Trying to learn PLO

[CCass]

I have been dabbling with PLO on Stars, and have good success on weak tables, but I have gotten killed a couple of times when my table selection isn't good.

Last night I sat down at a $.50/$1 table where I considered several of the players decent but not great, when the following hand came up.

UTG and UTG+1 fold, two callers, I raise to $5 with KhKdTd8d, cut-off calls, button folds, SB calls, BB folds, UTG+2 calls, and next guy raises to $31. I call, as does UTG+2. 3 to the flop for $103.

Flop is 5s, 4h, Ks. UTG+2 checks, re-raiser goes all-in for $61.90. I push my remaining stack ($119.75), which puts UTG+2 all-in also, and he calls.

The results of the hand don't matter, as my pre-flop call, and my push on the flop are what I am interested in. How poorly did I play this? I had the best hand post-flop, but I was certainly vulnerable.

Any comments/criticisms would be appreciated.

[Filip]

I am not that fund of that the call pre-flop after the pot reraise.
That smells like AA, but it strongly depends on the level of the players at the table.

The flop play is pretty straight forward i think. You have the best hand here and if the re-raiser had not bet i would bet pot. I dont think that your action, calling or raising, will be effect if
UTG+2 folds or calls since a call in your case will almost signal more strength then a raise.

I would put the players on hands like these:
re-raiser: As Ax Xs Xx (31%)
UTG+2: 6x 7x 8x 9x (23%)

Meaning that you would be a 46% favourite with a strong redraw if the flush/str8 came on the turn.


/F

[Acesover8s]

Your initial raise is debatable and depends on the character of the table. Your raise is good if there are decent stacks and they are going to call OR if you have a good chance to get it heads up and pick up the pot on most flops. The raise is NOT good if you're going to play against a small field that isn't likely to pay you off if you hit.

The reasons to raise preflop in PLO are:
#1: To build a pot when your hand is a favorite.
#2: To cause opponents to misjudge your hand or misplay theirs post-flop.
#3: To clean up your flush outs with strong drawing hands (like 9TJQds).

When you're reraised you must realize that 99% of the time you are looking at aces. You have an EASY fold unless both you and your opponent have stack sizes equal to 8.5x the current bet to you minus whats in the pot. And that is IFF you know your opponent will go broke with aces on a K-high flop and you won't go broke with your kings on an 222 flop.

Notice you can call with much more ease with the much-underrated (but much loved by me) 2 pair hand.

[bugstud]

or repot the 2 pair, as the case may be /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CCass]

I did assume that the pre-flop re-raiser had aces, and he had AdAcXcX. I also put the other played on a straight or flush draw post flop, and he had a straight draw.

From what I am reading, I should have folded to the pot sized raise pre-flop, assuming I thought it meant Aces (which I did). But after making top set on the flop, I should get the money in even if there were straight and or flush draws out against me.

[Filip]

[ QUOTE ]
I did assume that the pre-flop re-raiser had aces, and he had AdAcXcX. I also put the other played on a straight or flush draw post flop, and he had a straight draw.

From what I am reading, I should have folded to the pot sized raise pre-flop, assuming I thought it meant Aces (which I did). But after making top set on the flop, I should get the money in even if there were straight and or flush draws out against me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is my opinion. Since the times you arnt up agaisnt flush or str8 draws are few.

[LA_Price]

Hey CCass,

As many others have already said the raise pf was not very good. It effectively turned your hand into 72o or whatever the omaha equivalent would be. I'd have probably called with these stacks but if I did raise it wouldn't be a full pot raise. i'd build the pot with a $3 raise but if you're reraised you must calculate if you have enough in front of you to try and bust aces. post-flop you played the hand fine.

[sherbert]

Aces

I liked your post, but I was just curious - could you explain why the stack size needs to be 8-1/2 times the size of the bet less money in the pot. I was trying to figure the maths and erm, I'm not doing too well.

That's if the holder of the Kings is about 2.3-to-1 vs two players, one of which has crappy aces.

