This is a situation that comes up often in PLO and I wanted to get opinions as to the best way to think about it:

5/5 PLO (live), with a $10 Mississppi straddle.
Full ring.

UTG +1 ($4000) raises to $40
UTG +3 ($5000) calls $40
Hero SB ($6000) reraises to $100 with AAT8
UTG +1 calls
UTG +3 calls
Pot= $315

UTG+1 is opening fairly loose and will call raises preflop with a wide range, but is nitty post flop. He plays passively post flop and is willing fold very strong hands when facing aggressive betting or being raised, especially on the river.

UTG +3 could be playing virtually any 4 cards preflop.

Hero is viewed as a winning, loose aggressive player. Generally very solid, but willing to gamble (i.e, get all in on a big draw).

FLOP: J 9 3

Hero checks
UTG+ 1 bets $200
UTG +3 folds
Hero calls
Pot= $715

Turn: J 9 3 6

Hero checks
UTG +1 bets $600
Hero calls $600
Pot =$1915

QUESTION: Is this check/call “standard” or is it better to check raise?

River: J 9 3 6 A

Hero bets $1500

QUESTION: Is it better to go for a check raise or just lead out? Bet sizing?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Turn is a standard check raise if you have fold equity from 2 pairs or bottom set. Also you will get more value from wraps or smaller flushes if they misread you to have top set and get it in behind.

This has some merit, but there is almost no way our nitty villain is going to 3bet jam over 3k more with any wrap here. I think he would need exactly QT87 w/ spades to even consider that.

I actually like a c/r vs. more aggressive villains. Were not in horrible shape vs. a strong hand, but they will keep betting with weaker hands too so we will pick up a lot more FE and get more calls from hands we crush in this situation.

If we check vs. our villain, he probably checks back more of the weaker hands that we'd be happy to c/r. Thus his betting range is going to be a lot stronger and more weighted towards sets. And his calling/shoving range is going to be even stronger if we raise. So I feel like a c/r vs. him is more trouble than its worth, we'll be getting a ton of money in behind too often for it to be profitable.

So either c/c or lead out on the turn imo. I think either or is ok, in the long run its good to mix it up.

As played, leading out the river looks good to me. I think he checks back too many weaker hands and doesnt call a c/r often enough to be more profitable than a lead. Leading will almost always get called since all of the draws missed. But that being said, going for the c/r isnt horrible. He will have a very tough decision with a lot of his hands.

With stacks, image and villain you described I think you played this hand perfectly.

was 2.5x your standard 3bet sizing?

seems to me with stacks this deep and utg+3 in the hand, you should've potted it preflop imo

I think I would've just went with a bet/bet/bet line here

As played , river seems fine to me.

lol how did you bink that A on the river?

I'm cool with your line...

I don't like a x/r on the turn here since your hand will look like what it is. You 3-bet pre, check the flop, and check/raise the turn? Try to rep 66?

Against villain as described, i think 800 on the river would be better... Just because of his described image. Your hand looks like AAxx with xx being a draw. So lets bet something that he can make a crying call with. X/r river depends on how light he is value betting river. I'm def heavily in favor of bet 800 on this runout though.

The problem with a bet/bet/bet is that getting raised on the turn is gross.
I think a bit o' pot control here at this stack depth is good.

But then again, i'm a position nit in PLO

Pot pre bet flop bet turn bet river imo? This whole line is so weird. Why don't we pot pre? Why don't we bet this flop, why don't we bet this turn?

Pre: Can you go into some detail about your 3-bet sizing including any relevant history, game flow, etc.?

The sizing definitely looked fishy to me but I could be convinced that this was the standard amount given the game. I say this because at some tables three-bets are generally going to be the amount of the pot; not 100 when it could be 180. Therefore, your sizing here seems more like a pot sweetener bet, which I don't love with AAxx if I expect a lot of calls and you're out of position.

(This is part of the general viewpoint that AAxx does not play very well when the SPR is high, but is an easy ship when it's low. This game is too deep to get it in and blotting the pot out of position in PLO with AAxx is, overall, a losing strategy. But this could be totally viable if you are balancing and are just as likely to show up with double-suited, rundowns, etc.)

Having said that, if your response is something along the lines of, "I've been doing this all night and have been getting 4-bet with some regularity," then I like it for the purpose of balancing and also possibly putting in a sizable raise to play for stacks, which we do want to do with this hand.

Flop: x-c, standard
Turn: x-c, standard and optimal given stack sizes and opponent description
River: Yes, bet. Betting > c-r because, based on your description, V is not going to bluff his missed wraps but would just give up. Against an aggressive opponent that can bluff or go for thin-value, then maybe c-r. Overall, I like betting most of the time and against most opponents.

As for sizing, I like 1100 - 1300, something around that area. This is the value-bet bluff sizing. Making V think that we are trying to bluff as if we have AAxx.

Thanks for the replies. Let me answer a few comments:
I am by far the most aggressive player in this game. I’m not the loosest, but rather in terms of willing to raise the widest range of hands preflop. This is a typical live game where once a player has opened or called an opening raise preflop, they will never fold to a subsequent 3-bet. I 3-bet fairly wide when in position, but tighten up significantly when out of position. Given how deep we were playing, I did not want to swell the pot given I knew this pot was going to be played 3-way. Also, this is usually my standard 3 bet size (something less than a pot size bet) when out of position. I’m doing this with many double suited (non A-high) hands, good rundowns and some double paired hands, as well as some AA** hands like we have now. Since I am a far stronger player postflop than either villain in the hand, and I will know exactly where I’m at most of the time because each villain will play passively with weak hands or draws, and aggressively with strong made hands, I prefer to keep the pot on the smaller side preflop when I’m out of position.

