77 blockers are quite handy. He also checks river, and is labeled as "good customer". In my opinion his range is heavily weighted to weaker hands.
Too bad I can't get hand histories. But river should be small sizing as total pot was 40bb. Half, half, 1/3.
Hi, I've been doing some research on what to study in order to pimp my game a bit. I came around to Tom Chambers Advanced Plo Theory. Actually, I don't study anymore via books because vids simply are way better learning option for me. Yet this book seems a really comprehensive omaha book worth studying. However it's ridiculously expensive! Frigging 1000$ still! Do you -or anyone else- know is there coaching site which contains vids about the same stuff that in Chambers book?
Im doing runitonce's plo basic course next to refresh the groundwork and maybe pick up something new along. Have you studied Jnandez's plo mastermind stuff?
Really hard to answer, as it all comes down on where you are at your PLO journey.
For basics, I think one of the best content for few bucks is Jnandez's book. Easy to get as e-book, doesn't cost a lot.
Once you know the basic stuff and go further, there are multiple roads to go:
- Mastermind is an option once you are familiar (and implemented to your game) with range thinking and the concept of gto (what it is, why we should be interested about it, should we try to use it). Quite expensive, my advice is to get it for a month or two and just watch videos and make notes. Less playing, more studying.
- RIO has some good stuff for Essential (the lower membership), I liked Emty's series.
- Forums are old relics and they are slowly dying. At the moment I think we have one of the best hand analyzing forums for small stakes PLO right here. It's somewhat active, and you get quite quality posts. Compared to other forums where most of the replies are off topic of toxic.
- Coaching/Study groups are one option. Of couse coaching costs and study groups are free. But if you find a coach that has what you need, for a price that you are happy to pay, it definitely is a good option to take the next step. Study groups are more of people in the same situation trying to go forward together. One option to get a coach for the study group, not sure though how many coaches are willing to do that.
What comes to Chambers book, I don't think anything is worth 2,5K (book 1 for fundamentals and book 2 for 6max PLO). The information is good, I have checked the free previews and it's a lot more than just GTO. It's about how to play versus different opponents on different situations and so on. Good stuff, but nothing ground breaking. Funny thing is that I have told years that at small stakes HU pots oop you can cbet quite wide with air versus most opponents. Average fold to cbet (at least was few years back on most sites) is often around 40-50% even in looser games. For a 3/4 cbet we need just above 40% fold equity to make immediate profit. So with air, often the best option is just to cbet bluff instead of check-fold. That is against solver strategy, and I received a lot of critisism for my approach. Some people said that solver doesn't do that, so neither should we. Now Chambers says the same thing in his book, on certain boards the best option oop HU with air is to cbet as the FE is there for immediate profit.
The biggest thing in learning PLO (or any other poker format) is to think a lot yourself. You can't memorize everything, you need to understand what we are trying, why we are trying and how we are doing it. Instead of just looking for answers, ask the questions you can't answer. And try to answer them. Learn to make mathematical models of situations and calculate them out. The more you do the numbers, the more you understand them. And poker is all about numbers and math.
Example, paired boards. Should we cbet them with high frequency? If you are just looking for the answer yes/no, it doesn't take you far. But if you explore the situation and start to understand what good/bad happens with high frequency, when it's +EV and when -EV, it gives you a lot more skills to play paired boards. It's like in science, we prove something by not being able to prove it the other way. Let's say the hypothesis is that we can cbet paired boards 100% with air and it's profitable.
To make it mathematical model, we explore what is average opponent's estimated calling range on different paired boards. Like 772r, JJTss, AA5r and so on. Then we can calculate how often their range hits the board, and maybe for couple of different preflop calling ranges. Then we estimate how often people bluff those boards. This is when Trackers come handy, we can see the raise cbet stat for population. Compare that to valueraise range frequency, and we see that average opponent doesn't really raise as bluff. For half a pot cbet we need 33% FE. If opponent folds more than that, it's immediate profit. Now the numbers give you the answer, it's either +EV or -EV with your assumptions and estimations.
