OMAHA! Cash Games!

[SuuPRlim]

sighs some of my best graph producing seemingly wasted

[tikay]

Not at all Dave, cracking stuff, keep it coming please.

I would like to get involved, too, but you think x-teen levels above me.

I may try and Post a few DC situations tomorrow.

[SuuPRlim]

Oooh sick! I look forward to it...may be hungover lol

[Patonius2000]

Hand 1 - I'd ch/pot flop with 3 people behind and fe vs the shortstack. I don't know what I make of it as played but I don't think I like the river, seems like we are burning $89. Although I always end up following through otr if I take a line like this because I'm constructing a range for whatever reason and it's just a shame we have the bottom of it.

Hand 2 - I call flop as default because we're IP and our range is stronger than his when we call, thus it should be pretty easy to win the pot a large % of the time. Also it really sucks for us when he makes a thin shove over our flop raise, although I'm not sure how often that happens. Raising is better 3 ways than it is hu and particularly if the other player is short.

Hand 3 - Think this is a raise/fold spot since we're behind his entire value range, I'd expect him to barrel a lot of T8 combos so I'd weight his range towards better sets and air. Probably raise small is best.

Hand 4 - Is good, I prefer this to taking off on the turn and bombing river although you can do that too obviously.

[kips]

Hand 1:  I personally wouldn't complete pre-flop being out of position to 5 others with a low-ish pair and no flush potential.

Any how, with that turn card and those stacks I think anyone who calls is also going to call the river so I think the best approach if you're going to take a bluff line is to look to check-raise the turn as that way the bluff has the most power and collects more money for the times it succeeds.  And also if he checks back you have a more successful bluffing opportunity on the river, probably betting the same 40 and folding to a raise?

If you are thinking of getting him off the same hand as you I think a smaller turn bet ($30?) would give you more leverage on the river.


Hand 2:  So the opponent doesn't have many TT or 88 in his range except as part of rundowns or double-pairs, and statistically therefore weighted to the rundowns, and given his propensity to limp you've got to think this time he has AA or KK, or a high rundown with 1 or 2 suits, not T8.

Against those hands and with the SB left to act I think a smaller 3B would be good - enough to get the SB to fold and enough to keep the opponent interested, and then folding to a re-raise as the best and unlikely scenario then is a KK chop.

If he calls your 3B he's not likely to love many turn cards and I guess in game this was an awful card for him and he folded?  But you can represent so many more hands on turn cards than he can, so whilst I like your flop raise I don't think it needs to be so big.

if you look at how his equity increases on each turn card

I'm not sure I go along with this.  Sure, this is how his equity increases against your hand, but not against your range of hands.

and

This graph shows us what "catorgory" of hands our opponent will have how much of the time, as you see my intial (pretty simple lets be honest) thoughts in game were correct and his range is dominated by OP's, of which will have quite stagnant equity for the most part (as in, vs an open range of hands there perceived equity will decrease on a high % of turn cards) giving us significantly more fold equity on the flop

I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you saying the opponent knows that there aren't many turn improving cards for him so if he's going to fold it will be on the flop?  Isn't the counter argument that by knowing his equity is static he'd do better by either check-raising or, actually in game, re-raising you - and hence the reason to 3B smaller?

sighs some of my best graph producing seemingly wasted

I liked an enjoyed them.  Are you aware of Quadrophobia's site (http://quadrophobia.com/) and posts on 2+2.  He really uses PPT to get deep into hand analysis.

[kips]

I personally wouldn't complete pre-flop being out of position to 5 others with a low-ish pair and no flush potential.

I've thought about this some more wanting to justify this against Dave's clear PLO expertise over mine.

I think the problem is that 5 ways there is just too much chance that someone has an over pair, and also with the TTs being at the bottom of the rundown you are more likely to hit bottom set and a wrap rather than top set and a wrap.

