Hi all,

I’ve heard this expression in Omaha before - ie, push or fold on the flop. Is this useful? Or oversimplifying things?

For example we have AA and nut flush draw on the flop and V has a set and pots it with money behind, per this saying we should just go all in if the spr is low enough and fold if not? Or can we call too?

Thanks,
DT

If you knew that villain had a set, why would you jam with a fd+op?

It's oversimplifying things. Often you can call.

I know you're talking flop, but it always cracks me up when opponents in position feel obligated to shove their last 8bb over my bet with a draw, rather than just wait and see if it hits.

depends on the draw. Worst thing that could happen is folding your ace high draw on the river to someone else's ten high draw.

If you're out of position it's usually better to get it in when you have multiple nut draws, in position it's better to call.

If you know your draws aren't enough to give you more than 50% equity (in a cash game) and your SPR is >3 then out of position it's either a check, call or a fold, and in position you might bet this type of hand HU or 3 way. Any call or fold decision in this case will depend on how whether or not your draws are nut draws, whether or not you close the action/number of players yet to act behind and the price being laid.

One draw in particular I am referring to is OP+nfd. Say we have (generously) 40% against a set+2p range. Someone pots it with money behind. If we just call we are calling a psb to realize 20% equity when we need much more.

So should we only be continuing (calling) with hands that have at least 33% otf and will still have at least 33% ott? This is HU closing action of course, multiway odds are better. By this logic we should actually be folding OP + nfd even though we are drawing to the nuts because the odds are not there, unless you factor in implied odds.

I should have also said that if you have multiple nut draws you can consider raising, but this comes at the price of losing positional advantage, such as losing the potential to bluff when other draws (you do not have) come in.

But to answer your question, no that isn't necessarily what I meant. Typically you could call on the flop, then decide on the turn whether or not to continue. For example, it could pair the board. You can then decide whether or not your overpair is good and continue or not based on that. Or you could make your hand, in which case you get to make a bunch of money. Or you might pick up a backdoor draw, or fake draw (let's say you had a bare ace and you're both deep), and then call another bet. Basically if the board turns bad, you can fold, and if not, you can continue, depending on reads as well.

Like you mentioned, there's still money behind, so it's never a purely pot odds decision, but when you put everything together to make a decision, it should be a factor. I don't think your given hand warrants a turn fold in most situations though.

I think people do this because they are worried about two things -

1. brick turn and face a tough decision when your opponent bets again
2. making a huge error like folding a dominating draw when the board pairs

This, plus the bonus of fold equity when you jam flop.

You don't have to pump it or dump it. Against ABC / weak-tight opponents who won't be pushing the action with middling draws, flats and stop-and-go's (for value or semi-bluffs) are a big part of my arsenal.

For some reason this stuck out and was like a eureka moment, or maybe you just articulated it in a way that clicked.

Or even like obvious straight comes in on a semi dry board and they pot it what is more likely. They called the flop with air to blow you off top set, or did they call with a draw and hit and just smash the pot button?

Do you live in a RIT world? Then you need to pump it so you can get a 4-card runout!

I don't like RIT so I do tend to lean more toward a flat/evaluate game play. But I will also consider who my opponent is and whether or not I can represent other holdings as a bluff if I'm putting them on strong made hands. You can't bluff when somebody, or myself, is all-in!

I see a lot of multi-way bloated pots which result in low SPR spots .. I don't really push it unless I think I can get HU and/or open up a side pot in an effort to recoup any chips I may lose in the main pot. GL

Can anyone tell me what is RIT?

RIT = Run it Twice .. sorry, figured most in the PLO world would know this shortcut. Once Players are all-in then the Board is completed twice, with 50% of the pot being awarded to each runout. This reduces the variance of large swings that are bound to happen in PLO. There are numerous other threads that discuss the pros and cons of RIT.

Loose Players love to RIT when allowed since it let's them gamble it up with less 'risk' in EV spots under 50%. Rooms/hosts love RIT since it keeps some Players from busting quicker, which keeps the games going longer .. which means more rake. Some games even charge extra rake for the extra cards. GL

If you are a really good winning player should you run it once or twice? What if you're a big winner but you also like to reduce variance and don't want to come off as a jerk?

You should do WHATEVER THE FISH LIKE TO DO. It is a 0EV difference with huge social implications.

Didn't really want to derail this into a RIT thread, but one could suggest that if you are leaning towards 'pump it' then you could also include RIT into your reasoning, if available in those games.

I don't think there's a definite 'should do' with RIT. You consider all the factors in a game/room/player pool and your own personal goals and make a decision. Very few Players in my pool are 'for profit' per se .. relying on profit from the games to 'live'. So if 'winning' (a lot) carries a reduced or secondary status it would only make sense to incorporate aspects of the game that reduce the bumps in the road that mainly affect Player bankrolls.

Winner or not, if a primary goal of the game is to just keep the game going, then RIT would be a major contributor in achieving that goal. Winners would still win and losers will eventually lose, just at a slower pace. There's no doubt that RIT is good for the Hosts, the Dealers and most of the Player pool.

If you are worried about your standing/image with the group then it would make sense to defer to the 'pack'. I find it amusing that Players are so worried about their image and yet basically have zero contact with most of the group away from the game.

RIT 'should' be a Player choice .. how many Players are 'jerks' because they don't want to Straddle or allow an increase in the max buy-in? Apparently all of them in the moment ..

Some Players actually want to play 'poker' .. some Players only know how to play their 'cards' .. and some Players just want to gamble. I've probably become a stick in the mud, but one thing that really grinds me is a Player who slow plays their holding and then 'begs' to RIT after their 'trap' results in an all-in spot.

Pot .. 100 .. TAF P1 check, P2 bets 80, P1 raises, P2 'has' to shove for 500, P1 calls and immediately says 'Twice?' RIT .. both Players win 50 .. awesome
Pot .. 100 .. TAF P1 bets 80 and takes down 100

Please explain to me what's better for P1's stack? My main issue is P1 bitches because they don't get any action when they lead out but they beg to RIT when they do. Which is it? Pie or Cake?

Yes, there are EV considerations, this spot is basically +215 in a 65/35, but you have to risk the additional 500 to win only 115 'more' than what you would've won just by betting out. And with RIT it's now a +107.50 spot .. Yippee ..


Back to the thread .. and back to my original comment .. Do you live in a RIT world? Then you need to pump it so you can get a 4-card runout! As it is very often, I'm in the middle .. I may choose 'not' to pump it up, but I'm also open to allowing the Players that do the opportunity to 'embrace' their strategy with less variance. GL