line check 3/6/12 plo

ctrang95ctrang95 Red Chipper Posts: 4 ✭✭
Hero on button with KcKh6s4c

6 handed 2k eff stack

stakes are 3/6 with option 12 straddle.

Hero opens to 45 from Btn, sb fold, BB call.

Flop - pot 111

2c 9d 3c

V check, H bet 75, V x/r to 310 . H call

Turn - pot 731

2c 9d 3 c 4s

V bet 640 , H call

River - Pot 2011

2c 9d 3 c 4s Tc

V ship for remaining 1050 H call

Answers

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Blech. With no reads, fold flop, fold turn, crying call river. Or if you suspect your hand/draw combo is good on the flop then virtually ship it then.

    General rule of thumb - don't bet if you don't want to get check/raised off your hand. (You didn't, but you should have lol). Take the free card, or if you think your hand is good enough to bet and stand a check/raise, then you should ship.

    I could possibly see the hand going check/check, then call a smaller bet on the turn possibly and reevaluate on the river.

    I'm not a big fan of smaller than pot sized bets before the river. In general I think they show weakness. Maybe I'll learn something about that as this forum ramps up, because I know a guy who thinks he's a genius who bets half pot a lot.
  • TravisTravis Red Chipper Posts: 442 ✭✭✭
    I agree with Jeff that this is a good spot to check behind on flop. As played once you decide to call his cr, are there any cards you would fold to on the turn ...how about river? Doesn't seem like many to me.. So repot the cr ...
    As played river is a call. But with stacks as they are all in on turn if not flop is better.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Looking "weak" or strong is not a primary poker concept, as it has little to to do with the EV of a line. If anything he can cbet smaller, because his hand is robust enough to continue and protect an efficiently sized b/f range on a fairly friendly board.

    A simple demonstration of this occurs routinely in 3 or 4 bet pots where an ace flops. The last thing the pfr want to do is bomb the pot with top set or be forced to do so with a balancing hand.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,428 -
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Looking "weak" or strong is not a primary poker concept, as it has little to to do with the EV of a line. If anything he can cbet smaller, because his hand is robust enough to continue and protect an efficiently sized b/f range on a fairly friendly board.

    Agreed, but in PLO thanks to Jeff Hwang this idea is fairly common. In fact much of his floating strategy is based around looking for sub-pot bets to attack. Based on the results coming out of Solverland, however, full pot bets are not optimal.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not familiar with his work, and my reasoning protects the bettor as he does have hands to continue with, which indeed capture bets from the bluffs they induce. Using large bets to specifically purchase lack of continuance is by nature inefficent because it removes options from the respondant, among many other things.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Omaha is pretty different from Holdem, and pot limit poker is different from NL. I'm not saying sub pot bets are wrong necessarily and solvers may decide they are often best, I don't know. What I'm saying is that in Omaha you have scenarios for draws that you simply don't have in Holdem. Therefore a full pot bet worth of protection accomplishes roughly the same thing as a half or third pot bet in Holdem, on average. Top set is often not that far ahead in Omaha like it is in Holdem. In fact you can have top set for the nuts in Omaha and be a huge dog.

    :AS: :JH: :9S: :9H: vs. :8D: :7D: :5C: :3C: on a flop of :9D: :6D: :4C: the set is only 38%. You can't even be behind in Holdem, let alone crushed like that.

    You don't need to "balance" when they're going to call when behind even if your cards were face up.

    Constantly betting the pot in Omaha doesn't give much away as it would in Holdem. Partly because of the equivalence of the bet as mentioned above, and also because you can't bet more - you literally have fewer options in Omaha. It's played as Pot Limit on purpose . Betting the pot makes more sense in a game where equities tend to run so much closer. There are many situations where the bettor is correct to bet the maximum, even if he knows villain will call, and villain is correct to call. This is what makes PLO so fun for a lot of people.

    Again, doesn't prove betting the pot is always best, but there are logical reasons for doing it more. Which also means in practice, regardless of whether it's technically better, a smaller bet actually does represent weakness more often than it does in Holdem.

    Which in this case is exactly what we'd be doing with a small bet/fold line. Even if villain got it right for the wrong reason.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2018
    1. I am aware they are different games.
    2. I don't need a solver to come to conclusions about betting efficiencies.
    3. You can't protect equities in omaha very well, true. It doesn't follow that you can't protect ranges, which is what i said.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wasn't talking strictly to you, it was for all to see.

    You might be totally right that smaller betting is "correct". I'm just giving my experience that a lot of live players assume small bets are weak, so in a strategy you have to deal with that. And I think it would be too bad to lose here to a weaker hand and get blown off your hand because villain thought you were weaker than you were. That's why I don't like the small bet/fold line. In terms of range, I think you can bet pot when you're not going to fold to any raise because you think you have plenty of equity, or when you don't mind folding because you have very little. I wouldn't want to fold the second nut draw though. Maybe part of your point is that it then makes it easier for villain to know our hand strength. I think you can get around that by simply checking the nuts or taking a free card with a strong draw sometimes, but I could be wrong.

    I've played some tough players online that make a lot of 1/2 or 2/3 bets. In my live play most of the players who do that suck and you always know why they're doing it. I don't think Omaha has been analyzed near to death in the public eye like Holdem has.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    3. You can't protect equities in omaha very well, true. It doesn't follow that you can't protect ranges, which is what i said.

    So in terms of this hand, let's say for a moment that you accept for sake of argument that villain perceives our bet as weak, rightly or wrongly. Does that leave us vulnerable? Is a bet/fold line on the flop still OK within an overall strategy?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As I said above, not in this spot with this holding, no. Further, the range you face when x/r'd by, say, a half pot bet, is different from the one when you pot - that's range manipulation in action.

    I mean it's regrettable that signs point to OP losing here, but this is a great flop for his holding. If an opponent's thinking is no deeper than half pot bet=weakness, pot bet=strength, that opponent is going to be punished quite a bit here every time he finds an overdone x/r reaction, or really, any reaction.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    I'm just giving my experience that a lot of live players assume small bets are weak, so in a strategy you have to deal with that. And I think it would be too bad to lose here to a weaker hand and get blown off your hand because villain thought you were weaker than you were. That's why I don't like the small bet/fold line. In terms of range, I think you can bet pot when you're not going to fold to any raise because you think you have plenty of equity, or when you don't mind folding because you have very little. I wouldn't want to fold the second nut draw though. Maybe part of your point is that it then makes it easier for villain to know our hand strength. I think you can get around that by simply checking the nuts or taking a free card with a strong draw sometimes, but I could be wrong.
    I think, on rereading your posts, you are somehow interpreting me as saying I would bet/fold this exact holding, which would be pretty bad.
    If anything he can cbet smaller, because his hand is robust enough to continue and protect an efficiently sized b/f range on a fairly friendly board.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
    OK, so I think this is a fairly big topic, and I'd like to start a new thread on bet sizing in Omaha. It's a less analyzed topic. Your thoughts appreciated there.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file