Reuben's PLO Book

[sherbert]

Rolph,
Can you say who the proven Omaha world champion is who thinks it a masterpiece?

Sherbert

[crockpot]

after re-reading the book i'll revise my rating to 8/10. i still think the book can be very useful for the player who understands its flaws. unfortunately there isn't much of a market for a book that bogs itself down in things that casual players consider technicalities, such as stack sizes.

there are a few particularly valuable parts: he presents a few hands where you hit a monster and lose to a bigger monster; the instruction to call rather than reraise or fold is usually the best play. also, there are a couple of hands where he shows you how to manipulate and win a sidepot that is much bigger than the main pot, even while you are losing the main pot.

there are, of course, many hands where he loosens his starting requirements too much. i think these hands are good instructional exercises, because they show how to play weaker hands as well as showing how these hands usually don't flop very big. but he should have given more points for folding than for calling, in the scoring section.

i wouldn't make this my first omaha book, but i think it makes a decent second or third one.

[nicky g]

"he never gives stack sizes"

Hey Guy. When I first got it, this annoyed me too. But two things allayed my irritation: first, you very quickly realise that generally the money is very very deep: that's too general to be of much use when the pots get big on the turn adn river, but it's plenty to be able to answer the preflop questions adequately.Secondly, he usually does tell you how much money is left when the danger of someone getting all-in approaches. So I don't find this to be that much of a problem.
I agree that his hand requirement s ar too loose; but partly he's being facetious, and his comments do have the effect of making you realise that in purely strategic terms, you probably shouldn;t play these hands.

"he claims PLO is a less positional game than hold'em, with no argument for why. This is something which lots of players I respect (Zee, Raymer, acesover8s) have flatly disagreed with on these forums, with reasoning. "

This isn't really a defence as it should be in the omaha book, but in the hold'em book he says it's because you can steal pots on the flop more easily in hold'em when checked to (which is debatable).

[sherbert]

Hi.

I wondered too about the heresy of position being less significant than in Hold 'em. My final take on it was this: because a large part of Omaha is drawing hands you have to play them. Say you have a 14 card wrap straight draw, or like, then if you can't go all in on the flop you are seeing this through to the river.

If a scare cards comes on the turn or river - board pairs/third flush card comes - your response becomes player dependent and what you make of the betting pattern on the flop.

Often, on the river you'll have to pay off, as you can't let the Op bluff you off too many hands. So in that sense, yes position is less significant.

Position is also somewhat reduced because betting out in PLO is such a good strategy - so if you're first to act, you get the benefits that go with betting out.

There are probably other reasons but those are two I can think of for now.

As to his hand requirements being loose; curiously he also has a reputation of being a very tight player in some quarters.

Sherbert