Global Poker, PLO $0.10-$0.20, 6-player max

BTN: 100 bb
SB (Hero): 150 bb
BB: 35 bb

Hero has A K J T

Preflop: (1.5 bb, 3 players)
BTN raises 3.5x bb, Hero calls, BB calls

Flop: (10.5 bb, 3players) A 4 T
Hero bets 10.5 bb, fold, BTN calls

Turn: (31.5 bb, 2 players) A 4 T 5
Hero bets 20 bb, BTN...



My thought process:

Preflop > Looking back I'm thinking I should have raised. If raising is correct, how much of that decision is due to the AKxx making it less likely BTN has AAxx or KKxx? If my hand is AQJT, do I just call?

Flop > Top two pair with the nut flush blocker and two straight draw blockers. I'm thinking a bet is both a value bet to get called by lower two pair and a bet to charge draws.

Turn > 23xx would seem to make up a small amount of my preflop raiser opponent's range, so I'm not too scared about the straight. (Note to DevWil: I saw your note about putting people on too exact of a hand. Here I'm considering the likelihood of 23xx within a broader range of opponent hands.) With the K of clubs, my bet here represents a possible K-hi flush, but I'm unsure why I'm betting.

1. Should I make the flop bet a little smaller? Bet sizing seems somewhat complex. In general I'm thinking it's better not to pump up a pot with a vulnerable hand. Top two pair with flush and straight draws is normally vulnerable, but with my blockers and only gutshot straight draws on the board this two pair seems stronger than most.

2. If my turn bet is correct, I'm not sure why. Is it a value bet? Is it protecting against draws? Is it possible to fold out smaller flushes?

ooh personalized note to me, hubba hubba :P

In all seriousness:

I still recommend playing 3bet-or-fold in the SB. For this combo in particular, denying BB's equity is important, especially when this combo's suit is so middling.

I really don't like the flop lead. PFR should cbet really often (so it's not like we're missing a bet when we're ahead; opposite is true if we lead), and they have a really huge nut advantage here. For that second reason (and because we have some additional equity beyond our two-pair), I'm leaning check-call. We just don't really want to strengthen their range and I don't think that denying their equity is an overwhelming incentive given our blockers (and draws in our own right).

OTT:

Yeah, villain shouldn't have 32xx very often as PFR. But the flush coming in is more important than the straight coming in anyway. We now block the nuts.

In PLO in particular (but also sometimes in NLH), value and bluff are categories of limited usefulness (especially before the river).

(Boilerplate DevWil incoming.)

In Janda's No Limit Hold 'em for Advanced Players (wait what, NLH theory in a PLO thread?! a-yup kinda), he instead re-orients our thinking to two non-exclusive reasons that we are aggressive in poker:

1. To deny equity.
2. To build a pot for if we win it.

These roughly correspond to bluffing and value-betting, obviously.

But in PLO, we have so many semibluff-type plays, that "bluff" and "value bet" are insufficient (again, before the river especially). Equity denial and pot growth are not always mutually exclusive incentives (and we can grow a pot on one street to win it by denying equity on the next; this is a major function of preflop 3betting in PLO).

The question on this turn, then, is how exactly our incentives combine to offer insight into what we should do.

What makes it tricky on this turn is that our opponent often either has so much equity that they are unlikely to fold or so little equity that we don't gain much by making them fold. And if the pot grows with our opponent not folding, we're now a lot less likely to win it against the range they've continued with (which violates the second principle from Janda).

So my recommendation is...

idk I've been betting quarter-pot at high frequency on flushing turns so do that

Slightly more seriously: that QP blocking bet gives us a lot of flexibility.

If villain raises, gg I guess they have like the second nuts and feel really good about it or something? (I'm always super confused when I block the nut flush and someone raises into me.)

If villain calls, not only is their range wider in a pot that is not growing as much as if we'd sized up (recall Janda principle #2) making us more likely to win at showdown one way or another, but if we end up unhappy with our showdown value (which is a tough question with our combo) we can typically still bluff the river with our nut blocker(s). (Keep in mind that if the board pairs, we either have or block a lot of boats/quads.)

If villain folds, we win and that's super not a problem given how awkward our SDV is.

I actually think 3 way vs sb flat, btn isn't supposed to cbet all that much. A decent amount for sure. Still, sb won't lead a lot. Thinking about it though, this is not a poor combo to do it with because we block a lot of air bets with Kc and of course pair blockers.

I think turn is much better as a check raise. You can't just bet all your Kc, one due to over bluffing, two, due to not having enough good bluffs in your check range. Added to this, your hand has great sdv and domination of straight draws for a non flush, so if you're gonna check anything, this is a great one to do it with. Once you get bet into, baby it's time to turn up the heat. It just... is way too good of a check raise not to. At worst they check back a flush on the turn and you check raise river, big deal. Or better yet, you check down and win. That's fine too! If you bet, you have to think about betting twice and potentially get heroed. You're more likely to get called down against 2 bets than from a x/r.

I feel like I advocate a check raise in basically every other post, but honestly, I think it's one of those things that gives me a huge edge over a lot of regs who either don't do it enough or don't pick right combos. It applies maximum pressure for when you bluff, but also makes sure you don't just have to barrel every spot since sometimes you check through when they have weaker hands then you have either a cheaper sd or a smaller stab vs a weaker range, whereas betting into a full range narrows their range without as much info when you're OOP (much easier to balance range for villain when they are IP). It lets me hyperpolarise compared to just betting a bunch.

It also protects your check range. Yeah sure people aren't exploiting you actively, but pretty much everyone has an overly weak check range, and developing an aggressive check raise is a great way to protect that. I don't know for sure this is what other regs think of me, but when I play against other regs who also employ similar strategy, I always get a bit nervous betting anything except for pure air or nuts because I know there's a reasonable change I am about to play a big pot with a middling hand. I do my best not to let that stop me from playing optimally, but I know for a fact against other regs I just bet whatever and have no fear, but against those I have to be really careful, and anyone in that spot is liable to make mistakes and start playing too passively or getting punished betting too much.

I think Inky's analysis is very valuable but I would never try this XR unless I was very familiar with my opponent.

It's well-reasoned (and I would not be shocked to see the line in a sim) but it risks becoming pretty counterproductive against recs.

One can argue the exact opposite point to the following, but in a PLO game I will assume my opponents are incompetent until they show me otherwise (just due to the average lack of skill in PLO; lucky us).

Accordingly, I will be pretty firmly in my broader explo playbook until I'm confident that I'm playing pots with someone on the tougher side (as they're just far less common than typically loose-passive preflop, weak-tight postflop recs).