Thanks.

PS - I'm aware that you are 7.something-to-1 against flopping a King.

[Acesover8s]

Pardon, I made a mistake, the correct number should be 7.333 instead of 8.5.

This is based on the assumption that you will always check and fold on the flop if you do not hit a set, I am ignoring straights, flushes, and hitting two-pair or better with your side cards.

It is also under the assumption that you will always get your opponent all in on the flop if you do hit a set no matter the size of the stack.

All of these assumptions require a bit much that can be expected in a typical game, but still illustrate the fact that you would need fairly large stacks to call the raise. The larger the stacks the better it is.

The math is as follows:

When it comes back to him preflop he has to call 26$ to win the potential $103 in the pot (or more likely 77$ if UTG+2 doesn't come in.)

Our hero is now contributing $26 to win $77 of "other" money. With out assumptions that he will fit-or-fold on the flop he needs to get at least 7.33-1 on this money or $191 total on his $26 bet in order to break even EV-wise.

Take the $191-$77 = 118$. So, theoretically, if his opponent and he have $118 in their stacks the call is break-even. The bigger the stacks the more profitable the call becomes. This requires both players to start with stacks of $149 minimum.

This is the line I think through when contemplating calls like this. Although, generally I would require stacks much larger in order to make this call simply because many times you will not get all of your opponents stack and other times you may lose to a secondary draw.

It is entirely possible that my logic or maths are flawed.

Guy? Dogs? Anybody want to pick me apart?

[sherbert]

OK, that's what I was thinking you were thinking. Anyway, I'm going to disagree on this one. I think the call PF by the Kings was perfectly sound - as you can't remove the straights/flushes/two pair combos from the equation. That's why he's only a 2.3-to-1 dog preflop. If it was just a hold 'em scenario then yes, the Aces are a monster fave. over any other pair, which is why you need the implied odds of hitting a set to justify a call.

That's not the case in Omaha. Seems like the Kings has an overlay for this sort of money, given that he is calling $26 to win $103 - or 4-to-1.
And the stack sizes seem enough to call on that basis as well. I'd call - otherwise you'd be leaving too much money on the table folding here. Although the bigger the stacks the better.

[CrisBrown]

Hi CCass,

[ QUOTE ]
I have been dabbling with PLO on Stars, and have good success on weak tables, but I have gotten killed a couple of times when my table selection isn't good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second these remarks. I've read that fairly small skill edges play very heavily in Omaha, more so than in Hold'Em, so for we newbies, the line between a "good" or "bad" table can be very, very thin.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi aces,

I'm new to Omaha so I'm probably wrong, but I think the call decision maybe has as much to do with the other cards as with the KK? With a hand like KKQJds, there are more kinds of flops that are playable vs. AAxx, so maybe you don't need the flopped-set 8:1 implied odds. By contrast, with a three-flush KKT8, with only one flush possibility and a high likelihood of flopping only a gutshot draw ... I think the 8:1 implied odds are probably more reasonable.

Again, though, I really don't know anything yet. I'm just kinda voicing an idea and hoping people will explain where I'm wrong. *shrugs*

Cris

[sherbert]

You're right in part - one of the probs in Omaha is that hands run much closer preflop - even a hand like AAKK will lose regularly. If you have a hand like KKQJds then sure, that's a no brainer - but these hands are incredibly uncommon. You could probably play the game for a few years and fold this hand each time you were dealt it and not make much difference to your results.
Why? Because it is so rare. And when you connect with a flop you like, occasionally your opponent will be drawing dead. But often they will outdraw you.
So you have to make the most of what you are dealt. KKT8ss ain't brilliant but it ain't bad either. I'd go with a call in the scenario outlined here.

[CrisBrown]

Hi sherbet,

Thank you for the reply. Yes, you're right, that one has to make do with the cards one is dealt. I guess right now I'm at the point of maybe playing a little too tight, as I am still practically using training wheels. I like to have an idea of what I want to flop with a hand, and with KKT8 3-flush, I'm kinda stuck looking for a K-high flop, or QJ.

