1/2 PLO hand ...did I miss value

humpsterhumpster Red Chipper Posts: 35 ✭✭
edited August 2017 in Omaha Variants
I played this hand recently in 1/2 plo cash game...I bought in for 150 and my stack was currently 500. Villan had more than me.
UTG raises to 6 Villain (utg+1) reraises to 15, I call in bb with :AH::3H::2C::3C:. UTG calls.
Flop comes :Ac:5h:4h with 2 hearts. I check, UTG checks and villain bets 33. I raise to 100, UTG folds. Villain calls
Turn comes :3S: spades. I immediately put him on 6-7 and checked, Villain checked as well.
River comes a blank I check and he checks back. I don't know what he had but it wasn't 6-7 as my low straight won and he mucked his hand.
Did I lose loads of value here after such a glorious flop. I think I did as I had a fear of being check raised and losing the stack I had built up. Thoughts.

Comments

  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭✭
    I would fold this pre flop

    I like flop XR but I would just go full PSB

    I am not sure how to range UTG opening range in live PLO as it can vary so much, but in general EP opens won't have that many 67 combos. After the turn goes XX I would further discount the 76 so I would just bet/ fold river for value vs his Ax combos for a smaller sizing(maybe 1/2 pot)
  • Doug HullDoug Hull RCP Coach Posts: 1,876 -
    I am just starting on PLO, but this looks like a rocking PLO8 hand and a fast fold PLO hand.
    Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
    Author Poker Plays You Can Use
    Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
  • MonadMonad Red Chipper Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭✭
    Doug Hull wrote: »
    I am just starting on PLO, but this looks like a rocking PLO8 hand and a fast fold PLO hand.

    This.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017
    It's a good but not great starting hand in PLO/8 as the pair of 3s is more of a disadvantage than advantage. It's not bad to see a flop of 378, but bottom set is not the path to fame and fortune in Omaha. I'd prefer to have A288 or A235 over A233.

    In PLO it's an easy fold preflop as the hand is pretty junky, not to mention that you're playing out of position, not to mention that it's calling a 3-bet cold. The only things you have going for you are you're deep and the 3-bettor normally will have AAxx here (i.e. you know half his cards) unless he's pretty LAGGY. (And being deep is more of a disadvantage when you make a very vulnerable hand like a low straight that has no robustness - it's more because you have a suited ace.)

    The absolute miracle flop and then the fact that you're getting ready to hang it up just because a 6 comes tells you a lot about why this hand is pretty junky. You never want to play for the low end of things in PLO. A567 or A677 are far better hands for PLO. Of course those can hit the low end as well, but you have much better chances.

    It also explains why you should not be checking the flop. Your hand needs protection in addition to having the current nuts and nut draw, but the money needs to go in now, because villain often has a set of aces here and will probably raise himself if you bet, and you can 3-bet. As played he obviously didn't have AA this time, but you didn't now that. And whatever he had, you surely have him beat and need to get his money.

    By the way, it doesn't make sense to "immediately put him on" 76 just because a 3 comes out. It's possible but unlikely that he has 76 particularly in his hand after 3-betting preflop.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 597 ✭✭✭
    Agreeing with others that this hand is not good in a 3-bet pot out of position for Omaha high.

    Even when he has 76, on the turn you got 9 outs to the nut flush, 6 outs to a full house, and 1 out to quads. That's a lot of equity, in addition to the likelihood your wheel could be good and he is drawing to a smaller flush or just has overcards or a set.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    JoeOffsuit wrote: »
    Even when he has 76, on the turn you got 9 outs to the nut flush, 6 outs to a full house, and 1 out to quads. That's a lot of equity, in addition to the likelihood your wheel could be good and he is drawing to a smaller flush or just has overcards or a set.

    Right. Actually 9 flush outs, 2 aces, 3 fives, 3 fours, and a three for 18 outs. So if he turned over 76xx and then shoves I'm still calling getting 2:1.

  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 597 ✭✭✭
    We mean 9 outs to the boat. As a group we ought to be able to figure out this math thing.... : - )
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is a lot of solid but beginner advice.

