5-10, 5K max/match buy-in.

Player X buys in max and then plays super fast. In particular I've noticed in watching him, most any hand that is a double-suited rundown of most any quality, he will jam the pot, re-pot etc, very willing to play aces heads-up with it. As it is usually 50-to-150 to go before he blows it open, he is picking up huge amounts of profit by all the take downs. When aces or whoever looks him up he has already covered himself with all the takedowns.

I like the style. I've only played with him twice and he's running like god, back door draws are no problem. Flopping one pair he helps, helps, etc. Not sure how sound it is long term, probably depends on line up (will they keep folding to it?). Game was too big for my comfort zone, I only played a few hours each time. Would have flopped quads twice in a half hour if not blown out of the pot.

When I tried to explain this style to some good players and ask about its soundness, I didn't get much feedback. I love the style and would also love playing against it in lower stakes. Because I'm generally not getting run off big pots pre constantly, but I'm only shipping hundreds pre in showdown poker, not thousands. It's fascinating to see him play it.

this question fascinates me because ive encountered players with similar style (never in a live setting likethis) but my comfort zone is "optimal"/monker based

did you see him do anything that made you think he understood theory/strat?

i think its possible that we often underestimate the amount of fold-equity we have in PLO

if you review monker-solutions one major take away is that 'population' is usually underbluffing in PLO, the solver generally uses a pretty aggressive &polar strat

sounds like me

Yes, everything. He was confident and utterly indifferent to an individual result. The table feared him. I agree completely about fold equity, esp. pre-flop. I think polar is a good description of my game so that's why I don't mind it, but would have to get psychologically comfortable with the stakes.

anyway these players are called "whales" and they are what the game revolves around.

This style is very unlikely to be sound, maybe it seemed more successful because of excessive weak-passive play.

Now if villain was using this strategy to bully several larger stacks at the table, it is much more likely to be fundamentally sound.

Its not clear if villain is a pro playing exploitatively or more of an aggrotard.

In many lower and mid-stakes games playing (good) rundowns (very) agressively is profitable and good for hero's image, but still requires discipline.

Guess there were not any short stackers either, as they feast on this type of villain.

If the player in question is over-rolled for the game and everyone else is, let's say "questionably" rolled, he's going to have a big advantage.

shortstack and profit? i mean its fun to play like OP described, butttt its totally beatable unless everyone else at the table is a superfish

OP what do you think his VPIP/PFR was? do you know anything about who he is (businessman, pro, etc)?

Fooled by randomness ITT

Played versus this style many times. Huge wins and huge losses. Depends on your risk appetite mostly.

In very deep games making a lot of small mistakes can be beneficial if it causes players to make huge mistakes even if they’re a lot less frequent.

If you can’t understand what mistakes he’s trying to make other players make (make them fold too much in some spot... attack capped ranges... bloat pots in position pre etc) then he’s either a fish or you can’t play his style profitably so start with trying to understand his logic then decide if it’s good not the other way around.

Yes he is bullying other big stacks that are conservative, and picking up thousands of dollars per session dead money pre in the process. Players with better hands that far less often come in for raises, still fold for his re-raises. So he basically owns the game.

Two shortstacks, me and another guy with about 1K or a little more each. Villain busted other short stack. I won a couple of the hands that were not blown open pre, so had about 1500 from 1K min buy. Though I should be dangerous to him because at smaller stakes no one is running me out just by firing it up, at this limit I didn't want to basically coin flip the 1500. I got out of the game.

Luv the comment about this re-raise strategy with good rundowns being potentially very effective even in lower games. But you need that dead money factor I think to make it work, if you have a bunch of shippers or short stacks, no dice. Dude knew his spot and his opponents. It was no aggrotard. And when he's making a lot of hands it's just run over the table. 2-for-2 when I played with him and seen him doing it several other times.

sounds like a guy clicking buttons and running hot while you were watching

quicker someone acts more likely he is auto piloting or playing his B-C level game seems like a good spot to play against him.

(fyi if he 'snap' makes all his moves you don't have to snap in return lol)

scared money shortstacks dont count lol. cuz both of you are clearly that.

sounds like he found the weakest nittiest table and just abused it. pretty e z.

How did you deduce that the other short stack was obviously scared money since I said nothing about his play? Just gratuitious? In fact he mixed it up too much on borderline hands. And lost.

Yes, villain is abusing nitty tight tendencies, whether small or big stacked. I fell into that category as it was first times moving up. I wonder and doubt if he adjusts much against more aggressive players. I think he loves that double-suited rundown heads-up instead of versus 4 or 5 players and is right about that. If in the process of playing against better players he loses his huge dead money pick ups he has a problem with his strategy, obv. Anyway, it seems fairly devastating in that regular group.

^^^^ that's the winning reply. 4 great points.

I get dealt a "double suited rundown" like once per session.

fellagaga do u think this guy was a pro? a businessman?

the thing about bots are it's either jungleman or will be beat by jungleman someday. so there's nothing to worry about.

this sounds like me

Total pro owing the game. Wreaked of it. Would have been interesting to see how he would have adjusted to non-passive (or at least non-risk-averse) players re-potting his 700 pre flop with any group 1 or 2 hand. Yes, a nitty pretty deep stack game where his tack was tailor made. I'm quite sure he had gears.

Well we might only get a couple powerhouse double-suited rundowns per session, but ANY double suited hand with straight potentials seemed good enough for him to make it 500 to 800 to go. So they aren't 8-9-10-J so much as Q-9-6-3. Definitely kind of a weak semi-private game. He's the alpha so to speak in the line up, that's all. But I do think the style can be devastating against too conservative play.

For instance, I've been surprised at the auto fold of so many players when the "aces re-pot" happens. I don't think it's the right play when there is tons of money/good odds for taking them on. With a good amount of money being abandoned in the pot I take on aces happily. Had a great run against them, then had a couldn't beat anything at the end of the hand dozens of times in a row run, so no brag. If flop matching is a thing, and you've got it going on, his style seems great. But it was naked: "If I'm double-suited, I'll play for your stack."