2p2 legend ChicagoJoey PLO Podcasts (PLO and Poker Life episodes)
04-13-2014
, 11:18 AM
oh just to touch upon something doug talked in 1 of the 2 podcasts: he was saying the top PLO guys wouldnt give him coaching cos it would affect their action longterm.
i wonder who these (x number of) top PLO guys actually were?
i know there's a thread elsewhere on 2p2 on this very subject but any speculation/knowledge from readers of the thread would be welcomed.
Alternative q: why doesn't he just ask chicagojoey for PLO coaching? I mean, he records a podcast with the cat ffs. Maybe that's why it's called the Power podcast. Cos Joey has it all, and Doug's the submissive 1
i wonder who these (x number of) top PLO guys actually were?
i know there's a thread elsewhere on 2p2 on this very subject but any speculation/knowledge from readers of the thread would be welcomed.
Alternative q: why doesn't he just ask chicagojoey for PLO coaching? I mean, he records a podcast with the cat ffs. Maybe that's why it's called the Power podcast. Cos Joey has it all, and Doug's the submissive 1
04-14-2014
, 09:15 AM
04-14-2014
, 11:03 AM
Quote:
I played a lot of micro stakes PLO this weekend thanks to your podcast. I cant get over the fact that it seems like it takes zero skill. It seems like its just how lucky you run.
Its really tilting when you 4 bet half of your stack with AAJT double suited and get 3 callers then the flop is 993 you ship 50 bbs into 200 and get snapped off by the guy with J935 single suit. I think Im going back to NL until im at 100nl+.
Its really tilting when you 4 bet half of your stack with AAJT double suited and get 3 callers then the flop is 993 you ship 50 bbs into 200 and get snapped off by the guy with J935 single suit. I think Im going back to NL until im at 100nl+.
Just remember that you will also suckout on AA with stupid hands just as much as your opponents, so that's clearly not where the edges lie. And then --> find the real edges --> profit.
04-14-2014
, 11:43 AM
04-14-2014
, 02:53 PM
Quote:
Good questions.. I should have expanded on that comment when I made it..
Basically, if you're to look at the game of NLH and break it down into a comprehensive terrain or landscape of all the various different situations that call on understanding certain strategy concepts, the same type of terrain for PLO is exponentially larger. If NLH is a city, PLO is a large country.
Because of the added cards, the accumulation of all situations you encounter is far more diverse and complex, and thus its much more difficult to compartmentalize strategy. Thus, its much more difficult to master the game. Subsequently, we're all still very very bad at PLO. In contrast, the best NLH players are pretty darned good now after 10 years of evolution in a much smaller strategy landscape. IMO, if you play perfect PLO right now you will crush the best PLO players for a very very long time. The same can not be said for NLH.
When a game is much more difficult, this creates far more "room" for people to have edges against one another. I'm sure the best checkers player in the world doesn't have that much of an edge on the 10th best player. In chess, the edge of #1 v. #10 is more significant because it's a more complex game. Furthermore, the edge is pronounced even more in NLH, a more complex game than chess. And of course, it's even more exaggerated in PLO. Thus, there should be more incentive to play PLO and more incentive to learn how to play it well.
Also, the large amount of variance in PLO is like a massive cloud of protection for prolonged action from weaker players, a cloud that's farrrr smaller in NLH. When weaker players are able to run 100bi above expectation for the year, it keeps them in the game. Not all fish have certain inevitable deaths in the short-term like in NLH. The same can be said for weak regs. This cloud of variance also makes it far more difficult to decipher who the best players are amongst regs and this creates far more incentives for reg battles than in NLH where the totem pole tends to be very clear.
