Reuben's PLO Book

[Al Mirpuri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

what are the blinds at the victoria big game?

[nicky g]

I forget - I think £25-£25. In many of the hands he and his opponents are sitting with ten thousand or more.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ 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]

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]

Anyone read Championship Omaha, I liked that 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).