I would usually check back this hand against a SB peeling range.

Let's assume villain flats a raise in the SB with a 20% range (excluding an 8% 3bet range).

To start, you have 30% equity against his overall range. Not a great starting point, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't cbet.

Since we have to fold if raised, we'll lose out our cbet every time that happens. You can expect to face a raise ~15% of the time if villain is raising sets, QJ+Backup and very strong draws. Might not sound like much, but it's certainly a meaningful downside vs checking back. Especially when we're forced to fold some guaranteed equity in the pot from our 6 nut outs.

Lastly we should think about our fold equity. I didn't go into building a calling range for villain, but I will point out that he flops Q+ or a legitimate draw (FD, KT) 75.7% of the time.

The vast majority of the time, you will either be pushed off your equity or put money into the pot with poor equity.

Checking back doesn't necessarily means playing honestly until the river. You still have the option of a delayed cbet once villain has significantly weakened his range with a 2nd check.

^yep

Ph33roX what tool do you use to make such a fine analysis?

Odds Oracle or something?

I use PokerJuice. Took about 5 minutes to pull those numbers out.

so what, that doesn't prove anything. maybe when you check you don't realize your equity as well. so betting flop might still be better. at least you have fold equity and when you're called you can realize or bluff later. when you cxhxekck back it's harder to bluff later. and when you bet and get raise you don't fold out 30% of equity you fold out more like 25% which is nothing and means you can safely bet/fold.

proves more than your rant though, in my very humble opinion.

1) Post a hand, asking for advice

2) Get solid advice

3) Piss on the poster giving solid advice


Way to go being a complete d-bag.

where is proof that this is a solid advice? i was asking about the river not about the flop play which is close and i know that. go ahead and prove that checking is better than betting and i'll take my words back.

wasn't trying to piss on the poster, just was trying to explain that there's little point in analyzing the flop play. i'm sorry if it came out arrogant.

"Proof" has never been and will never be the standard for anything in poker. E.g. there's no proof that 3-betting 3333 MP vs. UTG isn't a good play, because after all UTG could be opening a range of {2222} and CO-BB could be continuing with only {AAQJds}, and you really can't PROVE that they aren't playing that way. But there's a strong body of EVIDENCE that it's terrible, and Ph33roX's post presented a strong amount of evidence in favor of checking the flop. You responded with undiscriminating skepticism and tautological buzzwords like "realizing equity", instead of with quantifiable evidence for your claim.

The only way to PROVE that the flop bet was better would be to invent a time machine, track down villain at the precise moment he was in this hand, murder him, pull out his brain, put it in a simulation (not a PJ sim -- an actual reality-emulating computer sim), and use that to extract his precise ranges preflop and the precise way he'd play every single contingency postflop -- what hands, what actions. Since we have a time travel device, a PLO EV calculator would be a piece of cake! We'd see what the results said, and we'd have PROOF that one decision, in this fateful moment of internet PLO history, was incontrovertibly the best decision you could make on this flop.

But that's never how hand analysis has worked.

And you're not really entitled to an answer about the specific question you asked. It's purely out of the goodness of people's hearts (and/or ego!) that they decide to give advice in 2015 at all. So if someone decides that the flop play is more important than the river play, then deal with it. If they give good advice and you decide to ignore it because, hey, you weren't even asking about the flop , well that's your loss.

Disregarding the drama, an obvious thing to think about next time in a similar situation is a) your image b) opponents tendencies

Given the spoiler the opponent is either a hardcore calling station or hero is overaggressive and keeps getting caught 3 barrelling. Either way, that should factor into your decision of when to 3 barrel. If villain is unknown, generally speaking dont bluff.

this is pretty bad.

if villain is unknown, generally speaking look at how high/low you are up in your range, and whether you should include the hand you got to the river with in your bluffing range or not.

you can´t just make an exploitable play vs unknowns because, ahem, because why exactly?

Valid criticism Here's my reasoning.

When an opponent is unknown and you have a lot of hands played at your stake, you can assume they are more likely new to the a) game b) site c) stake. At PokerStars PLO5, this translates more often to the option a)

This is of course not definitive or in any way true every time, but it still increases the likelyhood that you are against a stationish opponent. You can think about ranges and what part of them to use as bluffs but thats no use when against a loose passive station. Having solid ranges is useless before having even a slight idea about opponent's ranges or lack thereof.

Especially at lower stakes you should observe unknowns for at least a couple of orbits before you start bluffing them.