And lastly, I think the intangible skillsets of being a great poker player are even more important in PLO because of the reasons mentioned above. A weaker understanding of what "good play" is for PLO combined with enhanced variance means that everyone tends to be more psychologically fragile in PLO. It's incredible easy to chunk off 10 buyins playing PLO in 20 minutes, and completely lose confidence in your game. It's very easy to doubt a lot of your decisions and tilt, because you were never 100% sure about a lot of those decisions to begin with, given that the game is so complex. With so many big pots and big close decisions, not being sharp and playing your A game can cost you a ton of BBs. When you win big, the game is so easy. But when you lose, it's incredibly difficult to stick with your default strategies and remain disciplined when you were never all that sure about some of your strategy choices to begin with. PLO creates a far better battling atmosphere than NLH where it tends to be more of just a clash of strategies and somewhat predictable results.
In short, PLO remains more of a mystery than NLH, and that's precisely why everyone should be playing it.
Basically, if you're to look at the game of NLH and break it down into a comprehensive terrain or landscape of all the various different situations that call on understanding certain strategy concepts, the same type of terrain for PLO is exponentially larger. If NLH is a city, PLO is a large country.
Because of the added cards, the accumulation of all situations you encounter is far more diverse and complex, and thus its much more difficult to compartmentalize strategy. Thus, its much more difficult to master the game. Subsequently, we're all still very very bad at PLO. In contrast, the best NLH players are pretty darned good now after 10 years of evolution in a much smaller strategy landscape. IMO, if you play perfect PLO right now you will crush the best PLO players for a very very long time. The same can not be said for NLH.
When a game is much more difficult, this creates far more "room" for people to have edges against one another. I'm sure the best checkers player in the world doesn't have that much of an edge on the 10th best player. In chess, the edge of #1 v. #10 is more significant because it's a more complex game. Furthermore, the edge is pronounced even more in NLH, a more complex game than chess. And of course, it's even more exaggerated in PLO. Thus, there should be more incentive to play PLO and more incentive to learn how to play it well.
Also, the large amount of variance in PLO is like a massive cloud of protection for prolonged action from weaker players, a cloud that's farrrr smaller in NLH. When weaker players are able to run 100bi above expectation for the year, it keeps them in the game. Not all fish have certain inevitable deaths in the short-term like in NLH. The same can be said for weak regs. This cloud of variance also makes it far more difficult to decipher who the best players are amongst regs and this creates far more incentives for reg battles than in NLH where the totem pole tends to be very clear.
And lastly, I think the intangible skillsets of being a great poker player are even more important in PLO because of the reasons mentioned above. A weaker understanding of what "good play" is for PLO combined with enhanced variance means that everyone tends to be more psychologically fragile in PLO. It's incredible easy to chunk off 10 buyins playing PLO in 20 minutes, and completely lose confidence in your game. It's very easy to doubt a lot of your decisions and tilt, because you were never 100% sure about a lot of those decisions to begin with, given that the game is so complex. With so many big pots and big close decisions, not being sharp and playing your A game can cost you a ton of BBs. When you win big, the game is so easy. But when you lose, it's incredibly difficult to stick with your default strategies and remain disciplined when you were never all that sure about some of your strategy choices to begin with. PLO creates a far better battling atmosphere than NLH where it tends to be more of just a clash of strategies and somewhat predictable results.
In short, PLO remains more of a mystery than NLH, and that's precisely why everyone should be playing it.
You may think more cards=more complexity in general, but actually there is a point where adding more cards to the game makes it completely suck because ranges are so amorphous. Imagine if you have a game with 20 cards to each player, flop, turn, river, etc. In such a game, bluffing is, of course nonexistent, and the only edge possible comes from betting as much as possible when you are any noticeable favorite. I wouldn't say PLO clearly passes that point, but it does share similar characteristics.
Personally, I would like my efforts to be awarded what they are due, however for PLO this simply won't be true for a very long time. In PLO, I've had multiple 100k hand samples look as though they were played by totally different players, lost 20+ buyins to fish/terrible players, etc, which, in my mind is a pain in the ass. I don't agree that the game gives regs more incentives to battle essentially for this reason--the results will be essentially meaningless for quite a long time and edges will also be less clear. The increase of uncertainty results in tighter game selection to be required, or else you will find yourself playing long sessions not knowing you have an edge or perhaps not having an edge at all.