    When the lp player makes a protected raise against an ep open the question is price, equity, and playability. While this is a weak hand a major component of beating plo for large sums is taking advantage of errors such as bet sizing and realizing nut equity when deep, which is the primary component of your hand. Position, as noted, is the main problem here but the fold is a defensive one. The ep player is only going to 4 bet with aces, which are now discounted because of your ace and the repped likelihood of the lp player having them or a big rundown. He won't reopen the betting with 9876 and obviously that matters during the turn play. His hand will mostly be suited broadways that also can have a single ace.

    So you can fold pre but it is a contingent fold, not a neccesary one as you are getting subsidized by the mispriced raise and the fact that ep is most often calling. Nor will lp player have sets as played, as his hands don't include many low pairs if at all, and discounted top set reraises flop, so a street of value betting was missed against high rundowns with secondary hearts but no value was likely actually missed because of the turn destroying his perceived equity.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017
    Yeah, everything I was thinking was based on the unwritten assumption that UTG would call (and not 4-bet) and we'd see the flop 3 ways.

    The problem with the hand w.r.t. "nut equity when deep" is that it's basically simply a suited ace. I guess you could call that a 1.5 card hand w.r.t. nut equity when deep, as the card that suits the ace is crap. To invest a significant amount of money in PLO I want to have a 3-4 card hand, not a 1.5 card hand. The rest of the hand is unlikely to make the nuts, which means it's either a small pot hand (when what you really need is not only to be deep but to actually get paid and also have some robustness), or you have to flop a flush (which makes it harder to get paid), or you have to flop a flush draw OOP. For this to be a good investment, you need almost a perfect storm.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, I am excellent, maybe one of the best, at Suited Ace Identification.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Then do continue regarding the rest of the hand w.r.t. nut equity when deep :) I assume you mean either a suited ace is enough to play in this spot, or you mean I'm not getting it. If you're saying 2, 3, 3 in your hand and rock bottom straights fulfill the important attributes you mentioned in your first post, I'm not seeing it yet.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @humpster

    With all the advice you have gotten, despite knowing the results, how would you now play the turn?

    Flop ($45) :Ac:4h:5h
    Check sb hero
    Check utg
    Utg1 bets 33

    *since he 3 bet pre unless he has something like kk76ss or AA there are not many 76 combos in his range. Maybe something like AKQJ with a heart draw?
    Here a PSB would be 144. I would like a 4x raise to about $120-$132 range.

    Turn ($245) *as played :3s
    This card doesnt change his range much. Maybe he has 44 or 55 for sets. Maybe AA. Either way your way ahead or have some nice equity against his hand.
    Hero ($385) bet? 160? Maybe just pot it? Im betting and stacking off here. Dont play with money you dont wanna risk. If your wrong your down 150 for the night. If your right your up 1k. I like those odds. If villain potted it on the turn would you fold?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A careful reading will find that everything in your post was already answered in mine. You asked for a storm and through hand reading and price I described one. There's more to PLO than double suited monsters and big folds.

    Once you get beyond beautiful hand selection as the natural strategy, you have to start fighting players who are trying to eat up equity because they understand something essential about the game. Picking spots to not surrender and better positional hand reading become part of the counters. OP deserved an alternative view that of course is thinner.

    Fold away, I've added my two cents.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You're adding two cents but you're being cryptic/ambiguous.

    "a lot of solid but beginner advice"

    Are you saying I'm giving advice fit only for a beginner, or I'm a beginner?

    "realizing nut equity when deep"

    What does this refer to exactly? The equity you have by making nut hands? Does making a wheel and having that hold up as the nuts an important part of your equity here?

    "you have to start fighting players who are trying to eat up equity because they understand something essential about the game"

    Are you saying villains in this hand particularly understand something essential about the game that the OP understands but the rest of us don't? Are you saying villains raised for the purpose of eating up equity? While that's true as a generic concept, I don't see any evidence it necessarily applies in this hand. Are you saying we should be playing this way regardless of whether the opponents are aware of this or not? Or that we should be preparing ourselves for tougher opponents?

    There are a lot of unclear things that aren't answered by just reading your post again.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well, I don't have time for novels in posts anymore, but I'll accept that I've been possibly more rushed than usual and clarify:
    jeffnc wrote: »
    "a lot of solid but beginner advice"

    Are you saying I'm giving advice fit only for a beginner, or I'm a beginner?

