Couple nights ago I happened to be playing a 2 5 NL game, where we did $25 bomb pots every dealer (i.e. each player puts in $25 and straight to the flop we go). It was a 10-handed game.
The action was off the hook and the stacks were all over the place. Some players had 200-300, others had 500-800 and a few stacks were 2500+. That got me thinking. Obviously a bomb pot is disadvantageous for $200 stacks since they are putting in a very high percentage of their stack and do not get sufficient implied odds for the times they are going to hit the flop.
However, it felt like the big stacks were also somewhat constrained as they had to be aware of the other big stacks' potential holdings and could not profitably shove it in with their bottom 2 pair, etc... like a $500 stack could. So, it intuitively feels like $400-700/800 stacks are optimal stack sizes for a game like that.
Why is this important? Well, if we find out that midstack sizes are better than deep stacks for a game like that, we could buy in for 70-80bb rather than 200bb. Also, if there are 3-4 500bb+ stacks with you been one of them and 5-6 much shorter stacks, perhaps the optimal play is to get up from a game like that?
I obviously don't know for sure but my first instinct would be that short stacks do not have an inherit disadvantage in these bomb pots, but actually the opposite with several other larger stacks in play. They can stack off with a lower threshold and always realize their equity whereas other big stacks can bet each other off their equity through side pots.
Not to mention the easier play-ability of having a stack close to or less than the size of the pot already. If anything I'd say the shorter you are the more EV you collect in bomb pots.
However, exploitatively at your average 2/5 game I'd much rather have the whole table covered as people typically play bomb very, very, very sub-optimally.
Not sure how that translates to NL, but in my PLO game, some of the better pros refuse to do bomb pots because they insist short stacks have a huge advantage.
Not sure how that translates to NL, but in my PLO game, some of the better pros refuse to do bomb pots because they insist short stacks have a huge advantage.
Bet the fun players are queuing up to join that party
Not sure how that translates to NL, but in my PLO game, some of the better pros refuse to do bomb pots because they insist short stacks have a huge advantage.
Short stacks have a massive advantage in plo bomb pots
If a fun player suggests bomb pots I do them
If a reg suggests them I usually decline
had a funny moment a couple of weeks ago in 5/5 PLO
some MAWG that I've never seen before sits down buys in for like 800, plays fairly straightforward doesn't appear to be a big nit (I think he even straddled a few times when the whole table was doing it) and then triples up in a hand an hour or so into the session
next hand he's in MP still stacking his chips dealer pitches first card to him and he starts waving his hands "NO,NO,NO!" in fully stressed out mode like he's watching his child getting run over by a car or something
racks up and makes a beeline for the cage. Got 'em!
The best part of plo is when the short stacks are no longer short, so I dont see the problem there unless they are hit and running.
sure but in vegas they hit and run like crazy
somewhere like borgata they hit and run a lot less bc there isn't always another plo game for them to go to
