MegaWhale69 - PLO Strategy Uber Thread

Chapter 6: Postflop Concepts

C-betting Fundamentals

Polarized Versus Merged

Our flop strategy determines how our ranges play on later streets. Making serious mistakes on the flop will hurt us later.

For example, Hero is BTN versus BB in single-raised pot. Flop comes AQ5 rainbow. Check, check. Turn comes offsuit 6. Villain pots.

Button should continue 50-60% of the time. If we bet too often on the flop, we will have to fold too much on the turn because our checking range will be weak. BB will exploit us by attacking our weak checking range.

Polarized C-betting Strategy

We can’t just bet all our strong and medium hands, then check our weak hands. We need to check back hands on the flop that are good enough to call turn, but don’t give up too much value on the flop.

A polarized c-betting strategy accomplishes this: We bet our strongest hands, and check our medium strength hands. We bet our highest equity made hands and draws, and hands with the best blockers and future blockers. We bet hands that are very strong, and have potential to make the nuts by the turn or river. We also bet hands with little equity but powerful blockers. We bet very selectively.

After we bet the flop, we can barrel on many different turns and rivers. By firing multiple barrels, we maximize our fold equity when bluffing, and also extract maximum value. Opponents are in tough spots with their bluff catchers and medium-strength hands.

In general, a polarized c-bet strategy will bet 55% IP and 25% OOP.

Merged C-betting Strategy

A merged c-betting strategy bets more medium-strength hands. They are built around equity. We care more about having decent equity than having the nuts.

Since we bet hands that are less nutted, we aren’t as aggressive with our bluffs and blockers. Our check-back range is weak and unprotected.

We c-bet many medium-strength hands on the flop that have difficulty barreling across multiple streets. Therefore, we often check back on the turn and river. It will be harder to make effective bluffs and thin value river bets.

We are also very vulnerable to check-raises. We’ll often have to fold our medium strength hands.

Conclusion

When we are IP with a high SPR, we prefer a polarized strategy. We can extract more value with our nutted hands and make more effective bluffs while protecting our checking range.

When SPR is lower, a merged c-betting strategy makes more sense. Here, equity is more important. In some situations, we can bet our entire range where we have a substantial range advantage. We want to push our hands with a raw equity advantage and play as few streets as possible, especially OOP.

MegaWhale69’s question: Isn’t there fundamental tension between betting big to maximize our fold equity and betting big to maximize our value?

Protecting Your Checking Range

Imagine we check 50% and bet 50%. We need strong hands in our checking range. When our equity is low, we should c-bet less often. Therefore, it’s important to keep strong hands in our checking range.

Remember the JT9 single-suited flop. We only c-bet 20% after 4-betting in the CO versus the BTN’s 3-bet. However, we’ll flop a reasonably good hand like an overpair + FD, strong combo draw, nut straight or set, much more often than 20%. However, we can’t bet all these strong hands because we also have many hands that need to check.

It’s not important to balance our checking range on boards that we bet often; but it is very important on boards where we check often.

Blockers and Bluffing

What are Blockers?

The most well-known example if the NF blocker. A second type is a “future blocker.” If the flop comes A53dd, and you hold KK66d, you hold the future nut flush blocker with the Kd. We also block nut straights if a 2, 4, or 7 hits on the turn. However, not all blockers are made equal: straight blockers are not as valuable as flush blockers.

Finally, we have “reverse blockers.” Reverse blockers are cards that make it more likely our opponent holds a certain hand or hits a specific board. For example, if the board is AKQss, and we have no AKQJT or spades, it is more likely our opponent connects with the board.

How to Think About Blockers

We should assume every card in our hand matters and is either a blocker, future blocker, reverse blocker, or has removal effects. However, the value of blockers differs depending on the context. The key question is, “how important is it to have a gutshot blocker/ nut flush blocker in this situation?”

Bluffing

The biggest mistake when bluffing is to bluff emotionally. We are risking X to win Y in the middle. However, psychologically, even if we only need to succeed 25% to be profitable, it still hurts when our bluffs are called.

The key is to bluff at the correct frequency. Many players under-bluff the river, meaning we can make massive folds on the river. Many of our opponents already over-fold the river… we shouldn’t help them by under-bluffing!

Why Players Under-bluff the River

We can trace this back to the flop. On the flop, your c-betting range should include enough hands that are likely to be weak on the river or have good enough blockers to bluff the river.

Very often, people incorrectly c-bet too many marginal, medium-strength hands, while giving up with too many weak hands. Consequently, they reach the river with a very value-heavy range, without enough bluffs.

When to Bluff

Three factors:

(1) You have no showdown value. This factor shouldn’t be used in isolation. When we don’t have showdown value, it’s possible the EV of bluffing is higher than checking.

(2) You block opponent’s calling range. A simple example is having nut flush or straight blockers.

(3) You unblock opponent’s folding range. This is where reverse blockers and removal effects matter. If the board has a flush or straight draw that wasn’t completed, you don’t want to bluff with your missed draws. Having a missed draw increases the likelihood opponent has a strong made hand.

Hand Example

We open the BTN, get called by the BB, 100bb deep. Flop comes KQ4hh, we hold AT86h. We bet the flop because we have no showdown value, but a nut gutshot straight draw and future nut-flush blocker. Our hand isn’t strong enough to check on the flop. Opponent calls, and turn brings in the 7h. We still don’t have showdown value, but we block opponent’s calling range with Ah. On a 3-flush board with a naked A, we should bet full-pot representing the flush.

