Party Pot Limit Omaha

[stripsqueez]

i spend 90% of my time at party poker playing 3 tables of 6 max hold'em, 5/10 and 10/20 - that gets a bit tiring after a couple of hours so i wander off to play some other game and my favourite option is the omaha hi games - the pot limit games are usually a heap of fun

i have yet to read a book about omaha or learn much if any of the accepted theory so i'm constantly making it up as i go along - someday soon i may get more serious about it - i'm keen to know how bad or good this was...

.25c/.50c, $25.00 buy-in game - i was UTG and got QQJ10 with a queen high heart flush draw - i limped and player to my left made it $1.00 to play - 5 players had called when it came back to me - it seemed to me that it was unlikely that anyone had AA or KK as they would of probably raised so i likely had the highest pair - i bet the pot (about $7.00) - the player to my left went all-in making it $15 to play - by the time it got back to me 1 player had folded and 3 were all-in and it was $18.00 to play coutesy of a further raise - of the 2 players other than me with chips one player had a heap and the other only $7.00 left - i still had $20.00 left, having been a few dollars up when the hand started - i pushed the remainder of my chips in and both called

i am well aware that this is a high variance activity - the nature of this game pre-flop is indicated though by the fact that this hand was 6 way yet there was no betting post flop as only 1 player had chips left - sometimes these games get a bit tight but like this example they are normally very loose pre-flop - certainly my lousy posistion was no longer a factor !

all comments appreciated

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Buzz]

Chicken Hawk - I don't have much experience playing pot-limit Omaha-high.

Looks to me like you have a decent starting hand, but still need a flop that fits.

"i limped and player to my left made it $1.00 to play - 5 players had called when it came back to me - it seemed to me that it was unlikely that anyone had AA or KK as they would of probably raised so i likely had the highest pair - i bet the pot (about $7.00)..."

Yes, you probably have the highest pre-flop pair. However, (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think a pre-flop pair of queens is a particularly strong holding in a loose game of pot-limit Omaha-high, even if nobody opposing you has a pre-flop pair of kings or aces.

If you think there is a good chance of blowing everybody away with your seven dollar raise, then the seven dollar raise seems a reasonable bet. If not, then I think you may do better by taking a peep at the flop as cheaply as possible.

Why? Because if your raise doesn't blow everybody away, you still have to find a fit with the flop! Off the top of my head, I'd prefer to have some money left to bet if I did make a fit with the flop, and if not, then it would be nice to get out as cheaply as possible.

"...the player to my left went all-in making it $15 to play - by the time it got back to me 1 player had folded and 3 were all-in and it was $18.00 to play coutesy of a further raise - of the 2 players other than me with chips one player had a heap and the other only $7.00 left - i still had $20.00 left, having been a few dollars up when the hand started - i pushed the remainder of my chips in and both called"

Seems as though they would both call your all-in bet at this point. And since they do, in effect you're betting on the value of your hand as played against the two of them for an extra fourteen bucks, and against the chip leader for an additional thirteen bucks above that.

By betting as you did, you seem to have trapped your opponents into being forced to gamble with you, and probably with the odds slightly in your favor.

If you cannot out-play your opponents after the flop - if they play so well that you’re not going to collect much (if anything) from them after a flop which is favorable to you, for example when the flop has a queen, then you possibly have made the play which earns you the best return on your investment. (But in that case, maybe you want to look for opponents who are easier to beat).

On the other hand, if your opponents don’t generally out-play you after the flop, then, since you have already committed all your chips, you can’t take advantage of their post-flop play.

I could be wrong but I don’t think your hand has a positive expectation for the main pot. (I'm assuming your opponents are not playing random hands, as would be generated by a computer simulation). However, starting with the last side pot, you probably do have a small positive expectation. The chip leader may be stuck calling you here because of the amounts in the main pot and the other side pots, and, if so, probably hates your all-in raise. If we give the chip leader credit for having some sense and playing decent starting cards, but also assume the chip leader doesn’t have a pair of aces or kings, then I think you’re probably a small favorite for the last one-on-one side pot ($26). And your hand may have a small positive expectation for the second to last side pot ($21).

You’ve managed to get “all-in” before the flop. If your opponents are better players than you are, especially after the flop, then that doesn’t seem unreasonable given your cards and your read of your opponents. Perhaps going all-in before the flop may be the best you can do with these cards and these opponents. On the other hand, if you are as skilled as, or more highly skilled than your opponents, then I think you shot your wad too early.

