PDA

View Full Version : Reuben's PLO Book


Al Mirpuri
07-26-2004, 07:44 AM
What do people make of Reuben's "How Good Is Your Pot Limit Omaha?". I do not think much of it but someone posted in the Books forum and rated it a 9/10.

Does anyone with any understanding of PLO think well of it?

nicky g
07-26-2004, 07:50 AM
I do't know if I qualify, but yes I liked it for what it is (ie a quiz book). Not as much as the poster - I'd say maybe 8/10. What didn't you like about it?

Al Mirpuri
07-26-2004, 07:54 AM
I thought his opening requirements loose. I also thought some of his plays were rationalizations of poor praxis. Stylistically, it was a mess as well. However, I did learn a thing or two from it, most importantly, that monster draws can be bet for value as they may well be money favorites over made hands (trips).

nicky g
07-26-2004, 08:02 AM
I quite enjoy his writing style. As for opening requirements, he's playing in a very very deep game so his implied odds are pretty decent (although I'll admit that implied odds aren't all they're cracked up to be in PLO). He's also aggressive enough to be able to steal enough to compensate for when he misses. Basically playing exactly like him isn't a great idea and it's really a book on how to beat the big game at the Victoria Casino, London, which makes it of limited general use, but I did learn some good stuff from it. THe main thing I took from it was how to play those big draws - why for example it's sometimes best to raise all in and sometimes to just call(eg when a raise won't make your opponent fold and when you'll still have odds to call on the turn if the board doesn't pair - but if it does, and you have no sort of made hand, you can fold reasonably happily). Previously I would just whack it all in no matter what, which as he says is pretty much just gambling.

turnipmonster
07-26-2004, 09:40 AM
what are the blinds at the victoria big game?

nicky g
07-26-2004, 10:05 AM
I forget - I think 25-25. In many of the hands he and his opponents are sitting with ten thousand or more.

Al Mirpuri
07-28-2004, 06:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
what are the blinds at the victoria big game?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was more than one game size mentioned throughout the book. The blinds were of various sizes and on occasion there was a running ante. However, all games were pot limit Omaha.

Guy McSucker
07-29-2004, 05:18 PM
When I first got the book, I posted that I hated it. I still do.

- he never gives stack sizes

- he admonishes you for folding horrible hands UTG with the reasoning that "I would get so bored if I didn't play this many hands that I would go on tilt" or some such nonsense

- 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.

It's quite a fun read and cheap, though!

Guy.

Beavis68
07-29-2004, 06:45 PM
Anyone read Championship Omaha, I liked that one.

Rolf Slotboom
07-29-2004, 09:22 PM
Hi guys,

I have finished the book two days ago, and have just finished my review / rating. (It will be on my site in a few days probably.) Just like a few other posters, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the book. On the one hand Mr. Reuben is the first to come up with this kind of detailed analysis on PLO money games for stakes that matter, with example hands taken from the probably toughest PLO game in the world (the one in the Vic). On the other hand, there are a few unforgivable omissions in the book as well. (I will save these omissions for later; a few posters have mentioned some of them already.) Anyway, it's definitely an interesting book IMO, and a must read for PLO players, but certainly not the masterpiece that a proven PLO champion claimed it to be.

Rolf Slotboom
www.acespeaks.cjb.net (http://www.acespeaks.cjb.net)

sherbert
07-29-2004, 10:46 PM
Rolph,
Can you say who the proven Omaha world champion is who thinks it a masterpiece?

Sherbert

crockpot
07-30-2004, 03:54 AM
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
07-30-2004, 08:42 AM
"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
07-30-2004, 12:29 PM
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