ICM vs Chip Leader: How Dylan Weisman Navigates a Tough PLO Final Table Spot

In this preview from his upcoming Crushing PLO Tournaments course on Upswing, Dylan Weisman walks through a hand from a $75,000 Triton PLO final table at WSOP Paradise.

The following video comes from his “Plan Explained” section, and it’s a great example of how ICM pressure, stack dynamics, and preflop decisions all play a role in high-stakes PLO tournaments.

Let’s break it down.

If you’re serious about improving your PLO tournament results, Dylan’s upcoming Crushing PLO Tournaments course goes much deeper into these concepts. You can pre-register now and be ready when it drops on Upswing on April 20th.

How Stack Distribution Impacts Preflop Decisions

Dylan starts by framing the most important element of the hand: stack distribution.

He’s sitting on the Button with about 36bb, one of several middling stacks. There’s a clear chip leader, plus three shorter stacks at 10bb, 13bb, and 20bb.

As Dylan says:

“When you’re the middling stack, such as myself, your incentive is not to play hands against one of the people who can bust you.”

This is the force that ICM applies to tournament poker, especially in PLO where equities between hands run so close together and your risk of busting is always so high. Your goal is to survive, and let others bust before you.

That doesn’t mean you’re supposed to wait around for only the best hands. You can still get aggressive and fight for pots, but balancing this dynamic of aggression versus conservative ICM play is critical to winning tournaments.

Preflop Strategy and Decisions

The hand begins with the chip leader, Matthias Eibinger, opening to 2.5x with 7542 double-suited. Dylan is on the Button holding KKT9 with three clubs and a spade.

At the time, Eibinger was a good (and possibly new) PLO player, but he’s an excellent No-Limit Hold’Em professional.

As for the hand, this looks like a clear continue. At a final table, however, especially as a middling stack, nothing is automatic.

The first key adjustment comes from the sizing.

Dylan points out something surprising:

“When you’re the chip leader, you actually don’t want to use a 2.5x opening sizing very much… You usually are going to want to size up to 3x or 3.5x.”

More importantly, the smaller sizing changes the Button’s response. This means smaller opens lead to more calls and fewer 3-bets, while larger opens push you toward more 3-bets and fewer calls.

That’s one recurring theme. The second factor is range.

Because Eibinger is the chip leader, he gets to open extremely wide, especially into middling stacks who can’t defend aggressively postflop. This is because they are handcuffed by the presence of the short stacks.

The third factor is that Dylan doesn’t have an ace.

He explains:

“The fact that we don’t have an ace in our hand really leans us towards taking less aggression.”

At a final table, when the chip leader 4-bets, it’s heavily weighted toward aces or hands containing an ace and strong suits. Without an ace yourself, you’re in a terrible position to continue against somebody who can bust you.

3-betting with the intention of folding to a 4-bet is possible, but it’s much less appealing with this exact holding. 

How ICM Impacts Strategy in PLO MTTs

There is a broader, very useful concept here. Dylan highlights something counterintuitive about ICM environments:

“If you use a smaller sizing, you actually have to do so at a slightly lower frequency.”

Most players make the natural assumption that smaller opens mean you can open wider. In reality, larger sizings apply more pressure and generate more folds.

From a practical standpoint, he sides with the solver: 3x–3.5x opens perform better at final tables because players fold more versus larger opens.

For Dylan’s specific hand, the conclusion is clear.

Facing a pot-sized open, KKT9 can actually become a fold in some ICM scenarios.

But versus 2.5x, it becomes a call.

The Big Mistake

Then the hand takes a turn. Ding Biao, the shortest stack, overcalls in the Small Blind with JJT3 tri-suited. Dylan doesn’t sugarcoat Ding’s decision:

“I’m not going to lie, that’s a big old punt.”

From an ICM perspective, this is a major error.

At 10bb, your hands need to be simple and high equity. Think paired structures like JJTT, JJ88, or strong double-suited hands that can 3-bet. Ding’s JJT3 hand could easily squeeze as well.

Instead, this hand creates awkward postflop situations and performs poorly against both ranges.

Dylan also makes a point about hand interaction:

Low, connected hands like 7653 actually perform better here because they don’t overlap with the Button’s high-card-heavy range. JJT3 does the opposite, it awkwardly runs right into it.

What Flop Dynamics Are In Play?

On this As Qs 6h flop, Dylan holds second pair with a gutshot, and one of his kings is a spade. As for Eibinger, most players assume the chip leader has a clear c-bet on high-card boards.

Dylan pushes back on that:

“A big mistake that a lot of chip leaders make at final tables is they like to c-bet too much on these high card boards.”

In ICM, the Button’s flatting range is actually very strong and condensed around high cards.

That means boards like AQx don’t favor the chip leader nearly as much as people think.

As a result, checking becomes the dominant strategy.

How Dylan Makes His Flop Decision

Action checks to Dylan on the Button, and now the decision becomes about equity and removal.

He frames it with these two questions:

• How much equity does my hand have?
• How much equity do I remove from my opponent’s range?

His hand has some equity but very little removal, and in ICM spots that’s critical.

“If you’re betting as one of the more vulnerable stacks… you really need to reduce your opponent’s probability of continuing.”

He also notes that he would check back stronger hands here, like Kings with the nut flush draw, to avoid getting check-raised.

That’s the key consistency point: if you check strong hands, you need to check these as well.

So, naturally, he checks back. The turn comes 5d.

Eibinger barrels, and with no clear way forward, Dylan folds.

If you want a complete, structured approach to PLO tournaments (from preflop ranges to postflop execution) get Dylan Weisman’s Crushing PLO Tournaments course on Upswing that’s now released. It’s designed to take these ideas and turn them into a system you can actually apply at the table.