to acquire that dopamine hit of someone else agreeing with us, it's to calibrate our arguments and thought processes better, get feedback on them.
Posting here can be both self-interest and selfless.
There's always multiple reasons for betting or checking and multiple hands within someone's range that we need to take into account. Here, we also have multiple opponents to take into account. Designing our strategy around 'AA calls here 100%' - aside from being just plain wrong - is like snapping a branch off a tree and imagining you've cleared out an entire forest. Slight exa
Well Wazz we're here to draw reasonable conclusions - AA calling our PSB is somewhere in the realm of 95% chance of happening, I don't think anyone is folding any AA combo to our jam. The other decisions - how often bare AA bets when checked to, how often the 2nd villain bets when checked to, etc is up in the air. There's really nothing else to talk about - you guys can argue in circles simply because there's no true way to gauge certainty specifically in a live game.
It is not about fear. It is more profitable if you take it down on the flop than get allin versus someone with 34% equity. You just don't lose that much if they fold. Not that they will probably, but no point trying to lure them in.
Then it could get checked around and any heart or A 8765432 means you no longer have the nuts. That's about 3/4 of the cards.
But there is a lot of point in trying to lure them in when they have very low equity. When they have +34% equity money is always going in of course, no matter what you do.
If the flop is checked how many of your "3/4 of the cards" make a better hand for one of them? Not many. Can they simply fold everything on the turn then? Unlikely.
So are you saying the guy with AA bets 100% of the time when checked to? That obviously isn't right - I think it's fair to say he's going to call a PSB when we jam with all his AA combos. We don't know what he checks back - they are 5500 deep and we have no idea how they'll play. He will have some hands in his check back range here that has viable equity at some frequency.
No, that's not what I said. Do you think because we have no idea what he does when checked to (do we even fear he checks perchance?) AND we have a good hand we should be betting? And then there is the 3rd player who also has a possibility and incentive to bet when the other two check.
Ok, we don't KNOW how often they bet if Hero checks but what I am actually saying is they should be betting a lot of hands they are going with against a bet. AND when the flop gets checked through they didn't have a lot of equity so protection wasn't an issue. Does this make sense?
It's not that I don't read what you wrote, it's that it's contradictory. You said before that sentence 'I'm not trying to persuade anyone'. What, then, is 'wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand' if not an attempt at persuasion?
Ah, so you just didn't understand it. There are people who write stuff that makes no sense and people who read that stuff. Which one is drowning in a sea of nonsense? The ones who read it. Do they need to be persuaded? No, because they are just forming an opinion. They are offered a different perspective.
Also, to be clear - I think Hero should be betting many of his strong hands, say any two pair. I would presume most players would want check top set + fd, but I take into account the possibility that I am wrong.
I don't KNOW if in the actual hand checking is higher EV but intuitively for me, it is. I don't hate betting. I'm not sure if people hate checking.
I'm actually convinced that some of you misread the board in OP as K♥ 5♥ 5♣ and not K♥ 5♥ 6♣
It's not that you are scared of losing on all nut changing board cards, it's that they also can and will kill your action resulting in a lower EV than if you just shoved from up front yourself and put the onus on the other players to call with a dominated hand or be forced to fold off chunks of equity. The difference in EV between shoving and checking in this exact configuration is so large that if someone told me they were checking I would automatically assume that they were almost certainly not just terrible at PLO, but at poker in general.
The villain who 4bet pre is not auto betting their entire 4bet range nor should they be at this SPR no matter if they only have AA or not. Their smaller than pot 4bet could be because they have the most premium AA combos (likely all $ds) that they didn't want to fold players out preflop with. When this is the case some of the time they will be "tricky" with top of range hands like A♥9♥A♣7♣ that they want to feign weakness with and have V1 pot/call with something like Q♥ J♥ Q♣ 4♣. The smaller than pot 4bet could also be $ds unpaired hands that wanted a better price relative to their stack for the times they get 5bet to "outplay AA." It is near 100% that either of this situations occurred and vs their range you want to get the money in NOW whenever possible.
The only way I am ever checking here in a live game is if V2 who 4bet was counting out chips for betting and never doing it as a false tell. Given the information in OP this will never be the case so the clear option is to take the highest EV line and bet the maximum now.
Ah, so you just didn't understand it. There are people who write stuff that makes no sense and people who read that stuff. Which one is drowning in a sea of nonsense? The ones who read it. Do they need to be persuaded? No, because they are just forming an opinion. They are offered a different perspective.
Maybe I didn't. My understanding was that you weren't interested in persuading the people who can't be persuaded, leaving you trying to persuade those who can be persuaded, which is why I was confused.