Also, the "totem pole" for NL isn't *that* clear, and even there the variance can be incredibly frustrating. The results are not at all "predictable" and the strategies not at all straightforward, nor easily assessed. In NL, because equities are further apart, ranges less smoothly distributed, and boards more static, there is more leeway for strategic options.
All that being said, there is potential value in the uncertainty created by PLO. Certainly big inefficiencies will arise in some way because of it. But as spiderman once said, with great power comes great responsibility
04-14-2014
, 03:16 PM
Quote:
I actually don't agree with a lot of this.... In a conceptual sense PLO certainly isnt vastly more complicated than NL at all, and there is some reason to think NL is more complex in that way. The number of cards, however makes PLO very difficult to approach from a *true* theoretical perspective, but that hardly matters because it's quite difficult to apply such an approach anyway. In terms of sheer combinations it's more "complex."
You may think more cards=more complexity in general, but actually there is a point where adding more cards to the game makes it completely suck because ranges are so amorphous. Imagine if you have a game with 20 cards to each player, flop, turn, river, etc. In such a game, bluffing is, of course nonexistent, and the only edge possible comes from betting as much as possible when you are any noticeable favorite. I wouldn't say PLO clearly passes that point, but it does share similar characteristics.
Personally, I would like my efforts to be awarded what they are due, however for PLO this simply won't be true for a very long time. In PLO, I've had multiple 100k hand samples look as though they were played by totally different players, lost 20+ buyins to fish/terrible players, etc, which, in my mind is a pain in the ass. I don't agree that the game gives regs more incentives to battle essentially for this reason--the results will be essentially meaningless for quite a long time and edges will also be less clear. The increase of uncertainty results in tighter game selection to be required, or else you will find yourself playing long sessions not knowing you have an edge or perhaps not having an edge at all.
Also, the "totem pole" for NL isn't *that* clear, and even there the variance can be incredibly frustrating. The results are not at all "predictable" and the strategies not at all straightforward, nor easily assessed. In NL, because equities are further apart, ranges less smoothly distributed, and boards more static, there is more leeway for strategic options.
All that being said, there is potential value in the uncertainty created by PLO. Certainly big inefficiencies will arise in some way because of it. But as spiderman once said, with great power comes great responsibility
You may think more cards=more complexity in general, but actually there is a point where adding more cards to the game makes it completely suck because ranges are so amorphous. Imagine if you have a game with 20 cards to each player, flop, turn, river, etc. In such a game, bluffing is, of course nonexistent, and the only edge possible comes from betting as much as possible when you are any noticeable favorite. I wouldn't say PLO clearly passes that point, but it does share similar characteristics.
Personally, I would like my efforts to be awarded what they are due, however for PLO this simply won't be true for a very long time. In PLO, I've had multiple 100k hand samples look as though they were played by totally different players, lost 20+ buyins to fish/terrible players, etc, which, in my mind is a pain in the ass. I don't agree that the game gives regs more incentives to battle essentially for this reason--the results will be essentially meaningless for quite a long time and edges will also be less clear. The increase of uncertainty results in tighter game selection to be required, or else you will find yourself playing long sessions not knowing you have an edge or perhaps not having an edge at all.
Also, the "totem pole" for NL isn't *that* clear, and even there the variance can be incredibly frustrating. The results are not at all "predictable" and the strategies not at all straightforward, nor easily assessed. In NL, because equities are further apart, ranges less smoothly distributed, and boards more static, there is more leeway for strategic options.
All that being said, there is potential value in the uncertainty created by PLO. Certainly big inefficiencies will arise in some way because of it. But as spiderman once said, with great power comes great responsibility
haha some very good points.. thanks for taking the time to chime in.