Once you make the seven dollar raise, then I think going all-in may be the best way for you to go. Hard to know what would have happened without that seven dollar raise.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[stripsqueez]

i didnt think at the time that holding the biggest pair made a huge difference only that it made some difference - by going all in pre-flop i was engaging in a high variance play because the value of a hand pre-flop in omaha high is much less obvious than in other games - having the highest pair meant that a board containing 3 of a kind was likely good for me, and perhaps there are a few boards still possible where 2 pair might win - these are only small possibilities but i only needed a small edge - i should add that i didnt raise either time expecting players to fold - i raised with the expectation they would call as they commonly do

i figured that i was maybe a 20%+ chance to scoop the pot and i was getting odds greater than that - of-course that is a simplification of the actual figures and without bothering to consider the effects of the 5 side pots - point is that i thought i was getting the "best of it" albeit only just and that this situation was created by the loose pre-flop behaviour and this was one way of taking advantage of that behaviour

post flop these players are very bad which is why i play a lot more hands than in the $2/$4 $400 buy-in games i play at paradise - being UTG post flop was always going to be difficult though - if i can punish them pre-flop surely i should ? - it doesnt seem to wash with me that i should wait for a better opportunity - i thought i have an opportunity now so i should take it ? - the other factor in this view is that the buy-in at party is half what it is at paradise - ie the paradise .25c/.50c game has a $50 buy-in - this means that there is less opportunity for me to punish my opponents for poor post flop play anyway

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[scrub]

I think the biggest problem with making the play you made is that in small PLO games, particularly the goofy ones on party, many players limp with dry aces or kings unless they think they can get their stack in preflop.

When you get action after your raise, you have no idea where you are, and, depending on your opponents, you can often be far behind.

On the other hand, the last time I played Party 25 PLO, the table broke after the second orbit, when the ENTIRE table except for me went all in preflop...

Good luck!

scrub

[Buzz]

Chicken Hawk -

"because the value of a hand pre-flop in omaha high is much less obvious than in other games"

Boy-oh-boy, that surely seems the truth!

"having the highest pair meant that a board containing 3 of a kind was likely good for me...."

I don't think so - not in a full game. You have to be seriously concerned about an opponent having quads when the board has three of a kind, especially in a pot-limit game where most players evidently seem to want to see the flop. And at any rate, three of a kind on the board should not be a major consideration since three of a kind on the board is a relatively rare occurrence, happening only something like one time in forty seven.

“.... and perhaps there are a few boards still possible where 2 pair might win - these are only small possibilities but i only needed a small edge”

IMHO the possibility of two pair winning doesn’t significantly add to your edge at all - especially when your opponents go all-in before the flop.

There’s just not as much bluffing in Omaha as in Texas hold ‘em. What are you going to do with your two pair when somebody bets the pot? And when nobody does, what then? A straight or better is almost always possible on the river. In the absence of a straight or better, three of a kind is very possible. Are you going to bluff with two pair? And gee whiz, you won't even have aces or kings up here!

“ - i should add that i didnt raise either time expecting players to fold - i raised with the expectation they would call as they commonly do”

Then your raise seems based on the value of your hand. I agree you have a playable hand - but I don’t think it’s a great hand. However, and I don’t mean this in an insulting way at all, I think your raise here may be an astute raise - provided your opponents are better players than you.

I didn’t mention position before, but I should have. You are out of position here. Note that the player behind you used your raise to leverage his/her own raise. The player behind you, still in early position, could have limped with kings or aces (probably not, but it’s more of a possibility than catching three of a kind on the board).

“i figured that i was maybe a 20%+ chance to scoop the pot and i was getting odds greater than that - of-course that is a simplification of the actual figures and without bothering to consider the effects of the 5 side pots - point is that i thought i was getting the "best of it" albeit only just and that this situation was created by the loose pre-flop behaviour and this was one way of taking advantage of that behaviour”

What you write makes good sense to me.

“if i can punish them pre-flop surely i should ? - it doesnt seem to wash with me that i should wait for a better opportunity - i thought i have an opportunity now so i should take it ?”

Again, what you write makes sense to me. I like your hand. It seems a nice hand, albeit not a great hand. Given your read of your opponents, you upgrade your cards a bit. Seems reasonable to me. But on the other side of the coin, you’re not considering your poor position, which, IMHO (especially in a pot limit game), should cause you to downgrade your cards a bit.

Bottom line: You’re just not all that strong before the flop. You still need to mesh with the flop - and even then you still may not win.

