A little bit of PLO bluffing for ya

[Graham]

PLO folks,

Tell me what you think of these bluffs. I don't tend to bluff much - unless short handed - at PLO, but a few spots arose in the Party $1/2 games yesterday. Assume a full table and all stacks approx 100-150, unless stated different. Fairly typical online lineup, but not as loose as I usually like (hence my decision to put the bluffs in). Just tell me the ones you don't like and why:

1. JhJd5c2c in LP. 4 limpers, I limp, CO raises 1 limper drops. Pot $87 and 5 to the flop of 8h9d9s. Checked to me, only the raiser to act. I go all-in for $74. Everyone folds.

2. 6-handed AsKd8c6d in the BB. 2 limpers, I take the free look. Flop Qh8d5d. Check, check, button bets min ($2), both of us call. Turn 5s, pairing the board low. I bet $9 into $13 pot, both fold.

3. ThTdQdKs in BB. Button raise, 4 to the flop of 6c7h8d. SB checks, I bet pot of $44, all fold.

4. I limp UTG with Ac8c8s7h, next limps, fairly solid MP raises to $9, one LP and other limper call along with myself. The 4 of us see the flop of 9h7c6s. Checked to MP raiser who bets 30 into 36 pot, LP folds. I check raise to $127, inbetween player folds, as does the original bettor.

Maybe these bluffs were more successful than clever. Let me know. All comments much appreciated - thanks.
Over, but not out...click.

G

[Guy McSucker]

Okay here goes. With the caveat that you obviously play this game better than I do...

1) Not keen on this. Somebody might be lurking with a nine and either planning to check-raise or just calling it down the whole way with A9.

2) Seems like a good opportunity. Nobody wants the pot and there's a scare card.

3) Not sure about this one. You have two tens blocking the nut straight, which is good. You might also be putting the button on higher cards than these, so there's really only one player to worry about. So maybe it's a good one. On the other hand when I do this it always fails.

4) You're blocking the straight very well here and the check-raise is credible. I like this one.

Guy.

[crockpot]

i don't particularly dislike any of these bluffs, provided that you are against a field that will fold hands like AAxx on the 998 board.

however, i want to make a special note on bluff 4. it is my experience that when someone bets most of the pot but not all of it, he is bluffing almost every time and is trying to make a bet size that is intimidating but does not risk as much as a full pot bet. if the rest of the field has folded i will raise this type of bet virtually every time and expect to take the pot without a fight. it's even nicer when you have some chance of winning or splitting the pot as you did in this example, and have cards that block the hand he is representing.

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
it is my experience that when someone bets most of the pot but not all of it, he is bluffing almost every time and is trying to make a bet size that is intimidating but does not risk as much as a full pot bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. In PLO, almost all the bets I make, including the very few bluffs, are pot-sized. However, in Hold'em, most of my bets are between 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot -- bluffs and nuts. I'd certainly be glad for you to call them all down, because I bluff significantly less than game theory would suggest, due to all the calling stations on Party.

[tewall]

Interesting comment. Thanks for posting it.

[tewall]

All the bets seems fine, but they don't seem like bluffs to me. You could have the best hand in each case.

A bluff (to my way of thinking) is when you're pretty sure you're beaten and the only you can win is by betting. In these hands you don't know where you are, so you bet. (why not?)

On number 2, why 9 instead of 13? I'd be careful of not giving away information, as crocksucker has aluded to. The bet's fine as long as you would normally bet 9 with other hands.

[crockpot]

one important distinction between the two games is that someone with a real hand is much more likely to bet the full pot in PLO because he understands how big the draws are that run against him. in hold 'em your opponent is rarely so close to your hand that he is less than a 2:1 underdog, unless he has a big draw.

[Graham]

I call them bluffs since, even if I'm currently ahead with my pair, say (although not often likely in itself), the "best hand" in Omaha isn't what's currently leading, it's what's most likely to win at the river. I'm surely not holding that hand in these instances.

re; the slight underbet as a sign of weakness. this is something I also look out for from players, and, although not mentioned, was part of my willingness to invest lots of chips with the check-raise steal in no. 4. So, shhhh...keep it under yer hat and keep lettin' 'em do it... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

As far as my own underbet; yes, I will underbet with a small/medium full house on the turn (although, on the flop, a small boat will get me betting the full pot however). So an underbet bluff should be believable, if my opponents have been watching me closely (...doubtful here on Party, though.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif ).

Thanks for all comments so far.
Even though they seemed like good ideas at the moment and all 4 bluffs succeeded, I wasn't convinced I was putting myself in the most positive EV situation. Maybe I'm getting too used to these soft online PLO games where you don't have to worry most of the time about representing, you just wait til you have it and assume someone's going to pay you off with the lesser hand.

G