Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds

09-23-2010 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kill pot
What do we do if effective stacks are 50bb ?
SPR is low enough to lead both sets and semi-bluffs in that case
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-23-2010 , 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
OK i actually think this is pretty standard as well - c/r for me is far better than leading. The question arose as i was watching a Vanessa Selbst vid on DC (PLOPro, part 1, ~30 mins in). This is a student/coach series, and the student at PLO100 chose to c/r a spot v similar to this.

She argues that lead/shove (shoving 100% of the time) was the superior/standard play as you can get called/shoved by dominated draws. While this is a valid point i think the flaw in her thinking is that the SPR is far to low to fire 3 barrels here when we get flatted (she also advocated potting everything) so we can't usually win by bluffing. If this was an unraised pot then 100% this is a lead as we can fire 3 barrels. However with the pot being raised and very wet, it's just too unlikely ppl will commit with worse hands and draws 4 way, and when they do commit when you run their range (unless they are super aggressive) then it's closer to a b/f than a b/s.

The final part to this hand is when the action does get round to the BTN, when he bets (10/14) she advocates calling. Although i can see the reasoning here (pricing in worse), being in the SB makes it really unlikely we will get paid when we hit our f/d as everyone pretty much shuts down when it hits. We are also tossing $10 away on the flop as a decent button will fire most turns and at that point we really have to give up.

The bottom line with this hand is that we have ace high. We are not far ahead of pretty much any pair and so have to combine maximum f/e, getting paid when we do hit, and also not making any mistakes on later streets (say we hit TPTK and get barreled off the hand).

Note:I haven't read past this post but have just watched the hand.

Vannessa gives good, sound reasoning for leading and expands on it a lot more than you have mentioned.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-23-2010 , 10:53 PM
I definitely prefer leading over check/raising here. People aren't cbet/folding this type of board very often 4ways. They're aware it's draw-heavy and they're aware they'll get called or raised quite often. Therefore their cbetting range becomes stronger which means if they're betting they'll often be bet/shoving. Meaning you'll never get it in really profitably as there are few hands you have a significant equity edge over with ~0 current showdown value.

However, if you lead, they'll peel with all sorts of hands you dominate (but would otherwise check back). This way you gain the initiative, you can profitably barrel tons of turns and you'll almost surely stack any flush if you do hit. Whereas if you check, they'll check back their QJ97dd hands and you'll only get two streets of value if you hit, which is exponentially worse than three for obvious reasons.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMagnet
Note:I haven't read past this post but have just watched the hand.

Vannessa gives good, sound reasoning for leading and expands on it a lot more than you have mentioned.
I did edit this post somewhat to just include the video and time-frame rather than try and quote her reasoning, as i was conscious of paraphrasing and mis-quoting too much to emphasize my point. it is the reason my OP is pretty threadbare, as i wanted some unbiased opinions before giving too much detail, or indeed my thoughts.

Jay - i agree with both you and Vanessa when stacks are deeper, or indeed shallower. With less than say 60bb eff then this becomes a trivial bet/shove as villains will commit with plenty of dominated hands. Conversely, when we are deeper we can fire 3 shells here whether we hit or miss. My main issue with Vanessa's advice is she advocates leading and (i believe in another part of the video/series, i'm gonna listen to the video while i browse and try and quote a time frame to reference) potting. In the video it's 4 way and the pot is $14 otf. So we pot and get a caller. Pot is now $42 and we pot again, villain calls. River pot is $126 and we have just over $40 left. I mean we are basically oaking it and hoping he folds a wrap and a pair. Also how often will someone commit stacks when we pot from the sb?

Last edited by Elrazor; 09-24-2010 at 03:02 AM.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 03:51 AM
I think this is the perfect flop to demonstrate how to keep ur red line up. C/R smallish and dunt make it seem like you are committed, if flatted, obv jam any non diamond turn. If villain goes all in snap it off.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
(i believe in another part of the video/series, i'm gonna listen to the video while i browse and try and quote a time frame to reference)
tried to find this while reviewing, just had P1 audio on in the background but didn't trip over it, therefore apologies if this isn't what VS recommends.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZI
I definitely prefer leading over check/raising here. People aren't cbet/folding this type of board very often 4ways. They're aware it's draw-heavy and they're aware they'll get called or raised quite often. Therefore their cbetting range becomes stronger which means if they're betting they'll often be bet/shoving. Meaning you'll never get it in really profitably as there are few hands you have a significant equity edge over with ~0 current showdown value.

However, if you lead, they'll peel with all sorts of hands you dominate (but would otherwise check back). This way you gain the initiative, you can profitably barrel tons of turns and you'll almost surely stack any flush if you do hit. Whereas if you check, they'll check back their QJ97dd hands and you'll only get two streets of value if you hit, which is exponentially worse than three for obvious reasons.
I understand why you prefer leading, but I think eliminating position for the turn is much more valuable than initiative. Imo, position outranks initiative any day in PLO, as opposed to NLHE where 3betting from the blinds is a much more solid play, etc.

Like you said, they will peel with all sorts of hands which we have dominated, but it's also very easy for us to make a mistake. If we both miss on the turn, there's a good chance our second barrel will be called as well, leaving us with ~60BB to manage oop on the river.

As I already mentioned, it's not a catastrophe if the flop checks through. One villain may hit his/her naked Q-hi FD, which he would have folded to our lead.

