flat calling to shove the last bet on 100% of the flops is just allowing villain to freeroll us and fold some flops he doesn't like.

funny that the best cash players(Amok and Bike), are saying to shove this pre and realize our equity, and lesser players have this unshakable belief in their ability to outplay villian postflop OOP with 1/2 pot sized bet left...

Ngftw is in my top 2-3 posters. However, unless I have missed something, there was no maths done on if we fold flop, which is certainly plausible if we don't GII pre.

The spr is around 1/7

As for outplaying opponents, in a lot of hands:
Player 1 is betting a polarized equity/visibility hand while player 2 is in guessing mode with medium equity/visibility. A good player wants to be P1 and avoid being P2.

So if someone with 100 raises to 10 and we have AA36 and can make it 35 or just call - one of these paths make us P1 and the other makes us P2. I'm not saying we should never call, but that raising is the more profitable and desirable play.

Also, having a 3b (and 5b) range makes us tougher to play against.

We make it 30 (BB folds 2), utg calls 30, Btn pot 122, hero pot 398, utg call 398, Btn pot 1592, hero calls

So pot is 1592 +1592 + 500 + 2 = 3686
Btn has 508 back
Spr is 0.14

You have misunderstood. Buzz is talking about Hero not 4-betting. Thus, last few pages the discussion has been about "should Hero flat villain's 3-bet OOP with aces 1000bb deep and outplay the **** out of him". Seriously.

Whether Hero should 6-bet GII after villain reveals his hand is another story, but there the difference shouldn't be that big ONLY because Hero knows villain's exact hand, in a normal situation Hero certainly should push his equity advantage.

I know, but then it started to take the tone of whether or not to focus on pre or postflop in general. Clearly we should work on getting the best balance of both.

That's a good way to explain it.

We don't have to worry about that because we are shoving 100% of flops and limiting villain to call all of the rest of his money or fold. All we're really doing is gambling a few % of our ev in hopes villain cannot judge flops perfectly...which nobody can. He's a bad player so I'm definitely taking that gamble myself.

Wait so you think that is a good way to play even when you can see his cards? You do realize that he flipped them open? This thread has gone full ******.

not hard to guess right and fold KQJ9 on 235......

I can't disagree with that. But when you're, for example, a two to one pre-flop favorite (and that's a very big pre-flop favorite in Omaha-8), you're still expected to lose one time in three. You can often out-play a weak opponent after the flop, get him to fold on certain flops where he actually probably has you beat... or you can simply fold to a bet on other flops where your opponent has you beat, thus saving some of your money.

And the same is true on the turn and the river.

This particular starting hand, (A6)A3, is so strong that getting it all in against an opponent of equal or superior ability looks like a good bet to me. But I'm not convinced getting it all-in before the flop is the best way to play the hand against a weak opponent (for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph).

Speaking just for myself, it's not that I don't understand the point you're making. I do understand your point.

However, I'm thinking if a skilled player has a good read on his opponent, a better read than his opponent has on him, then after the flop (or turn or river) he might cause his opponent to fold what would have been a probable winner, and pay off with what is a probable loser... in other words he might be able to out-play his opponent on rounds subsequent to the first betting round.

Buzz

I said earlier we can't count on seeing someone's cards every time and there's certainly no need to prepare for situations as specific as that, at least try and be realistic kthx.

One thing about calling 1600 vs shoving 2100. Yes, it's interesting because we know his exact hand. However, each player needs about 10% equity to gii if we just call 1600. Running HvH shows Hero will have that 97-98% while villain will have it less than 80%. Even if he makes some pretty horrible decisions, the 20% of flops where he has less than 10% will be really obvious (883, A44, 236, etc). Even knowing his exact hand can't help us recoup the times he's nearly dead and saves 500.

I do disagree that just calling the initial 3b to 122 is bad. I think both options are good and profitable. Definitely 4b more often.

Between what two flops would you draw the line between calling/folding range? None of us can figure that out correctly for every situation off the top of our head in the limited amount of time given...especially when mass-tabling.

The reason we are contemplating just calling 1600 is because we can see his hand and fold on 999 flop while we hope he can make mistakes not seeing ours.

If we are shoving all flops we should shove pre.

As shown in previous post we only get to save 500 about 2-3% of flops. Yes we can make perfect decisions post, but:

1) that decision is almost always jam
2) he will make better decisions by folding horrible boards

The only way we can do better calling is if he folds a lot of boards that he has the right equity on. Given pot size I don't see that happening.

Exactly, so just jam the AA63 and print money and focus on real decisions on other tables.

That's maybe my fault... at least partially my fault. And it's simply because I prefer to see the flop before making an all-in move, or putting myself in position to be forced all-in before the flop.

I believe, as you, that skill edge exists both pre-flop and post-flop. I also believe that weaker players are probably more familiar with how to play pre-flop than post-flop, so that I believe there probably is more of a skill differential after the flop than before it.