What flops would you play (to a pot sized bet)? Certainly QXX, JJX, TTX (or better), where X is higher or lower than the cards specified. Certainly Q9X, JTX, J9X, T9X, and 98X (or better) where X is lower than the cards specified.

Is that it? If so, I think you continue playing after maybe 4591 flops out of a possible 17296 flops, or slightly over one fourth of all possible flops (~27%). But of those, a whopping 4458 of them (~97%)are such that you’ll probably still be on a draw after the flop, for example with three queens, hoping the board pairs. However, if you catch a queen on the flop and bet the pot, who will stay with you?

“ i figured that i was maybe a 20%+ chance to scoop the pot and i was getting odds greater than that”

Maybe. You’re getting good odds with all those callers, and when it gets down to you and one or two other players, your queens may hold up.

But back up a couple of paragraphs. I wrote, “However, if you catch a queen on the flop and bet the pot, who will stay with you?” The answer is, “Everybody who is all-in before the flop plus those who have odds to play.” When you force someone all-in before the flop, you can’t leverage him/her out of the pot when you like the flop - and they may end up “rivering” you. When you go all-in before the flop yourself, you have no leverage to use against anyone who stays with you. (Of course it’s true that someone who likes the flop can’t leverage you out either).

Buzz

[crockpot]

i don't like this play at all. first off, even if they are the highest pair out, queens are very different from aces. with aces, someone needs to hit two pair or better to beat you. here, anyone with an ace or king just needs one card.

second, i don't see how this play indicates no kings or aces are out. plenty of people won't raise the maximum right away with kings or aces, and they are right not to much of the time.

third, and this is important, you have a good multiway hand that doesn't want to chase the competition away.

what this adds up to is, i might raise with your hand before anyone else has acted, but when you make this play you're begging to get picked off by aces or kings, or just get called by high cards and lose when an ace or king hits.

[dogsballs]

I would play this hand by raising something preflop, getting a bunch of callers, flopping top set or the nut straight and then getting lots of money off my opponents postflop /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

A pair of Q's doesn't get me very excited about pushing my whole stack in - I like your hand better as a playing hand.

[HajiShirazu]

I just don't see the point of this- even if you do have the best hand, if you know how to read what your hand is, and don't put all your chips in with one pair, you are far better post flop than 2/3rds of party PLO 25 players. Why not wait until then when your advantage is much bigger?

[stripsqueez]

thanks for the additional responses

i dont rank a pair of queens highly either as i think i explained - i have probably expressed myself poorly on that topic - i dont think anyone else had a higher pair because they would of likely bet the pot if they did - the guy on my left raised .50c when he acted first - he would of likely bet the pot if he had KK or AA - likewise one of the others would of bet the pot if they had KK or AA after it was raised - there were some small raises but that was very likely because the raiser was tossing in thier last few bucks to go all-in - a guess but a reasoned one that i had the highest pair

having the highest pair simply meant i wasnt going up against KK or AA and therefore preserved some of the ways i could win - not many i well understand - but - given i was taking what i figured was a small edge i thought that important

post flop i can kill these guys - most decent players could - sure i could see a flop and then invest my money more prudently - thats why i usually limp with a big pair and only contemplate a reraise if i can isolate - but - this time i figured it was a good plan to toss it all in pre-flop given that i was in a crap posistion and the small stacks allowed and the 6 way action

is anybody going to argue that long term i make money with this hand 6 way in this field ? - if thats so then the more i put in pre-flop the more money i make - arent we just argueing variance ?

as for the result - flop came Q 10 3 - turn was a 2 and the river an 8 - no flush - the stellar J995 which was one of the latter all-ins beat me and i lost about $1.75c on the hand

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Buzz]

"is anybody going to argue that long term i make money with this hand 6 way in this field ? - if thats so then the more i put in pre-flop the more money i make - arent we just argueing variance?"

Chicken Hawk - No. I'm not arguing "variance" at all - nor is anyone else who responded to you.

Omaha-8 is a very flop dependent poker game. Yet the way you played the hand, you committed your entire chip stack before the flop. As a result of your early action, you had nothing left to bet after the flop, in case you liked the flop.

Since everyone was committed before the flop, there were no decisions to be made by anyone after the flop!

In other words, you played the hand so as to eliminate any possible demonstration of skill on your part (or anyone else's) after the flop.

Eliminating the use of skill by your opponents after the flop seems a shrewd ploy by you, especially if your opponents play more skillfully than you after the flop. But if they don't, I wonder if you really want to negate your own skill after the flop.

Do you see?

Just my opinion.

Buzz