PLO Double Suited Aces

SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 744 ✭✭✭

I appreciate all the responses to my discussions, you have been very helpful

5/5/ NL/PLO

Effective stack- Hero $560

Game is not as splashy as usual

UTG+1 opens for $15- good player, appropriate range for this position
MP calls
Hero on BU raise pot $70 with :Ah :Qh :Ad :5d
SB calls
UTG+1 calls
MP calls

pot $280

Flop- :Qs :6c :7c
checks to Hero


Question1
pre-flop: I actually thought my 3bet might have some isolation effect. However, in this mix game isolation seems almost impossible . is it even desirable? Why am I 3betting?? i already have the BU. The focus of PLO actually wanting to be multiway in many cases is one of the biggest hurdles for me. I focus on isolation in NL

My thought was let's try and get it in pre. But in truth more often it is going to be the multiway, low-mid SPR pot depending on stack size. I can probably get it in post anyways @100bb in a single raised pot. 3bets with a wider range and deeper stacks probably are more useful.

Question 2
flop cbet.: I felt i missed this flop. I block top set but little else. I figured 2.2 SPR is commitment range for me and I didn't really think my AA were worth that vs 3 other players. Am I wrong?

Question 3
Are the checks mostly honest? Will players donk bet really good draws, wraps, sets and check marginal hands? Or is it like NL and mostly gets checked to PFR?

what if I was an OOP caller and flopped a huge hand like top set, big wrap, combo draw , should I be leading or waiting for the PFR to make a continuation bet?

Any and all comments welcome.

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,787 -
    Good questions. I'll take a stab.

    1. You ask why are you 3-betting since you already have the button. To me having the button is a reason to 3-bet. We have the best position to win this pot, so let's bloat it with a big hand.

    I don't agree with the idea that in PLO we aim for multiway pots. Heads-up in-position is pretty much always better than the alternatives in any poker variant. I can think of a couple of counter-examples in Omaha-8, though even there it's more true with fixed-limit betting.

    2. What you do on the flop may be somewhat dependent on your perceived 3-bet range pre. If your hand looks like AAxx at least one of your 3 opponents is probably going to make life difficult for you. Without any backdoor draws you've missed this about as bad as you can with your specific hand, and if you don't 3-bet medium rundowns you've also missed it with your range. I think checking back is fine.

    3. The honesty of checks depends on board texture. Because so many turn cards change hand values drastically, checks are typically more honest in PLO than NLHE because giving a free card is so dangerous. On this particular board given the pre-flop action I think checks are more suspicious because, depending on the kinds of hands your opponents play, there may well be flush+oesd type hands that don't mind giving a free card and will check-raise. That said, it's not a super coordinated board and the connected cards are low, making wraps less likely.

    In your OOP hypothetical, really depends on the specifics. As just mentioned, the board doesn't support many huge combo draws. If you have something massive like top set with NFD it probably doesn't matter what you do at that SPR. With QQxx and no redraws leading pot might be best, so I guess for balancing purposes you need to do that with some big draws.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2018
    Yes those are good questions, but basically what you're asking for now is a whole book :)

    I would echo a lot of what GameKat said with some variation.

    Basically you're raising here because on average your hand is better than everyone else's, so you should get more money in the pot. It's true hands tend to be more speculative in Omaha than Holdem (implying: you want to see flops for cheap), but at the same time, a hand like T987 in Omaha is a much different hand than T9 in Holdem. Again, you can raise this hand if you're in a multiway pot simply because it's better than what they're calling with on average. But if there's a raise before you then you have to worry about getting dominated, so you don't need to escalate.

    In theory, good players will be playing more straightforwardly from OOP. Having the initiative in Omaha is not as important as, say, Holdem, which means they shouldn't just be checking to the raiser. That's because you shouldn't be c-betting very much when you whiff. But many will still play that way, so you have to make a note of the check/raisers at the table. Personally I won't risk it, and if flop set of queens here OOP, I donk-blast away.

    Blocking top set is OK, but really all it does is skew ranges just slightly away from sets toward draws, because almost everyone at these tables is going to treat any set like the nuts, just like they do in Holdem.

    I might disagree with GameKat that you don't need to worry too much about wraps, because you'll see hands like JT98 or T987 played all the time (in fact UTG+1 could easily have such a hand.) 6 and 7 might be "low cards" but they're at the bottom end of mid/high straights, which is exactly where you would want to be.

    Your hand is a big hand no matter the situation - short stacked, deep stacked, heads up, multiway. On the flop, it's a little ugly but borderline. At SPR 2 with 4 people, you only have to win this 1 out of 4 times to start showing a profit, so even if you're "probably" going to lose, it easily could still be profitable. At some tables your hand might be perceived as being face up, or if they're really paying attention it depends on how well you balance your 3-bets. But at this SPR, it probably doesn't matter anymore if your hand is face up or not. You could argue for both checking and "shoving". I would more often than not probably just pot it.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,787 -
    Yeah good point, wraps will be there, but there are more (and stranger) ones when all three flop cards are close in rank.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The focus of PLO actually wanting to be multiway in many cases is one of the biggest hurdles for me.

    This may be someone's strategy, but it doesn't stand up to inspection. When equities run close, it should be obvious that shutting them out is highly desirable, not inviting them in.

    And lo, tough PLO games feature isolation and reisolation, weak games 5 way clusterfucks.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 744 ✭✭✭
    Thanks. A lot to digest. i really appreciate everyone taking the time to answer a child's PLO questions. I can't tell you how helpful it is.

    on Bravo this game actually is titled "5 way Clusterfuck" really, look it up

    Not a lot of 3betting or re-isolating going on. The few that do are the better PLO players. it's hard to re-isolate if these players are not playing as 3bets are simply being called bloating the pot. Also a lot of these lineups any re-isolate under $300 is automatically called by 4 players.

    I'm working on my game plan. The money is there

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sully wrote: »
    Not a lot of 3betting or re-isolating going on. The few that do are the better PLO players. it's hard to re-isolate if these players are not playing as 3bets are simply being called bloating the pot. Also a lot of these lineups any re-isolate under $300 is automatically called by 4 players.

    You can't force people to fold who want to see a flop. There are 6 Holdem hands in an Omaha hand, so if you're looking for a hand to like you're going to find one more often than not.

    For LAGgy isolation strategies in games where it will work, see Advanced Pot Limt Omaha Vol. 2.

Leave a Comment

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