On the river, I thought there was almost zero chance the villain would bluff a missed draw, nor call a check raise, so a lead was mandatory. I put him on either top two or a set, given he bet both the flop and turn. Since he certainly knew I could easily have a missed draw myself the way I played it (and in fact did miss my straight and flush draws on the turn), I thought betting bigger on the river was OK since I would have to have exactly AA** to beat him. I don’t worry too much about balance in these live games because the villains typically aren’t good enough to think at that level. I felt he would think, “I only lose to AA and beat everything else, so I call” (if he had two pair or a set). Against a better, more aggressive opponent, I agree a small lead, or even a check raise may be better.

In this particular hand, here are our equities vs him having either top set or top two:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

100,040 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 9 3 6

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
As Ad Ts 8c	35.50%	35,430	162
jj	64.50%	64,448	162

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

281,040 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 9 3 6

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
As Ad Ts 8c	46.79%	131,238	531
j9	53.21%	149,271	531

This hand is a classic example of how hard it is to play OOP against this type of villain. Verses top set it would be a big mistake to raise the turn, while against top two only a small one if he never folds.
In the actual hand, he did end up folding the river after my bet, and later claimed to have a set of Jacks. While I only partially believe he was telling the truth, if that was the case I guess I should be leading and bluffing the river more often against him.

0% chance he had a set of jacks
Most likely had a wrap that missed

Also nothing wrong with the underpot 3 bets
And super deep it's not like potting it is gonna get a low spr

The call on the flop was the best thing you could do imo because a check raise could lead to a all in from villian and this wouldnt be the nicest decision for you to make.

The bet size on the river was a bit greedy i think. He don`t have to give you too much credit to have the aces but of course he will give you some credit for aces because of your preflop 3bet. I think a bet of 750 $ i.e. would make him think about a call if he had really a set himself because he needs a lower percentage of beeing right with his decision to call. Your bet had the image of bluff or having aces. With 750 $ you could make him think about if you are trying to stopbetting him.

So: i think you played the hand well but a bit to greedy on the river because i think at this limits the people are more unlikely to call nearly pott on that board. And who knows if he had the set of Jacks. This is also something to consider. To call these 1500 on river you need minimum a set. With a lower bet on the river you could maybe get also a two pair to call.

But these are only thoughts of an beginner who just read all the books of Jeff Hwang...

No need to pot 3-bet for reasons you said but I would still go slightly bigger - maybe $120 instead. If we're only 3betting here with a really tight range of good AA/great KK and strong DS rundowns then we want to create a pot size pre where it's easy to play for stacks if we want too post flop and I think just that extra 20$ will make quite a big difference in doing that.

I would be betting flop but c/c is OK. Turn is standard. River is where I think the biggest mistake was made.

Villain has more J9 (and occasionaly some other 2 prs) than he has a set. According to your reads he's a passive villain that has shown the propensity to fold esp. OTR facing action. Thus, going for such a big bet just seems really bad. He probably won't fold his sets but he definitely folds his J9 and other 2 pairs. He isn't thinking so much about your range and that only AA beats him - he'll instead be thinking in relative hand strength and that there are so many better 2 pairs.

Since there are more 2 pr hands than sets you should be tailoring your bet size to be getting calls from this part of his range. As somebody else said, a bet size of $1100 to $1300 would have been much better. Somebody else suggested $800 but I think if villain calls $800 with 2 pair he probably calls $1100 as well - and definitely calls sets with both sizes so I think $800 is too small. But yeah, $1100 is a pretty good sizing.

Why are we betting the river? we fold out all of his bluffs, sometimes fold his bottom sets, basically get called by JJ or 99 only..

x/r is definitely the way to go considering he will probably bet all of his bluffs, and feel the need to valuebet all sets including 33...

Also-- $100 pre? is this some rec pot builder move? definitely potting pre no matter which hand I have(raising hands).

Also betting the flop...x/c flop is so weak and we turn our hand face up except the T8 is somewhat still not easily in our perceived range. However, we have no clue what to do on turns that make the board more wet (this is a different situation because the wetness of the turn is in our favour...but 75% of the time it wont be in our favor.

Now that we have made a weak flop play, turn should definitely be a x/r when you mention that V is somewhat nitty posflop and he will often fold top two or some bottom sets to our x/r...I think he takes this line with all his sets and all of his top two pairs, and some combo draws that pick up equity OTT...
the x/r is so sweet because it merges and he will often GII waay behind when he has some combo draws, and will fold his top twos and bottom sets.

river is so easy for him to play when we lead because he can't call with J9, might fold 33...and might have called a x/r with JJ/99 if he understands our image

a set of jacks....gtfo

On the flop with six nut outs, out of position, you can probably toss this hand. Clicking it back pre may feel clever but you're not fooling anyone; just flat and leave them guessing.

Preflop 3-bet size is ******ed, but after the flop the hand is played perfectly.