Betting the pot

I'm a newb to PL games, and am only playing at $25 and $50 buyins.

I've read the little I can find online about Omaha High, and I saw the advice that I should always bet the pot if I bet at all.

Is this correct?

I've noticed that a pot sized bet often gets no callers.

Sometimes this is good (when there are possible draws on the flop), but sometimes it is not (if you hold the nuts or near nuts on the River).

Do you always bet the pot, or do you vary bet sizes.

If so, what is your criteria?


Also, is it correct to bet a flush or straight draw in Omaha the way I often do in Holdem?


Thanks

[joewatch]

There are plenty of people who only bet the pot, but varying your bet size according to the situation is probably more profitable. Of course, knowing how much to bet is the hard part. The best information on this complicated topic is Rolf Slotboom's article "The amount of the bet in pot-limit Omaha".

[ QUOTE ]
The best information on this complicated topic is Rolf Slotboom's article "The amount of the bet in pot-limit Omaha".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you (or anyone) still have access to this article? It's not linked on Rolf's homepage and the original publisher no longer exists (according to Rolf's webpage).

[Phishy McFish]

I would love a link as well.

As to OP....personally I think there are MANY benifits to NOT always potting it. I think both of my favorites are related to a just large enough bet on the riv to LOOK like you want a call.

Amazingly I feel many times betting the "just bigger than small" bet is a better bluff/buy move than betting pot. Also, when you "get there" on the riv you make the same type of bet (one so now they don't know when it is a bluff and not) to get that "I know I'm beat but it's so little" call........or better yet.....the "MAYBE I can bluff him out of the pot" reraise......of course doing this without the NUTS makes for some terrible decisions you don't want (SO DON'T DO IT UNLESS YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEAT OR KNOW YOU HAVE THEM BEATEN).


P.S. I am a reckless, loose, aggressive, fish-maniac......my opines mean little.

Pot and No Limit Poker goes into a little bit of detail on betting just outside of what your opponent thinks would be the correct pot odds to call. The authors put it in terms of knowing that you are actually killing some of your opponents outs in your hand without his knowledge, but this level of thinking will probably never apply at the $25 or $50 level. You can still apply this principle somewhat, in that rather than betting pot, bet a large amount that still makes it incorrect for your opponent to draw out to you (and therefore long run +EV for you, assuming you can accurately read his draw).

[ QUOTE ]
I've read the little I can find online about Omaha High, and I saw the advice that I should always bet the pot if I bet at all.

Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a common expert opinion, but it's not universal. Furthermore, it only strictly applies to post-flop and turn bets. In Omaha, it's almost always possible (quite likely in fact) that one of (or a combination of) your opponents has pot odds to call any pot sized bet. The only way to minimize their pot odds is to bet the max (i.e. the pot). Of course this doesn't apply if you have a straight flush, quads, or the overboat (i.e. a QQxx hand and a Q55 board).

This never applies on the river because drawing out is no longer an issue. Feel free to make 1/3 or 1/2 pot value bets on the river.

[BluffTHIS!]

Silent acorns under the tree
Hoping, hoping, the squirrel don't see
Their plump round shape nestled amongst the leaves
Before they can sprout and make more trees.

Probably the most common mistake you will see in the small stakes games is gross underbetting of the pot and the rampant calling of these small bets by players getting "good odds."

For example:
Holding 9-9-x-x on a 9-4-4 flop doesn't mean that you should be betting .25 cents into a 3 dollar pot and an 8 player field in an attempt to get paid off.

I just saw someone stack himself in this way when a Q hit on the turn and he couldn't release and it reminded me of this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Silent acorns under the tree
Hoping, hoping, the squirrel don't see
Their plump round shape nestled amongst the leaves
Before they can sprout and make more trees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trying to figure out if I should be flattered you took the time to compose this or enraged at the dishonour you have inflicted on my "name".

I'll assume it's the former. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

A silent acorn on the path does lay
'Til comes the crunch of the woodsman's boot walking along his way
No more hope shall the acorn see
Of growing up to be a new tall tree.

[ QUOTE ]
A silent acorn on the path does lay
'Til comes the crunch of the woodsman's boot walking along his way
No more hope shall the acorn see
Of growing up to be a new tall tree.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, now I'm shifting to the latter. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[joewatch]

Wouldn't you know it
Bluff is a poet

In these loose low limit PLO games there is rarely a good reason to bet less than the pot. The exeption of course is a value bet on the river or sometimes i wil pick up a small pot with a suspiciosly small bet on a scrappy board

[TheRempel]

Preflop:

I typically make it pot sized if I raise preflop unless there are stack considerations (ie a shortstack that has raised or called one raise already and is likely to go all in, I want to be able to throw down a big reraise if he does so I will try to avoid raising more than half his stack).

Flop:

If I raised preflop, I generally make a continuation bet of 70-80% of pot on the flop, mostly for deception. This allows me to take down pots for a slightly cheaper price than a full bet (often with air) and also serves to confuse my opponent. They flop middle set or top and bottom pair and see me bet $30 into a $40 pot on the flop, having done the same previously with nothing but an outside straight draw.

If I am playing in a raised pot in which I did not raise, I'm generally either checkraising the size of the pot or betting out the size of the pot, depending on my opponents. If you bet out with top set against a loose PFR with an overpair or weak draw you will often find yourself getting paid off since they will not believe that you bet out into them with a strong hand. Again, this is opponent dependant. There are certain players, like Dans Macabre, that I will check-raise at every chance I get. There are other players, like Beset that I almost always bet into with strength or air.

Turn:

On the turn, most of my bets tend to be pot size bets. I try to mix it up and use close to pot size bets a lot of the time, again because it confuses many opponents "Why would he bet $8 into a $11 pot with the nuts?". Sometimes I lead weak with very strong hands, and sometimes I block with weak hands. Again, very opponent dependant.

River:

On the river, I bet however much will get me the most money when I have the best or worst hand. If I'm up against two opponents and I feel they'll both call a 1/2 pot size bet, but only one will call a 2/3 pot size bet than it is obviously always better to bet 1/2 pot.

is this it?
http://members.chello.nl/r.slotboom/aceofbase1.htm

[Rolf Slotboom]

Hi Chimichonga,

The "Ace of Base" series on my site consists of Omaha articles that are currently unavailable. (Old articles, written for the now defunct Poker Digest magazine.) I release one of these articles per month, more than anything as a service to the loyal visitors of my site. I have decided to do a final rerun for this entire series, meaning that the piece in question (that was featured in September 2005) will probably be available again in July 2006.

Or, as Baggier has just done, you can simply copy it from my old site. This could work just as well I guess. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com (http://www.rolfslotboom.com)