Anyway, falling back on PPT with your KQ blockers there just more than 50% chance someone has a higher pair, unless you think someone would raise KK and maybe QQ pre-flop:

ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.2 Professional)
Omaha Hi, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 KQTT
PLAYER_2 25%!AA
PLAYER_3 25%!AA
PLAYER_4 25%!AA
PLAYER_5 100%!AA
147198 trials (randomized)

How often do(es)
at least 1 player match hand range JJ+
54.7664% (80615)

[SuuPRlim]

Good Stuff Kips, IDK who you are but welcome aboard thank you for the time you put into those posts

if you look at how his equity increases on each turn card

I'm not sure I go along with this.  Sure, this is how his equity increases against your hand, but not against your range of hands.

I think how the his equity changes against my HAND and not my range is important for this part of the discussion, the reason for this is because I was trying to distinguish between CALLING, and RAISING on the flop (WITH THIS HAND), calling has been the stnd play and is so because it's practically and theoretically a really sound play - in stnd terms his range vs my range on the turn HE would be losing a lot of equity a lot of the time, and even without a graph you'd fancy someone who's played for a while to realise this intuitively.

This graph shows us what "catorgory" of hands our opponent will have how much of the time, as you see my intial (pretty simple lets be honest) thoughts in game were correct and his range is dominated by OP's, of which will have quite stagnant equity for the most part (as in, vs an open range of hands there perceived equity will decrease on a high % of turn cards) giving us significantly more fold equity on the flop

I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you saying the opponent knows that there aren't many turn improving cards for him so if he's going to fold it will be on the flop?  Isn't the counter argument that by knowing his equity is static he'd do better by either check-raising or, actually in game, re-raising you - and hence the reason to 3B smaller?

Yeh, this effectiveness of the raising play in game is that our opponent wouldn't expect us to raise THIS hand, if we had this hand he'd expect us to call. The benefit of that graph just highlights, what we could prolly have known anyways from looking at his pre-flop stats and that he won't have a VERY STRONG MADE hand on the flop, and even better for us is that ~75% of the time he'll have an OP which will damage his range vs range equity on the turn (as it happens him having the OP IMPROVES his turn range vs hand equity against OUR hand here, and this is why starting to bluff with the hand now came to me as an idea in game)

you're point brings us onto a pretty interesting theoretical point about this hand could play as part of an overall strategy. Obviously we have to have a range of hands that calls this flop, and aside from the slow-played huge hands which we would include some% this hand KKJ8 with a bd fd is one of the best hands to call with, so a few strategical problems we run into already is that we're using one of our "better" calling hands to bluff with we could leave ourself with a pretty un-balannced calling range (actually what's very likely to happen here is our calling range could be TOO STRONG) and we'll struggle to get action on the turn. If our opponent realises we are raising these hands then our adjustment must be to raise/go with 48/T4 on the flop and our hand, Start semi-bluffing with T***+gutters and takee KKJ8 back into our calling range as it's not a hand to bet/call with OTF as we already prved but it has too much equity to be a bluff when we consider that AA dominates our opponents range.

That certainly is a huge argument for calling over raising this hand, in this spot for me.

However working on the assumption that our opponent isn't playing perfectly I still think that raising was a pretty vacuum play - given how our range is stronger than his but we're certainly "losing" even if this spot wasn't the best spot for it ever I think it's a really good example of a really delicate aspect of PLO - and that's considering range vs range equity IP you can make people surrender decent amount of equity to you.

On the flop sizing, he bets $33 into $44 and I make it $104 - he's left with $71 into $292 so my worry is that any smaller would leave me no flop fold equity at all. I could be convinced to change the sizing either way though, would the idea of a smaller flop raise be to bet the turn big, so less fold equity on the flop (he calls nearly always) and then a close to pot turn bet which should give lots of FE?

I think the turn sizing is kinda interesting here. pots $292 and he has $333 back, I chose $178 but when he ships now I need 16% to call and would have had to call off. But it looks (correctly) like im never ever folding on the turn which is why i chose this size, if I have to call off w/e (lol) my friend on skype said to me just after he thought I should bet } $128/fold but still then I only need 22%~  to call and looking at how my equity affects on each turn card I should pretty much be bet/calling every non-Ace card here which certainly adds some merit to your argument of raising the flop smaller

I liked an enjoyed them.  Are you aware of Quadrophobia's site (http://quadrophobia.com/) and posts on 2+2.  He really uses PPT to get deep into hand analysis.