I would figure I'm facing AA with this reraise, which means a 50% chance he has the Ace of my suit and a fair chance that it's suited. So my K-high flush really doesn't look very profitable. At best, I'd have to play it defensively, because if I get a lot of action on it, it's unlikely to be good.

So the only really big pot hands I can hope to flop are K-high, or a K-high straight vs. someone else's Q- or J-high straight. And given the pre-flop action, I don't have the option of playing a small pot.

Again, though, I'm very new to the game so that probably explains why I'd be so reluctant to make that pre-flop call.

Cris

[sherbert]

Just out of interest, if you were heads up against AAss, weak sidecards, do you know what the difference is in win rate between KKQJds and KKT8ss?

[CrisBrown]

Hi sherbert,

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of interest, if you were heads up against AAss, weak sidecards, do you know what the difference is in win rate between KKQJds and KKT8ss?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to two-dimes.net, where "live" means the KK's flush draw is live:

AA87ds -- 71% (live) or 74%
KKT8ss -- 29% (live) or 26%

AA87ds -- 61% (live) or 65%
KKQJds -- 39% (live) or 35%

To me, that's a significant difference: 7:3 or as much as 3:1 vs. KKT8ss, as compared to 2:1 or as little as 3:2 vs. KKQJds. And those numbers assume both hands go to the river. It seems to me, and again I'm new at Omaha, that KKQJds is much more likely to flop enough outs to justify going to the river.

[Edit:] Sorry, I misread your original post and thought you meant the AA hand was double-suited. Duh. Against AAxxss, if the KK's flush draw is live, the win rates are 32.5% for KKT8ss, and 43% for KKQJds. If the KK's flush is covered, the numbers are essentially the same as above.

So, against a single-suited AA, provided the flush draw is live, KKQJds is basically a 4:3 dog, while KKT8ss is a bit worse than a 2:1 dog. Again, to me, those differences are substantial.

Cris

[sherbert]

Cris

Thanks for that. The results I got were a little different - using PokerCalculator to do Monte Carlo sims.

If the hand was AA72ss vs. KKT8ss the Kings equity is 35.5 per cent, vs 41.3 per cent for KKQJds (both flushes live) - or an increase of 6 per cent. Your point is well made and I completely agree that an increase in ev of six per cent is not to be sniffed at. But the point I was making is that I don't think the difference is so substantial as to make the KKT8 an automatic fold - it's not as if your ev has rocketed with the QJ. (BTW I make that 3:2 vs 2:1.) Clearly the KKT8 is a thinner call. More debateable if it's a clear fold.

And there remains the fact that unfortunately you will very rarely have the luxury of deciding whether or not to call a raise with KKQJds - in a database of just over 10,000 hands I've been dealt it just once! Needless to add, perhaps, I lost a bucketload with it. Ho hum.

Cheers

[CrisBrown]

Hi sherbert,

[ QUOTE ]
And there remains the fact that unfortunately you will very rarely have the luxury of deciding whether or not to call a raise with KKQJds - in a database of just over 10,000 hands I've been dealt it just once! Needless to add, perhaps, I lost a bucketload with it. Ho hum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and your point is well-taken. It's not as if I get to look down at my cards and say "Well, I'd rather call this with KKQTds...." I have what I have, and I have to make a decision on those cards and that situation.

I guess the only point I was making is that the side cards make a significant difference in the strength of a big pair hand. Perhaps I undervalue big pairs on Omaha, but I see a lot of people complaining (at the tables, not here): "I always lose with KK." Well, if your hand is KK83o ... the Kings aren't really worth much anyway, as I see it. On the other hand, with solid side cards, KKxx isn't that big of an underdog to even an AA hand.

Cris

[The Gift Of Gab]

I think the truth is somewhere in between what sherbert and aces are saying.

