WSOP Pot-Limit Omaha

[JackWhite]

There is a play I still cannot understand from last night's Pot-Limit Omaha final table.

The flop came 6-A-6. It is checked around. K on turn. Checked around. A on river for a 6-A-6-K-A board with three clubs.

Hellmuth makes a flush and bets, Williamson makes Aces full of Kings and raises, and the raise is for a decent amount of his stack.

Allen Cunningham then re=raises with just three aces. Cunningham is a great player, but does anybody understand that play? When there is a flush draw and a pair on the board, how can you re-raise with just three of a kind, especially when the original raiser put in a most of his chips, therefore, probably not on a bluff.

[KramerTM]

I agree with you. I thought this was a pretty terrible play. It would have been a better play if Hellmuth bet, and Williamson folded (in fact, it would have probably won the pot). Also a better play if heads up. Here, it just seemed reckless to me.

[benkahuna]

There was no action whatsoever in the hand until the river. Given the aggression of most top tier players, Cunningham would have expected that given that it's omaha (you have to protect your hands from draws more strongly) so he thought he had the best hand. And he wasn't wrong to think it likely given the context.

[ClaytonN]

The PLO forum basically concluded Cunningham made an absolutely terrible play. With three aces and a bet+raise in front of him, the only rationale is a bluff. A terrible one, at that.

[KramerTM]

[ QUOTE ]
There was no action whatsoever in the hand until the river. Given the aggression of most top tier players, Cunningham would have expected that given that it's omaha (you have to protect your hands from draws more strongly) so he thought he had the best hand. And he wasn't wrong to think it likely given the context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Realize that no one calls his raise unless he is beat. Crushed, in this case.

[benkahuna]

Well, duh. If you don't think you're beat, why not raise? Then people may fold and they don't get to see your cards and they might fold some better hands than yours even though they will only call if you're beat. It could still be +EV.

[illegit]

Yeah, this was just an awful play. The fact is in a 5-way pot on a twice paired board with a 3-flush out, there is absolutely no chance that Williamson raises Hellmuth with anything less than Aces full in that spot. And there's also no chance he'll lay the hand down. Though the first 2 streets were checked around few players would bet AKxx on the turn with the board paired sixes in a 5 way pot, so it's not a very unlikely holding at all.

Like someone else said if hellmuth had just bet and Williamson had laid down this wouldn't be a bad play, and yeah, Hellmuth probably would fold his 2nd nut flush to a raise.

How about if cunningham knew williamson knew hellmuth is weak. And thought he could get them both out with resperenting a full house. After all he had a blocker, the best blocker in this case - so it's very hard to say if it's a horrible play or a great one. Depends on table dynamics etc, im pretty sure cunningham thought what he did was the correct move [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
How about if cunningham knew williamson knew hellmuth is weak. And thought he could get them both out with resperenting a full house.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's great but Williamson is well aware of the fact there are players to act behind him thus he is very unlikely to be making a move in this spot. Again, the A in cunningham's hand would be a perfectly legitimate reason to come over the top of one bettor here, but not a bet and a raise. Williamson is not raising with the nut flush here. He probably would just call with as good as Kings full (though that hand is unlikely also because it bets the turn). And, as we determined a pure bluff facing a twice paired, 3 flush board and live players behind you is highly, HIGHLY improbable.

[benkahuna]

Wow, I wish I could play better than Allen Cunningham. You guys are the shiznit.