View Full Version : here's a tricky situation from 5/5 PLO

10-22-2004, 08:51 AM
In a live 5/5 PLO game, I was the big blind with a 2356, no suits. There was a $10 straddle and a bunch of callers. I called the extra nickel. There was $60 in there preflop.

Flop is 347, with two spades, giving me the nut straight, with no redraws.

Small blind checks, I bet pot ($60). One caller behind me, small blind calls. Pot is $240.

Turn was an offsuit nine. Small blind checks. I pot it ($240.) The guy behind me folds. Then the small blind wakes up and raises the pot. Itís another $720 for me to call. Holy [censored], that is a massive raise.

I started the hand with about $1800, and the small blind had about the same. So if I call the $720, there is still lots of money to bet on the end.

I also thought it was obvious he had the 56 as well, so my odds are only 1-1 on a call. However, I do have position.

What's my play here? And should I have played this hand differently?

10-22-2004, 10:03 AM
Difficult one.

You do not want to go all-in because he might well be max with redraws.

If you just call though, depending on the kind of player you are up against, you have a fair situation. If the SB plays straight enough, and hits a redraw on the end, he is going to bet it into you (BTW, with you and another caller on the flop, I think that if he had a flush redraw he probably would have raised immediatly, to charge both of you. Looks to me that he prefered to wait for a safe card to push the nut str8).

If some redraws hits and he checks, you do have some bluffing equity, but here again, this is really player dependent.

So my guess is call...

My two cents.


10-22-2004, 09:30 PM
Thanks for your response. Doesn't anyone else have opinion? How about if I ask: how many live games of PLO can you play at once? For me, it's 18.

10-22-2004, 09:42 PM
I don't think folding on the turn is a bad idea at all. Sure we can have some sort of academic debate about position and bluffing equity, etc. but it comes down to a fairly simple problem.

You have the nuts with no redraws, your opponent also holds the nuts with anywhere from 0 to double digit out redraws. Every dollar you put into the pot from here on out is a bet to get your money returned to you.

This is analagous to folding KKQQ to a pot sized bet on the turn on the board 348K in PLO/8.

The decision to call or fold should be a sheer math question, the more money left to bet the easier the fold becomes. Easy fold in summary.

Can't wait for Pete to call me weak-tight for this one, but then again he folds JJ87 to a limp. . .

10-23-2004, 10:38 AM
[quoteThis is analagous to folding KKQQ to a pot sized bet on the turn on the board 348K in PLO/8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on that one. In the PLO8 situation, there is a good chance you cannot bluff him on river, whatever it is.
In the PLO situation described there is 1000 $ left to bluff with, and we have position. As crockpot said, the fact that our opponent waited the turn to raise, whereas he could have made it with already 2 callers on flop, is very good news. He doesnt have a monster, but most likely nuts with no redraws, or little. And by the way, I know a lot of players who can sometimes raise here with AsXs99. So I dont like a fold here. Most of the time, unless I have a specific read on my opponent, I would call, and automatically bet all-in on river if it is checked to me, and of course fold for an all-in bet if the river is scary.
I dont say folding here is an horrible play, but I cant imagine folding regularly on such a spot : we are basically head's up with nuts on turn, and we have "bluffing equity".

Question : if the third player had called your bet on turn, would you tend to call more or fold more ? What about raising all-in ?

10-23-2004, 12:37 PM
Thank you for the responses.

In the actual hand, I threw it away. My reasoning was: not only can a spade hit to kill me, there are also many cards that could create a higher straight.

Also, I absolutely would not have the balls to bluff if the board paired and it was checked to me.

Considering this, I mucked.

Later on, I asked my opponent, "Did you have a redraw?" He responded, "What's a redraw?"

"Oh, it's when you have like a straight, and a flush draw as well."

"Oh I see... yeah, I had the straight, and a straight flush draw. What did you have?"

"Couldn't beat that."

10-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Also, I absolutely would not have the balls to bluff if the board paired and it was checked to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious : why not ? It's one of the most risk free bluff you can imagine. I dont see any opponent with the full house trying to check-raise here, cause he just check-raised the turn. OK, a very very tricky opponent would maybe once in a while check here, especially if you are a known bluffer. But most of the times, a check would mean he doent have the full house, so the worse that can happen for you is to be called and, if he really had the nuts on the turn, to split the pot.

I really think, FWIW, that if you were not ready to bet all-in in that situation, you should clearly have left the table, cause you were not playing your A game at all.

See you,


10-23-2004, 09:40 PM
you have a junk hand that just happed to hit.... /images/graemlins/ooo.gif
why waste your $$ defending it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

10-24-2004, 12:02 AM
you have a junk hand that just happed to hit....
why waste your $$ defending it

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst response ever.

I once checked 72o in the BB in NLHE, and called my opponents all in bet on the flop of 772. . .

10-24-2004, 05:21 AM
If your opponent is not even familiar with the concept of "re-draws" in poker, most likely he/she is a typical loose unbluffable player and there is a fair chance you can't pull of your bluff if the board pairs.