Hand Example

Same board, now we hold AQ76h. Now, we have showdown value with 2 pair. We beat hands like JT9, KJT, and AJT. However, these straight draws have a lot of equity against our two pair. We should bet so they fold their equity.

Are we bluffing to fold straight draws? Are we value betting our 2 pair? These are old-school terms. In reality, we care about: “What is the EV of betting versus checking?”

There are several reasons why the EV of betting is high. First, we fold out hands with lots of equity, such as wraps and top pair. Second, our hand can still improve if we are called by better. Third, we have a unique blocker, Ah, which benefits by increasing the size of the pot by the river. Ah is a powerful blocker to bluff almost any river.

The Biggest C-betting Mistake

When SPR is medium/ high, players make two key mistakes: They c-bet too many medium-strength hands, and don’t bluff enough on the flop. Bluffing must start on the flop. You must consider blockers and future blockers on the flop.

If we don’t have enough bluffs on the flop, opponents can easily fold to us on the turn/ river. Players c-bet their medium strength hands too much, thinking they need protection.

In reality, a balanced game is naturally aggressive. However, we need to be aggressive with the right hands. When most people c-bet their medium strength hands, they can be exploited with a check-raise. Meanwhile, their checking range is vulnerable to turn and river aggression. Their c-betting barreling range is too strong and can be folded against.

Suppose a player c-bets medium strength hands but also bluffs the flop. Here, you can widen your check-raise range. You also expect them to check-call their medium-strength hands on later streets, so you can value-bet thinner on later streets.

However, betting medium-strength hands IP is fine against passive players, who aren’t likely to check-raise you. But when playing OOP against passive players, you still want to use a polarized c-betting strategy, because even passive players can gain a positional/ information advantage. It’s still wise to check medium-strength hands OOP versus passive players, because you can value-bet thinner against their weak checking ranges on later streets, without fear of being bluff-raised.

Board Texture

Four main board textures:

(1) Unpaired board: Board where there is no straight or flush possible, and no pair. For example, AK5ss.

(2) Paired board: Board with a pair. For example, 977.

(3) Straight board: Board where straight is possible, like JT9.

(4) Monotone board: Board where flush is possible, like AT3sss.

I'm really enjoying this thread. Please continue.

I bought the JNandez book shortly after it came out and have a couple of Hwang's books: Por Limit Omaha Poker and Advanced Pot Limit Omaha Volume 1: Small ball and Short-Handed Play. Still, there's so much material out there and my memory isn't the best, so it's nice to have a summary refresher and new information from what you've read.

Like you, in regard to Hwang's material, I have no doubt that there's an immense amount of value in his books, although I am curious how a lot of it compares to the GTO solver solutions of today.

Update after 10k hands.

PLO is a brutal game! Winrate: 6.45 bb/100. All-in adjusted: 4.98 bb/100.

Rake: 27.29 bb/ 100.

I don't think it's possible for me to beat these 5% uncapped rake games. I might have a shot in lower raked games, but the players will be tougher.

Not commenting on rake, but try not to have unrealistic expectations.

I mean, this is a great graph for someone who just started to learn the game.
You cant expect to crush overnight, especially if you are learning on your own without any coaching.
It might take several months to have consistent solid results and even then variance is brutal in PLO.

Was skimming over and this caught my eye. Honestly, yes we can. The #1 reason is that our opponents often dont understand what makes a showdownable hand. Most of them are still playing NLHE + 2 cards. And the thing is our strong hands arent just top set and full wraps putting our opponent to an easy decision to x/f. We're still going to be semi-bluffing a decent amount. There isnt some great fear that we'll be exploited just because we check, especially because as the stacks get crazy deep we'll be able to x/c with some weak hands that have tremendous implied odds if we hit. PLO is a game of coolers so it doesnt really matter if they think we're strong or weak, if they hit their hand in their own way they're gonna go with it.

He's talking about c-betting marginal hands like overpairs, two pair on wet boards, etc. If we c-bet merged, we're vulnerable to being check-raised. And if our checking range is just air/ weak draws, we have nothing to call down with on later streets.

I'm not saying this is a problem in microstakes (check-raises are almost always premium value/ combo draws), but a merged c-bet strategy is easily exploitable. IP, I often c-bet marginal hands with a small sizing, because villain's check-raise is so strong at these stakes. But OOP, I'm check-calling much more.

When I started, I used to think that. But after 10k hands, I'm realizing PLO is a game of pot-controlling. We really want to play small pots with our marginal hands, especially OOP.

We can make money with our coolers. But we want to make sure pots don't get bloated before we have to fold without nutted hands in multiway pots.

which 9f the two books do you think you got more of?

i assume hose are two tremendous books if people wanted to get into PLO

JNandez for sure. Hwang's has some useful stuff, but is mostly outdated.

Long time, no update. Here's my graph after 15k hands. Definitely don't think I'm winning after rake. But, I think it's decent to be close to break-even.

I've spent some time with solvers and am pretty comfortable with SRP but need to spend more time studying 3BPs.

5% uncapped and you pay 27.4bb/100. I am pretty confident that this is not beatable at all.

You underestimate how bad some people play. Even with a $3 cap I've paid 22.9bb/100 rake on 0.25/0.50 at Party and done pretty well. Though who knows, could be just variance and it's not possible to prove it either way...

I think it's definitely beatable. I'm by no means a great player. But I'm not making massive mistakes. Probably making lots of mid-level mistakes. So, while it is beatable, not for a big winrate.

I'm mainly just playing for experience for live games with much lower rake.