    1. Since I know you're not a beginner, and you know that I know that, which do you think it is in your case? Why do I need to spell that out?
    2. Further, what makes you think I'm referring to you in the first place? Is that a good way to read generalized opinions?
    3. If the phrase is about advice by beginners, how could it tend to be solid? The advice given in this thread is reasonable but incomplete on topics that don't come up here very often together: PLO, prices, defense, and positional protection.
    jeffnc wrote: »
    "realizing nut equity when deep"

    What does this refer to exactly? The equity you have by making nut hands? Does making a wheel and having that hold up as the nuts an important part of your equity here?

    1. If you're not a beginner, do you think I would consider the lowest straight possible the most important part (the nut equity) of the hand?
    2. Yet the game is so complex all cards matter. The secondary equity is part of the hand and there is a difference between holding three low cards and completely unconnected cards. For instance, if you change the 2c to the 9c, it's not going to help you against the likely broadway cards if they overcoat you in clubs (other than card removal), yet the connectivity of that 2c, nevermind an even better 4c replacing the pair, increases the hand's equity to the point where the major disadvantage is position. The pair of threes actually doesn't change much compared to having a completely disconnected card like the 9c, despite warnings from the authorities - it's all about the 4th card.

    And come on, who doesn't want all four cards working together. Joey Knish wants a blow job from Christy Turlington.
    jeffnc wrote: »
    "you have to start fighting players who are trying to eat up equity because they understand something essential about the game"

    Are you saying villains in this hand particularly understand something essential about the game that the OP understands but the rest of us don't? Are you saying villains raised for the purpose of eating up equity? While that's true as a generic concept, I don't see any evidence it necessarily applies in this hand. Are you saying we should be playing this way regardless of whether the opponents are aware of this or not? Or that we should be preparing ourselves for tougher opponents?

    I don't know anything about the villains, what kind of question is this? But here's your generic concept: that we just play the stakes and exploit beginners/fish through card edge, literally the easiest of all skills to acquire. So which concept is more valuable to take up our time with once we get the de rigeur fold pre out of the way?

    In fact, what's interesting is that the LP player doesn't even have to know exactly why he is doing what, but his small raise does still shut out equity - everyone in this thread has proven it by wanting to fold as their default, not considering the preflop handreading or the positional protection or even how closely this hand runs against the likely big rundowns and unblocked QQxx and KKxx, or that OP is deep enough to actually play his hand. (Blocking out equities is key in any game where they run close.) Advice, in other words, which protects players from tough decisions - hence solid but incomplete, all of which a good reading of my post makes clear enough without the bunch of convoluted asterisks you're asking for.

    As played, neither player manages to find bets on a runout and against action that makes steals and/or value possible and makes OP's hand semi-transparent as at least the nut flush draw because he doesn't have top set and won't usually raise other sets versus the uncapped 3 bettor. Yet the advice is just fold cuz bad equity or now bomb away cuz good equity, rather than get into any nuance. Who is likely to have dominated hearts here yet want to continue? And we also have comments saying the LP player has the two bottom sets, which he almost never, ever does, unless he has exactly a double paired AAxx, all of which is unlikely for reasons that are in my original post.

    The nut equity component is obviously the suited ace - remove it and the hand goes from marginal to trash. Because the EP player won't be raising, hero gets to complete and at a discounted price and realize his draw at a higher SPR - the button is allowing this to happen by not potting. Position works differently in PLO than in NL. It's simultaneously more important and harder to use correctly because handreading all four cards opponent holds is harder. So understanding this helps the OOP player against the button, who will face many difficult cbetting choices and will be forced to overrespect the board. Hero can win the pot with the equivalent of ace high here more often than at 100 bbs, while investing $13 to play for $500 on exactly the boards he knows he can. Where's this significant investment you are talking about?

    Strategy concerns are relevant at any stake, any place, any time. And who cares if the OP is playing a bunch of fish and or maybe he is one too? We're all fish to someone. Do you think the thread is all about him? Yet who is offering alternatives and taking him more seriously than a bunch of off-the-counter 'fold pre,' right or wrong?

    So why do I have to post a million times that players should be preparing for tougher opponents and thinking conceptually as a preamble to every post I make? We have this forum to discuss possibilities and concepts and strategy and instead I get this criticism that I essentially don't repeat myself enough. So who should really be taking whom to task? Yet it's always comes to this, to the point where I actually made a video with Soto about your grievances, carefully quoted and argued- reflect on the meaning of that. Did you even watch it or respond to it? Of course not. But you want me to spend even more time explaining things that are already truncated in a post in a thread you didn't even start and isn't about you.
    jeffnc wrote: »
    There are a lot of unclear things that aren't answered by just reading your post again.