One one hand, looking at the all-in equity of the hands is misleading because much of the kings' equity comes from making hands on the later streets when the flop wasn't good enough to call. It also makes a big difference if you know you will be heads-up against the aces: if you flop an 8-out straight draw with your KKT8ss you can be pretty sure your ten outs are good. In a three- or four-way pot you often won't have the best draw, and you'll sometimes lose even if you flop two pair or trips. In a multiway pot I'd want odds close to what acesover8s is talking about. The poster is also sandwiched between the raiser and anyone else who comes in.

On the other hand, if you're not getting great odds but know the pot will be heads-up you can sometimes call liberally with decent kings. It helps a lot if the raiser will check and fold when the board comes down scary. I've played with guys who raise every time with aces and shut down after the flop unless they hit another, but online most guys just throw their money in.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Guy?


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean me? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

The numbers look right.

As for what strategy to take based on the numbers, I'm not sure. As the calculations elsewhere in the thread show, the to-the-river equity of the KKxx hand is a lot better than the chance of flopping a set, and as GoG rightly points out, a good deal of that comes from backdoor draws.

Playing a short stack, you get to see the river more often than if you're playing a deep stack, so the backdoor equity helps you out. Playing a deep stack, unless you flop a set or a really good draw, you're going to have to muck on the flop. So with a deep stack you have to look for the set; but then you also have to hope the AAxx is prepared to bet the pot and call a full blooded raise when the flop comes K-high, which he might not be.

The more I think about it, the less I like KKxx when up against almost certain aces.

Guy.

[Guy McSucker]

Having established that I haven't a clue about the preflop call, can we discuss the flop play?

Obviously you're not folding your set of kings. The question is do you shove in the remainder of your stack on the flop or call, trawling for the third player, and looking to bet your last $60 on the turn when his odds against you may be much less...

Any offers?

Guy.

[sherbert]

Well, I can live with the view that it's somewhere between me and Aces - sounds like a fair consensus. /images/graemlins/smile.gifI also think Guy's point about short vs deep stacks is bang on. The last point I'd make is that while some of the Kings' equity is backdoor - hence better to be playing short stacked - a fair amount of the Aces' equity will fall into this category as well. But yes - unless you are very short stacked, the Kings do have to hit the flop in some shape or form if they are going to continue.
Another point I'd like some views on - setting aside whether or not the original poster should have raised in this instance - is, is it bad or good poker to fold to a raise having made a raise here? I suppose the hot term for this is meta game considerations, but I am always extremely reluctant to fold once I've made a raise - unless it's been reraised and reraised again or there seems to be a very strong likelihood of it becoming an all-in scramble.
In other words, I'm prepared to take a little bit the worst of it preflop even knowing that I'm 99 per cent up against aces, because, a) I hope to play the flop correctly - so I escape with minimum damage if I miss and I hope to get the aces' stack if I connect; and b) it gives the impression if I fold to the reraise that I can be run over.
Thoughts?

[Guy McSucker]

I don't think there's any shame in occasionallly raising and folding to a reraise on the same round in PL/NL.

If anything, it's probably a good thing to be seen doing this from time to time: it reinforces the idea that you raise a wide range of hands, which makes you tougher to read.

I think you are much more exploitable if you always stubbornly see a flop/another card/a showdown (i.e. get to the next phase of the hand) after you've raised, rather than if you occasionally pass.

Guy.

[sherbert]

That was quick! Good points. I suppose the situation only arises occasionally in any case. And I have folded occasionally preflop to a reraise, but that is when I've raised with a truly shaky hand. I'd agree with the exploitation point, although hopefully one should try to fall into the exploiter not exploited side of the deal - and that calling raises on the flop/turn is a far more serious error, which should be avoided except when you have a very clear edge.

Thanks.

[CrisBrown]

Hi sherbert,

I'm going to agree with Guy on this one. I don't think there's any shame in laying down a marginal raising hand against a pot-sized reraise. To echo the old cliche, why throw good money after bad?

Nor do I really worry about being run off of the occasional marginal raising hand. I like opponents to think they can buy pots from me. When I do have a big hand, those same opponents will try to bluff me off of it....

Cris