Yes. Very good - you have odds oracle? it's really sick

[Tal]

sighs some of my best graph producing seemingly wasted

Just wandered into this thread on the train.

That turn card graph is...how can I put this sensitively?...Were I a vetinary surgeon, I would have little difficulty locating canine testes.

Attached is a manhug gentlemanly handshake

[SuuPRlim]

Thanks Tal, I don't undersatand your post you're a wordsmith way above my calibre lol but I'm assuming it's a compliment!

[EvilPie]

sighs some of my best graph producing seemingly wasted

Definitely not wasted Dave. They were lovely.

[Tal]

Thanks Tal, I don't undersatand your post you're a wordsmith way above my calibre lol but I'm assuming it's a compliment!

Dog's bollocks.

[SuuPRlim]

I fucking love graphs.

[kips]

you're point brings us onto a pretty interesting theoretical point about this hand could play as part of an overall strategy. Obviously we have to have a range of hands that calls this flop, and aside from the slow-played huge hands which we would include some% this hand KKJ8 with a bd fd is one of the best hands to call with, so a few strategical problems we run into already is that we're using one of our "better" calling hands to bluff with we could leave ourself with a pretty un-balannced calling range (actually what's very likely to happen here is our calling range could be TOO STRONG) and we'll struggle to get action on the turn. If our opponent realises we are raising these hands then our adjustment must be to raise/go with 48/T4 on the flop and our hand, Start semi-bluffing with T***+gutters and takee KKJ8 back into our calling range as it's not a hand to bet/call with OTF as we already prved but it has too much equity to be a bluff when we consider that AA dominates our opponents range.

   I've read this paragraph, along with the rest of your reply quite a few times now, and whilst I am struggling to fully grasp it I expect/hope the level of thinking you're alluding to is not required at my stakes (50PLO) but by the time I'm ready to move up I will be much more au-fait with it.  For example, I have now started to wonder if I have a un-balanced calling range, but then I also wonder if anyone at my stakes would notice.  (And now I'm getting paranoid that everyone knows this about me and dances gleefully  armed with that knowledge when I sit down..... !)

But seriously, I do find it's interesting though that your conclusion, "take KKJ8 back into our calling range as ... it has too much equity to be a bluff" is the same conclusion someone like me, a player at a lower monetary and thinking level, would come to, but you've come to it from a more involved thought process.   And I do wonder, and am genuinely interested in, to what extent in your games you think your level of thinking is necessary to be a winning player.

On the flop sizing, my thoughts were along the lines of if you want to begin your bluff now, that's fine, but your fold equity will increase more on the turn so make it smaller so that you can bet big on the turn for less, and also save some of that flop money to do it with.   I also think his flop calling range, not that I think he should have much of one, is likely to be impervious to your raise-size.

I now wonder, though, that given that he seems passive, and takes a line of bet-call, check-fold a fairly blank turn, that against this player with his likely hands, getting more dead money into the pot on the flop is a good thing.

you have odds oracle

Yes I do.  An awesome tool that I know I have only scratched the surface of so far.

[SuuPRlim]

Really gd post. im away all day today but will reply tomorrow!

[Patonius2000]

I now wonder, though, that given that he seems passive, and takes a line of bet-call, check-fold a fairly blank turn, that against this player with his likely hands, getting more dead money into the pot on the flop is a good thing.

I think the sizing is pretty good in this hand. The problem with making it bigger is that there reaches an inflection point where we now have to call it off vs his range (I don't know what that is, maybe dave could provide us with another graph, hint: it's not that much bigger than we made it). There is a also a problem with us committing more money vs the uncapped range of the third player.

He calls a lot less frequently when we make it bigger so your point about exploiting his passivity by getting him to put more money in the pot which we can win on the turn is moot. We give him 24% raw equity to continue on the flop which obliges him to continue with a large % hands. Really we want to make it a size where he has to fold his hands which have enough equity to continue but zero turn playability - Or call his hands which have enough equity to continue but zero turn playability, whichever way you look at it :p