I'm actually convinced that some of you misread the board in OP as K♥ 5♥ 5♣ and not K♥ 5♥ 6♣It's not that you are scared of losing on all nut changing board cards, it's that they also can and will kill your action resulting in a lower EV than if you just shoved from up front yourself and put the onus on the other players to call with a dominated hand or be forced to fold off chunks o
Are you really convinced, or exaggerating? Amok has already fessed up to misreading stack sizes; you think we're both misreading the board? That's a pretty high mistake rate.
For many of the times we lose action on a draw-completing turn, we get a potentially dominated hand looking to give us action. We also need to think about balance and range here. We check hands as strong as top set in part to protect the rest of our checking range. We don't particularly want to check lower sets (because Kx is more likely to pay us off, and there are more 2-outers we could face on the turn) so we jam them, and hands like 2p are vulnerable enough (and often enough coming with extras) that we can happily jam these for value. If we're not checking top set here, which value hands are we checking?
Not to mention that when they both check back, and the turn pairs, we're going to be up against trips a decent amount, that might have folded to our jam.
Wazz I think you just enjoy arguing on the internet for the sake of arguing on the internet.
If one player calls your allin, the other player only needs to be 25% to win for your expectation to have been better if he folded. So I don't see the point in going out of the way to lure people in.
On various turn cards, you will not know if you are ahead and you may actually get less action if you shove on the turn, because you will be representing a flush or whatever. So I don't like potentially giving a free card.
If one player calls your allin, the other player only needs to be 25% to win for your expectation to have been better if he folded. So I don't see the point in going out of the way to lure people in.
This is a very strange line of thinking. So now you are actually afraid that the 3rd player would call, creating a 3-way pot (allin for you) when you hold the nuts? If it happens that the 3rd player has 25% equity how much equity do you think the pf-raiser has in that case? Very close to zero I presume.
@SeaKing you are not saying much. Bet must be best, "The difference in EV between shoving and checking in this exact configuration is large" for reasons you don't really explain and all who disagree with you suck at poker. You are not commenting on any arguments for checking, except that it's possible that the flop gets checked and it's possible that turn kills action i.e. you can see the bad side. There is no analysis really and nothing further to comment on.
This is a very strange line of thinking. So now you are actually afraid that the 3rd player would call, creating a 3-way pot (allin for you) when you hold the nuts? If it happens that the 3rd player has 25% equity how much equity do you think the pf-raiser has in that case? Very close to zero I presume.
I am not afraid he would call. I just don't think we should make an otherwise questionable play to lure him in.
Yes, if AA is up against top set and another player with a strong wrap and low flush draw that is good, AA72,r could have 4% equity and the player with the draw 50% equity 3-way.
If the player not the pfr is considering calling, he probably has close to 25% equity. He is more likely to have good equity against you than AA is.
There are very few suckout to a worse made hand turn cards (nonflush cards which give out lower sets or 2p) vs hands that don't have to call now and there are a ton of nut draws, combo draws, and SDV+ draw hands that have to call now given the pot odds.
When the SPR is this low you need one of the players to absolutely punt as hard as possible to make the EV of checking better than shoving for value. I'm saying that V1 needs to bet Q♣J♦8♦4♣ as r3tardo bluff last to act when they have reverse blockers and either player can be sandbagging. You do not need to improve to the Kings full overboat on the turn to stack any flopped 2p or set, you do not need a Q on the turn to stack QQ:♥♥, you don't need to play like a donk and check when the pertinent data points to shoving being a far superior play.
BTW at this SPR it is KK which has reverse implied odds vs ANY reasonable gutshot or better draw (73, 84, 87, 97.) When the turn is a nonflush straight card the only time you can shove KK and fold out better would be on a 4 when either player can potentially fold out 32. This is a very low frequency occurrence and is more than counteracted by the times either player has 78 for the nuts or 73 for the 2nd nuts and snaps you off. Also the only thing worse than checking on the flop would be making that mistake and checking again on a straight card lol.
Shoving = stacking your opponents
Checking = trying to get stacked by your opponents
With this logic, I presume also at SPR 1 (for every player) top set is always a clear donk shove? Otherwise they might check, right? Serious question I guess.
Trapping in PLO 3-ways with a psb left is not a good idea, unless you have a high boat quads or straight flush. If you had KK99 on K33, 2-flush, then of course check, and hope an ace doesn't hit.
99 are somewhat relevant blockers. I think I would still donk with others being as deep as they are so they might not betting enough. KKTT+ is most def donk. I probably wouldn't donk KK88,77,44.
If everybody was 1 SPR deep, I would check this assuming people stacking here very light.
Seems like the conversation is at an impasse. I shoved, both tank folded, V1 shows aces, V2 said he had aces with the dry ace and was gonna bet 1/3 whooooops.
I'm surprised no solver solution yet.