I did that years ago, and my conclusion back then was that it's +EV.
Now the next question is if it's max EV line to cbet with high frequency? And how to adjust if opponents start to bluff raise, float or just call with wider range? And so the journey continues, and during it our understanding of paired boards and what affects our decision making improves. Instead of just wanting to know if we should cbet them often or not. Cos the answer to all PLO questions is: it depends.
I have sometimes done with my students a game analyzis to see where the student is and what needs to be improved the most. Just a paper/excel with different game areas and concepts/situations from preflop to river and student's own estimation of his skills and comfortable level in those. It can be from 1 to 3 (1 very unsure, 3 very confident), A to C, 1 to 5, what ever works. After that it's easier to make a study plan. And often the best way is to focus most on the most common situation. That's why it all starts in preflop, as we have play it in every hand. Then comes flop when we are PFR and so on.
Oh, and in above when I say "you" I don't mean YOU JoePlotter, but anyone who might read it or is in the situation. I got a bit carried away from the original questions. ♦
Hey, thanks for taking the time to write a long answer!
I managed to find parts of Chambers’s second book while seeking information about flop categorisations(wet/dry/etc). It really is good stuff as you said, fundamentals and exploring game dynamics. Ofc experienced players has mostly the same information learned on the instinct level but there are bits of great insights though chart heavy. Exhaustive, for plo nerds! 
I’ll put that Jnandez book on study queue.
I found a really effective way to improve my game last year. I started to screen record my playing with audio comments. First as to get information on my A and C-game when it happens but then I made it a permanent because when I think aloud, one of my biggest leaks -impulsivity- gets depressed. I didn't spew so much anymore and being constantly more concious about my level of performance helps staying in B+ or moving out of C-game. 
I warmly recommend this method. This spring I’ve been having a rough stretch, Lady Fortuna has been sticking it me for sure but one change occurred as well -my headset broke and I've been playing it like the old times.. and some of the old impulsive habbits have come along too.
It has always annoyed me to study poker one hand at the time, usually figuring out the correct decision after the session. It’s so leak/mistake focused too which laces the learning experience with negativity. But yeah, I welcome the poker theory’s progress over last decade towards conceptualizing.
Funny thing about coaching in poker. Let’s say average enthustiastic amateur spends 20 hours on poker. In other hobbies or sport one would probably have some kind of coaching/mentoring or an active coach relationship. But in poker it’s an anomaly or temporary at best. Ofc this is only my perception.
I have plenty of studies on my own for this summer I think. After that it prolly would be a good idea to check the fundamentals while preparing move to plo50 which would be at earliest next January bc I want to build a really solid confidence and performing routine a.k.a winrate at plo25. I dont doubt I can still beat plo50 but I want to be able to do it with clear margin and confidence+variance-wise this could be the right spot for some coaching.
This is getting awfully long, I’ll wrap this up in last paragraph. Moving slowly through the stakes has been new and most relaxing approach for me. It’s about building confidence and stress-handling. Earlier I always gambled the maximum within my bankroll management. I figured out I want move to decent earning as fast as possible. From a start at plo25 to plo100 in a year usually. And the burn was overwhelming, increasing skill of the opponents (loads of russian pros) and the variance (+/- 0,5-1k days). I was always done in 6 months by the stress of it. I had to to take 12-24 months break due to exhaustion and demotivation, spending my earnings to live a little and maybe it got wild too some times.. and then repeat. That has made my playing career very intermittent, sad to say.
This is surprising. I was about to post a justice moment, when a reg whom seems to 3bet a bit too much but is lucky to his flops as hell got served. Here is the hand, I open 5 handed from EP, he 3bets from CO about 240bb deep.