Perhaps it's a bit like tennis. Some guys have a big serve, but little else. They've probably practiced their big serve over and over, but perhaps have not practiced volleying as much as stronger and more experienced tennis players have practiced volleying. In a similar way, some Omaha-8 players are very familiar with strength of opening hands, but have less familiarity with the differential between how flops might affect their opponents compared to how flops affect them.

But hopefully to set the record straight, although I think the post-flop skill differential between strong Omaha-8 players and weak Omaha-8 players is greater than the pre-flop skill differential, I believe skill is involved in hand selection and first round (pre-flop) play.

Buzz

Sorry for the confusion – I was talking about Bike’s hypothetical HU 55% equity example where we were IP. I have nothing else to say regarding the OP’s hand except the best post in here was yours:

I am sure the rest of this thread has been of little use to the OP. Just need Clocks to come in here and declare it a trainwreck for it to be official.

so much bs in this thread like this. buzz you even think you not weak player but if you on table in plo8 game i can **** it up so much postflop and still win from you because you play terrible tight passive preflop.
This thread does show that, no 4bet range 3bet rang must be less then 5% you seriously have no clue how to play a preflop mathematically sound game.

I disagree. I think it's a good thread. At least it's interesting to me. But if you really think this thread is bs, why do you read and respond to posts?

I have two reactions:
• reaction #1. That's something for me to think about. And perhaps I should stay out of these pot-limit threads.
• reaction #2. We have different opponents. The strength of any poker player is relative to the strength of his opponents. It's possible for someone who would be a weak player in your games to be a strong player, relative to the other players in his games.

I understand you'd like to be paid for your opinion and experise, and I respect that. However, I'd like to see your intelligent response to the following, aside from just calling it bull ****:

Suppose a strong player (presumably such as you) has a hand that is a 2:1 favorite before the flop. If so, and if the strong player gets all-in before the flop, then the strong player is destined to lose one third of the time.
Can't a strong player often out-play a weak opponent after the flop by either
• getting the weaker player to fold on certain flops where the weaker player actually probably has the winning hand... or
• simply folding to a bet on other flops where the weaker player has him beat?
In other words, can't a strong player out-play a weaker player after the flop?

This particular starting hand, (A6)A3, is so strong that getting it all-in against an opponent of equal or superior ability looks like a good bet to me. But I don't think the same is necessarily true when playing against a weaker opponent.

Buzz

Buzz,

People are trying to explain to you that the above is true (though I doubt with this hand we can make a fish fold a better hand very often) most of the time, but a couple points:

1) You think fish are generally better preflop than post. This might be true, but look at what the fish is doing this hand. This is only possible because we raised at every opportunity pre.
2) When we go all-in in a huge pot with an equity advantage we print money, in fact we can run our hand vs their assumed ranges and figure out our exact long term expectation. The math has been shown here what your expected profit to be, let's call it around 500 vs their likely ranges.

When you call 120 pre and it goes 3 way for 360, you will need to recoup about 140% of the pot. Yes your hand is premium, yes your opponents are weak, but that's just not realistic.

3) You're taking a hand that might get tough to play OOP vs a strong range IP and converting it into a 4b pre / shove flop line that's easy and profitable. I do think we need to mix it up vs some players, but your default should be 4b.

Humor me Buzz. Next time you go play PLO8, leave the house with 5 buy-ins and don't treat each one as life or death. Just a means to an end. And please, bluff every player astute enough to know you're tight every time they check the river, and then post the results. I think you'll have fun

i did explane this like 5 times already in 3 different ways.
very simple to gain the same "edge" ($ won in 1 hand) you need to gain a way bigger edge in a small pot then a edge in big pot. in this example it impossible longterm to do that.

and btw i do not know if you realize it but this is o8 forum and you have say like 100 times already we lose 1 third of time. that also bs the changes you lose all when going allin are way smaller then 33%. close to all what people say here is bs like someone saying in sng they look to chipev instead of $ ev , people using gto and dont know what means. someone saying you should cal last pot and go allin 100% of flop because he dont understand a hand like aa36 wil have on lot of flops 90%+ equity or more around 50% etc etc
people saying i am partly wrong lmao
the only unlogical thing from me is responding on all this nonsense

And what happens when the flop comes 234"? I cant believe people are still arguing about this. Bike and amok are right. You jam pre and make more money longterm.

People are so shortsighted about not losing moeny but this is why you play the games completly bankrolled and have efficient buyins that losing a few stacks doesnt affect you.

Welcome to the thread. You have come to the right place.

OK, I missed that post and was talking about this exact spot.

Still, what you suggest is a mistake, and you are counting on others committing an even bigger mistake. Maybe you can find a game where this actually works, but don't for a second think that your line makes sense with a hand like this.

Villain only has to be off on his flop read by a fairly small amount. Look at that ugly hand he got it in with pre and add in the fact OP said the guy was bad too.

Are you seriously saying someone who clearly has no clue about preflop ranges is going to read every possible flop for every hand perfectly?