I think your point about how games that are more complex in the context of more cards does not necessarily equate to them being more complex strategy-wise is very valid and a good argument. However, I suspect we disagree with where on the spectrum PLO lies. TBH I think in a lot of ways, the way ranges are a little more amorphous in PLO just means it can be tougher to understand how to distribute them properly as opposed to NL where you're more often more polarized.
Your point about basically not wanting the variance in PLO is valid ofc from a business/financial point of view as a professional gambler, but I think it's pretty flimsy in arguing that it's a weaker game because of it. I just accept it as an added component to being a poker player that is not nearly as strong in other games, and I look at it as another opportunity to be better at another part of the game than my opponent. I think you're approaching things from a unique perspective given that I presume the majority of your hands have been high+ stakes. For a more normal experience of someone considering jumping into PLO at small/mid stakes, I think doing enough work on one's game should yield enough understanding to know that they've got a big enough edge and to just appreciate/embrace the variance accordingly.
I guess it's possible that the increase in uncertainty should shift things towards lesser action due to needing to be more sure of edges etc.. but IMO this is neutralized and then some by the fact that far bigger edges are achievable in PLO. Although it's tough to argue further on that subject I think.. we just simply disagree.
And yeah I guess it's also kind of tough for me to compare/comment PLO to NL given that I don't have much experience playing with the best NL players from the last bunch of years. My totem pole comment was obviously coming from the perspective of an observer so if you feel like it's inaccurate you obviously know better than I.
04-14-2014
, 04:07 PM
Quote:
haha some very good points.. thanks for taking the time to chime in.
I think your point about how games that are more complex in the context of more cards does not necessarily equate to them being more complex strategy-wise is very valid and a good argument. However, I suspect we disagree with where on the spectrum PLO lies. TBH I think in a lot of ways, the way ranges are a little more amorphous in PLO just means it can be tougher to understand how to distribute them properly as opposed to NL where you're more often more polarized.
Your point about basically not wanting the variance in PLO is valid ofc from a business/financial point of view as a professional gambler, but I think it's pretty flimsy in arguing that it's a weaker game because of it. I just accept it as an added component to being a poker player that is not nearly as strong in other games, and I look at it as another opportunity to be better at another part of the game than my opponent. I think you're approaching things from a unique perspective given that I presume the majority of your hands have been high+ stakes. For a more normal experience of someone considering jumping into PLO at small/mid stakes, I think doing enough work on one's game should yield enough understanding to know that they've got a big enough edge and to just appreciate/embrace the variance accordingly.
I guess it's possible that the increase in uncertainty should shift things towards lesser action due to needing to be more sure of edges etc.. but IMO this is neutralized and then some by the fact that far bigger edges are achievable in PLO. Although it's tough to argue further on that subject I think.. we just simply disagree.
And yeah I guess it's also kind of tough for me to compare/comment PLO to NL given that I don't have much experience playing with the best NL players from the last bunch of years. My totem pole comment was obviously coming from the perspective of an observer so if you feel like it's inaccurate you obviously know better than I.
I think your point about how games that are more complex in the context of more cards does not necessarily equate to them being more complex strategy-wise is very valid and a good argument. However, I suspect we disagree with where on the spectrum PLO lies. TBH I think in a lot of ways, the way ranges are a little more amorphous in PLO just means it can be tougher to understand how to distribute them properly as opposed to NL where you're more often more polarized.
Your point about basically not wanting the variance in PLO is valid ofc from a business/financial point of view as a professional gambler, but I think it's pretty flimsy in arguing that it's a weaker game because of it. I just accept it as an added component to being a poker player that is not nearly as strong in other games, and I look at it as another opportunity to be better at another part of the game than my opponent. I think you're approaching things from a unique perspective given that I presume the majority of your hands have been high+ stakes. For a more normal experience of someone considering jumping into PLO at small/mid stakes, I think doing enough work on one's game should yield enough understanding to know that they've got a big enough edge and to just appreciate/embrace the variance accordingly.