On the flop I check-call, and check-raise turn and money goes in with 100% equity. I thought that his KQ64ds is was out of line preflop. But as I checked it, solver 3bets KQ64ds 200bb deep. Solver folds if it's (KQ)(64) but if it's suited to K and Q. This seems really weird to me, as even suited to K and Q the hand seems bad. Funny thing is though, Vision sim folds KQ75 always. I don't have solver on this laptop so I can't check what my sims say. Whether it's legimate solver strategy or just a glitch in the sim.
Another justice moment from today:
I 3bet pre, flop goes check-check. Opp is a bit aggro, I was expecting him to stab on most turns when I check so on bottom card pairing I was happy to call. River was nice. Opponent was stab-happy, but not barrel-happy. On that river he probably checks back a lot, so I went for a bet and hoped he had an Ace to hero call. He did call, but it was me who was drawing 1 outer on the turn. Been beat with 1 outers so much in last weeks, that it was really nice to do it myself at least once.
Checked my 250bb, 5max sim. KQ64ds is a 3bet in that one too, but with just one combo and mixed with. KQ75ds is fold. In 200bb sim KQ64ds (suited to K and Q) is a 3bet always. Am I the only one who is a bit amazed?
I would assume main value from that type of hand 3betting must come from increased fe preflop? Hero is supposed to fold more oop afaik as stack gets deeper. Really tough to flop in strong fashion with KQ64.
Villain probably should check flop or turn. MP range is unlikely to hit T43 so cbet could make sense but as played it's huge overplay to stack off turn. Best case scenario is likely flipping versus combo draw villain can expect to see.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Am I the only one who is a bit amazed?
Ghaleon got there before me it seems. Sure position is everything in deep stack plo but I am too having a hard time to see the logic behind this KQ64ds. With normal principles 3betting that versus earlier position only explanation would be creating exploitative 3bet pot (mostly cbet-autoprofit) situation against sick weak-tight player. Right?
I remember this same guy pulling same kind of play against me with J654ds, I could understand that since I was playing ultratight all-around test session when trying to train my utg-range with fastforward. Maybe he wanted to test me or maybe he thinks he can pull of those kind of plays with fastforward/zoom/etc in general.
Solver has these "weird" 3bets with specific hands. At 200bb sim EP should fold almost 30% to that 3bet, and in 250bb sim whooping 38% (small stakes rake sim).
I checked 200bb sim with no fold equity preflop in 3bet pots, and then KQ64ds is a fold. But KQ65ds and KQ54ds is still a 3bet which sounds crazy as it's a 3bet versus early position open. In 100bb sim 3bets start from KQ98ds and upwards.
So in 100bb game it's a clear fold, but with deeper stacks solver adds those weird disconnected hands. Overall 3bet % CO vs MP in my sims are following:
100bb: 6,2%
200bb: 7,1%
200bb no FE: 8,2%
250bb: 8,8%
It's good to remember that solver calculations are based on assumption that every player plays with gto ranges and actions. and KQ64ds in 250bb sim has EV of 0,05bb. So it's REALLY marginally +EV when played perfectly. (at 200bb sim the EV goes up to 0,1bb).
@JoePlotter: Solver doesn't make exploitative situations, as in the sims every player play non-exploitative strategy. I would assume the reason for KQ64ds being in the mix is that the 64 part doesn't "collide" with EP open. That's why KQ75ds (similar structure) is a fold, as 75 collides with EP medium rundowns more than 64. As the EV is just 0,05bb it's almost a fold, and if the rake cap was just a little higher it probably would turn into a fold. Solver calculates all possible hands on all possible (within the sim settings) postflop situations and gets the EV for actions. If preflop turns to be +EV, it is. And sim is never really done. In Holdem a sim can be completed when all possible outcomes have been calculated. In PLO the sim just goes on and on, and the longer it runs the more accurate it is. So in PLO sims there can be some "errors" if the spot is not calculated enough. Even in PLO Vision there were this kind of "errors" which have been corrected. And might still be.