When considering the optimal line, villains' tendencies/fishiness is also a very important factor.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
Hero?
*Grunch*

I c/c flop and re-evaluate. I'm not averse to c/c flop, donk any turn, but I'm less sure about what to do if raised. It depends on the turn card, LDO. I think if we hit a 5/Ace, it's a donk/push because of how our line looks.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 03:02 PM
I think you should generally fold the bare nfd if you get raised after donking, but it's so board texture and villain dependant that it's really hard to say. It also depends if the pot is limped, single raised or 3bet.

As a rule I think that the bare nfd OOP is nothing to be hugely excited about, since we rarely get action once we hit and are usually behind when there's significant action. 9 nut outs max is a bit meh.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 03:24 PM
I agree with you all that c/r is optimum here for the following reasons:

1) It maximises fold equity and we're never that bad.
2) If we bet and get raised we're likely in a bad spot.
3) If we bet and get called we're barreling 70% (?) of turns pretty bad.

My question is what if our dangler had hit a pair - improves the hand vastly imo - we still check/raising?
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 06:58 PM
what if it goes check/raise/jam?
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 07:52 PM
The problem with trying for a check/raise here is the possibility of giving villain a free card to beat you. I prefer the lead myself. It looks like you're leading with a set and will get called with draws you dominate. And if the flush/gutter comes in you'll be much more likely to get action with a weak-lead/probe then shovel.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 10:18 PM
but we want free cards when drawing oop
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayor_haggar
but we want free cards when drawing oop
+1

not to mention that our A-hi is probably beat already
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-24-2010 , 10:34 PM
vs passive villains, I like leading. vs aggressive villains, c/r. check calling with no pair, no showdown value is the worst play imo.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkerian
The problem with trying for a check/raise here is the possibility of giving villain a free card to beat you.
This emphasizes my point about trying to win w/o showdown with a c/r - beat what? we have ace high - pretty much all other holdings have us *beat* considering the board.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation
600,000 trials (Randomized)
board: 893
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
Ts Ad Qd 5c 60.22% 356,6669,294
95%39.78% 234,0409,294
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 08:27 AM
But do you realise that the same thing (and other positive side effects) can be accomplished by betting?

Your post illustrates why it would be foolish to c/c, but it doesn't provide us with anything regarding bet vs c/r.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 08:48 AM
I played this spot a few days back, and i think it kind of illustrates the problem playing the NFD OOP, and why i don't usually like leading. Here i chose to lead, as i have an overpair which obviously increases our equity against villains range. I think we can either lead or c/r here, how the hand rolled out tho i felt in hindsight a c/r eliminates tough river spots.

In this spot i had no reads on villain, he was playing 50/24, with aggression of 1.9%. His fold to river bet is 55%, which is obviously on the low side.

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
PL Omaha $1(BB) Replayer
SB ($106)
Hero ($118)
UTG ($103)
CO ($142)
BTN ($124)

Dealt to Hero A Q Q 4

UTG raises to $3, CO calls $3, fold, fold, Hero calls $2

FLOP ($9.50) 5 3 J

Hero bets $7, UTG calls $7, CO folds

TURN ($23.50) 5 3 J T

Hero bets $17, UTG calls $17

RIVER ($57.50) 5 3 J T 7

Hero??
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZI
But do you realise that the same thing (and other positive side effects) can be accomplished by betting?

Your post illustrates why it would be foolish to c/c, but it doesn't provide us with anything regarding bet vs c/r.
As I already emphasized, leading leads to peeling, which in turn leads to a ton of awkward turns with awkward SPR. We're nowhere near committed, except to barreling blanks. Some villains peel in these spots with 2 pair and might even continue flatting the turn leaving us in the dark.

Leading becomes a viable option if we know villains to be ABC-type nits, giving us decent FE on the flop and making it much easier to define their ranges for the turn.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maffff
I agree with you all that c/r is optimum here for the following reasons:

1) It maximises fold equity and we're never that bad.
2) If we bet and get raised we're likely in a bad spot.
3) If we bet and get called we're barreling 70% (?) of turns pretty bad.

My question is what if our dangler had hit a pair - improves the hand vastly imo - we still check/raising?
I think c/r or lead both become viable when we have a pair (as the hand above illustrates) to go with our draw. For me the spot is not nearly so marginal when we have a pair; it's 100% a stack-off and how we get there is usually down to how i perceive villain, and what's the best way to get the money in the middle.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 09:30 AM
I completely agree that leading makes the hand more difficult to play on that particular board runout Elrazor. However, a wise man once told me that the most +EV line is not necessarily the line which presents you with the easiest decisions.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZI
However, a wise man once told me that the most +EV line is not necessarily the line which presents you with the easiest decisions.
yeah i told you that when i was running good tho
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZI
I completely agree that leading makes the hand more difficult to play on that particular board runout Elrazor. However, a wise man once told me that the most +EV line is not necessarily the line which presents you with the easiest decisions.
+10000000000000000
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 09:53 AM
having an overpair and gutter as well as the nfd is way different than just the bare nfd, we have showdown value on the river, and a very strong hand on the flop. I think I'd definitely c/r in that spot.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote
09-25-2010 , 10:10 AM
And you will balance this C/R range how exactly? A C/R range is way tougher to balance than a leading range.
PLO Theory - Playing the NFD out of the blinds Quote

      
m