    If I had to explain everything, every time I post, I'd never post again. Who does that remind you of and maybe you can figure out why they don't post much anymore?
    Instead, I've found a way forward and have continued to offer advice by crafting a style that saves me time, satisfies me, and makes others work - almost sounds like a good idea. You don't like that. We'll both just have to live with it.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well that's a long post so I'll respond to it in little bits. You're obviously upset, and I don't think there's a need to be. You're jumping to an awful lot of conclusions though.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Yet it's always comes to this, to the point where I actually made a video with Soto about your grievances, carefully quoted and argued- reflect on the meaning of that. Did you even watch it or respond to it? Of course not.

    I have no idea where that video would be and I assume I don't have access to it, which I said a long time ago, which is one reason I didn't really want that conversation to go to a video in the first place. Of course if I had access to it I would watch it, but whatever is in it, I've never seen it. If other people got something out of it, then I'm glad for that.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    But you want me to spend even more time explaining things that are already truncated in a post in a thread you didn't even start and isn't about you.

    Not sure what that has to do with it!
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Instead, I've found a way forward and have continued to offer advice by crafting a style that saves me time, satisfies me, and makes others work - almost sounds like a good idea. You don't like that.

    I never said I don't like that. Everyone understands you write pithy and efficient answers, some of which are intended to generate more thought, and I have no problem with that either. But aside from that, you sometimes write things that aren't clear (like just about everyone). Just because you know what you meant doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else, even though to you it seems it ought to be. That's partly the nature of the written word, when we can't hear tone of voice or see body language. For example, I didn't get the meaning of your Suited Ace Identification comment. To me, it sounded like sarcasm, meaning "of course I meant there are more nut hands there." But I didn't want to assume so I asked. Pretty normal thing to do in a conversation when you actually care about what the other person has to say.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    1. Since I know you're not a beginner, and you know that I know that, which do you think it is in your case? Why do I need to spell that out?

    We know Doug Hull is not a beginner, but he so much as said he's a PLO beginner. I don't think I'd know how much you know about my PLO experience. Maybe my advice sounded beginnerish to you. Your answer or part of your answer was different than mine, so I don't think it's outrageous of me to ask. If I ever answered a question on stud, then it definitely would be advice from a beginner.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    2. Further, what makes you think I'm referring to you in the first place? Is that a good way to read generalized opinions?

    I specifically didn't assume that - and that's the reason I asked. (But then, there was the fact that you said there was a "lot" of advice and my answer was far longer than anyone else's.)
    persuadeo wrote: »
    3. If the phrase is about advice by beginners, how could it tend to be solid?

    In the sense that beginners who are studying the basics can often get that part, or that perspective, right. As you've already pointed out, there are places to go beyond "solid".

    I'm not answering to nitpick, I'm just explaining why it's conceivable that something that you write (or anyone writes) can be taken more than one way. Those are some examples. But let's not bog the thread down further. If I don't understand something, I think about it, and if it's still not clear, I ask. Some people consider that good manners.

    By the way, I'm as surprised that you don't know what I mean as you are that I don't know what you mean. Yet we're both intelligent people. Again, styles and the written word.
  • humpsterhumpster Red Chipper Posts: 35 ✭✭
    Thanks to everyone that responded to my post. It was all very helpful. I have been playing no limit hold'em for many years but only recently started playing plo. I had some big wins in the beginning but had lost big on my previous session. So it's probably true to say I was playing with scared money. That's a big mistake.
    "What would I do on turn if played again"
    I would check turn and if checked back and blank on river I would bet on river for some value.
    Anyway this hand still graws with me but does tell me a couple of things. How important position is in plo, especially in 3bet pots and I should have folded pre flop.
    Cheers.


  • SliverOverlordSliverOverlord Red Chipper Posts: 323 ✭✭✭
    I guess consensus is that this was a fold preflop... although I don’t mind accepting the challenge of postflop OOP. Youre Going to have to play very cautiously with bottom set or top and bottom pair, but when you luck out on a flop like this it’s pretty awesome.

    I like a bet fold turn and bet fold river. If he does have 67, he will let you know, and you can draw to a full house/ nut flush if he raises turn and fold to a river raise.

Leave a Comment

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