So if solver 3bets a specific hand but not the hand category/structure, it might be really borderline 3bet or a straight sim error. And then again comes the fact that 0% of opponents play as solver assumes even preflop, so the real EV has to be estimated by ourselves.
@Ghaleon: Even with 0 FE solver 3bets similar no-gappers. The problem I see is exactly what happened here. Most of the 2pair hits are top-btm which can be either dominated or just TP+ 3 higher kickers has good equity. Being deep the issue just increases, as those hands rarely flop so strong that we are happy to stack off. And with mediocre hits being passive makes rivers really hard if opponent decides to put any pressure.
Again, a common situation we all have been:
On the river we have the nuts, pot is small. Opponent checks, we bet and opponent raises. And we are sure he has the same straight and we wonder should we raise or keep the rake small and just call. Had similar spot earlier. At HU pot the rake cap is met at $20 pot which was not yet reached.
Opponent should have either nuts or blockers, and theorywise we shouldn't win anything with re-raise, just pay more rake. I decided to minraise, to at least give opponent a chance to hero call with worse. He instantly shoved and I was like "ok, let's split it". When I saw his hand I thought he might have mislooked it, but afterwards I think he just spewed.
Once again, people amaze.
Mr. Optimistic:
CO ir MP opens, I call and BB calls. Pretty good hit on the flop, but I block everything. I check and BB bets big. Funny, as he can't really have anything. I call. Turn is bad, as it doesn't really open anything. I check, and was quite sure he checks back and folds or hero calls river. But he bets turn big, which is weird. I call. On the river I think that if he was valuebetting Jxxx/overpair, he checks it back (at least he should). If he was bluffing, it doesn't make sense to fire river. If he was semibluffing turn with picked straight draw, he might call me. So I lead the river, as I think it's superior to check. He raises me, which was a total surprise. Doesn't make sense with anything. Sometimes there just isn't strategical logic in opponent's play. He wanted to win the pot, and didn't give a damn about my range.
Had a sudden hickup in connection today. Have had those every now and then, and I am quite sure the problem is at Party's end. Just a second or two disconnection, but what happens after that is annoying. In some tables it changes the seating, so that I am not on the same spot (bottom seat). Seats itself are not changed, just the position where I am at. On some tables, I can't see the hole cards. And today at one table my hand changed at the showdown.
I though I had QJT8 (as I had from preflop on). Board was Q87K3 on the river, and I check-called. Opponent showed 77xx, and my hand changed to KKQ8. So I check-called with the nuts on the river.
So if you wonder why someone does really weird thing, sometimes the answer is in the internet...
There is some absurdly big bugs in client if actual hand changes during the hand...
The hand doesn't change, only graphics. And as usual, site says the problem is in my end.
Do you play at Veikkaus? Thinking its like 9 times lower rake than GG poker and plenty of PLO games there.
Veikkaus isnt very active actually on micro/small stakes atleast, games are more on plo5c side. Often the very active time games are pretty dry. No hud possibility also. Rake is very nicely low though.
checking now , 11:15am in Finland on Thursday (complete off-peak time) - Plo tables plo5 , plo20, plo 50, plo100, plo 200, plo400 all running. Maybe if only play up to 0.25/50 plo and want more than 5 tables its then not enough but other than that im quite sure its best place to play...
softest site that exists with the friendliest rake . Inclusive of very low collusion if any and safe in generally speaking. All of which cant be said of too many sites unfortunately.
Guess it goes with preferences too. I dont personally like many different softwares with different size of windows, pokerstars was gift from the heaven. Party used to be but it's become insufferable buggy in last few years. And spreading the bankroll.. Also one could argue on behalf of concentrating the action on one site to maximize bonus etc, but as you said, Veikka has is best in business in that regard.
Well Veikkaus definitely doesnt have the softest games.. Also the app is or at least was just hideous couple of years back.
Rake is lowest percentage-wise, but they dont have any rakeback still I guess? Also it depends stakes I guess, if the rakecap is same as other sites, percentages doesnt really matter.