I guess it's possible that the increase in uncertainty should shift things towards lesser action due to needing to be more sure of edges etc.. but IMO this is neutralized and then some by the fact that far bigger edges are achievable in PLO. Although it's tough to argue further on that subject I think.. we just simply disagree.
And yeah I guess it's also kind of tough for me to compare/comment PLO to NL given that I don't have much experience playing with the best NL players from the last bunch of years. My totem pole comment was obviously coming from the perspective of an observer so if you feel like it's inaccurate you obviously know better than I.
I think you're right actually that at lower/middle stakes there is a bit more incentive to battle for sure, particularly because you'll get a wider variety of opponents and more of a chance to actually weather variance. Forgot that the game changes at high stakes :/
My favorite thing about PLO in particular though is that there are many more fish
, rarely do fish ever sit at NL these days...
04-14-2014
, 05:19 PM
Quote:
That's because you're still thinking that getting a lot of chips in pf with AA is a super awesome thing in PLO. It's not. Well it is, but not really.
Just remember that you will also suckout on AA with stupid hands just as much as your opponents, so that's clearly not where the edges lie. And then --> find the real edges --> profit.
Just remember that you will also suckout on AA with stupid hands just as much as your opponents, so that's clearly not where the edges lie. And then --> find the real edges --> profit.
Maybe I should just limp every hand...like everyone else.
Thanks to all of the 2p2 legends that are taking their time out to respond to the newbs in the thread.
04-14-2014
, 05:43 PM
If you were playing in a 6 handed PLO game like the one I described, where theres 4-6 people seeing every flop, what would your strategy be?
04-14-2014
, 05:47 PM
04-15-2014
, 04:21 AM
Quote:
Is there anywhere we can post some questions for the next podcast with WCG?
I'll just list them here an hope they get noticed
If you had to start from <1k again do you think you could grind yourself back into the highest stakes online again? Thoughts on how long this would take you? Which games would you play? (Given that there is so little action at HU NL and PLO)
If someone offered you x amount of money to work a 9-5 for a year and you accepted, what would 'x' be?
Best friend in poker? Thoughts on their overall game?
If you could play either durrrr or isildur indefinitely at HUNL who would you choose?
Where do you see yourself in 5 years down the line?
Thoughts on bitcoin/other up and coming virtual currencies?
I'll just list them here an hope they get noticed
If you had to start from <1k again do you think you could grind yourself back into the highest stakes online again? Thoughts on how long this would take you? Which games would you play? (Given that there is so little action at HU NL and PLO)
If someone offered you x amount of money to work a 9-5 for a year and you accepted, what would 'x' be?
Best friend in poker? Thoughts on their overall game?
If you could play either durrrr or isildur indefinitely at HUNL who would you choose?
Where do you see yourself in 5 years down the line?
Thoughts on bitcoin/other up and coming virtual currencies?
great questions
if you or anyone else has any questions for wcg or me to dicuss on any podcast this is the place to ask them. Or feel free to send me a message on hereI recorded a new PLO podcast tonight with Krmont22 and put it on the live stream. We went over some hands played by him and others while talking about a whole bunch of different topics. I've noticed that these podcasts can get pretty long simplybecause there is really so much to talk about and I love that part of it. Going to edit it up today and should have it up over the next day
04-15-2014
, 05:04 AM
Sick! Psyched to hear from krmont haha
Thanks for the answer, I guess I'm just wondering why you didn't do this back in the day when nl wasn't as solved as today
Quote:
I think you could just as easily say, "because the game is less solved, it suggests that there's a lot more room to be closer than your opponents in solving it. If you can get halfway there while your opponents are still playing RPS, seems like a pretty good spot for you."
04-15-2014
, 09:21 AM
