Jnandez HUPLO betsizing theory?

This topic contains 7 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  JAMES 1 year, 9 months ago.

Jnandez HUPLO betsizing theory?

By N2O

Hey there, this will be my first post here. So Im currently giving HUPLO a go and come from a HUNLH backround.

I just watched a video by Jnandez that really threw me off and I wanted to see if anyone can explain the theory behind it.

So pretty much he was cbetting a 4k4r flop and said that he wants to only be cbetting this board 50% of the time but used a 25% cbet sizing. He goes on to list a bunch of hands that he cbets 100% of the time for which he uses a 50% cbet sizing.

Im not understanding the theory behind this. In nlh you look at the equity your range has vs your opponents range on different boards, and the more overall equity you have the more you cbet, so if youre cbetting ‘range’ from a theory perspective you need to use a small sizing right?

Is there something about PLO that makes this concept not apply? I thought this was basic game theory. Could anyone explain why he sized his bets like that? Look forward to replies, thanks

  • Author
  • N2O



    I agree that you cbet small with a big range advantage. I don’t know which boards he bets 100% of the time, but I believe these are the ones with a range advantage, and 50% is small sizing in PLO.

    On the K44 board however, only a king or 4 which makes up about 40-45% of his range, or a pair with backdoor potential will call a cbet if you bet anywhere near 50%. This is because of a well-known GTO concept known as MDF, or minimum defense frequency. In a 50% bet size, the opponent should call around 67% of the time. In this scenario, the opponent can fold some weak paired hands and ace high back-door draws where he may have very little equity. AND WE DON’T WANT THAT, we want him to be in tough spots, especially when we have position. So with a 25% size, the opponent must call around 80% of his range to be unexploitable if you don’t consider equity realization factors or are on the river. And most people don’t call nearly that often on any flop.

    Does this make sense?


    thanks for the reply though Im still confused. Putting someone in tough spots isnt game theory related, Im trying to understand the game theory reasoning that makes this concept differ from nlh, like according to game theory shouldnt our sizing be relative to our betting/raising frequency?

    Also I never heard of ‘MDF’ it sounds like that is 1-alpha?


    Yes, it is referred to as 1-alpha as well. Sizing relates to BLUFFING frequency, which VARIES with the number of VALUE COMBOS in my range .

    I forget how to derive it, but you can find a chart of this for various bet sizes. On a 2/3 pot bet, A=40%, B (bluff)=28.5% of total betting range (so 2.5:1 value bets (71.5/28.5)). So that would dictate a maximum of 70% Cbet on a 2/3 pot bet size (50/x=2.5, x=20 : 50+20)

    I’m gonna choose bluff frequency based on how often I have a value hand, and that could be up to 50% of the time on a wet board. I won’t slowplay much on a wet board, but I don’t want to bet all 50%, because I want to keep a strong check back range so my opponent can’t donk the turn every time I check flop.

    In the end PLO doesn’t vary from NLHE from a GTO perspective, only in the number of combos involved. I would appreciate anyone else’s feedback if I left anything out. Believe it or not, I am trying to keep this simple. Could be a good post for 2+2 because there is a lot to cover.


    sorry for the late reply, thanks for your answer. I know the chart youre referring to, could you please explain this part of your calculation ‘(50/x=2.5, x=20 : 50+20)’?


    in nlh I cant see situations where we bet smaller with a smaller cbetting frequency but bet bigger with a bigger cbetting frequency, this is the part im not getting about this


    I’m gonna update and copy this whole post to 2+2. Search for Jnandez in the small stakes PLO category.

Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)