I am quite new to PLO8 an NLO8, just played much LO8 so far.

Should I bet more than 56% pot OTF and OTT to have more fold-equity, or should I just accept bad luck OTR with the split in this single hand, and consider this hand as played okay?

Keep him in or drive him out, especially OTT, talking about my bet-sizing?

Decues cracked HH-converter doesn't really work, any other I could use?


Poker Stars $20+$2 Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo Tournament - t15/t30 Blinds - 8 players - View hand 2298933
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

BTN: 120.17 BBs
SB: 96.33 BBs
BB: 97.43 BBs
UTG: 76.23 BBs
UTG+1: 97.50 BBs
MP1: 99.33 BBs
Hero (MP2): 97.17 BBs
CO: 114.17 BBs

Pre Flop: (t45) Hero is MP2 with Ah3cAs2h
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to t75, 1 fold, Hero raises to t270, 4 folds, UTG+1 calls t195

Flop: (t585) 4 of hearts 5 of clubs Q of diamonds (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets t330, UTG+1 calls t330

Turn: (t1245) J of clubs (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets t690, UTG+1 calls t690

River: (t2625) 6 of diamonds (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets t1625 all in, UTG+1 calls t1625

a few sims you might find helpful (these could be done in more detail if you wanted to be more precise)

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 45q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah2has3c	75.01%	310,906	407,624	68,927	213,338	190,225
a[2,3,6]: 20%	24.99%	43,626	123,449	68,927	0	190,225

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

7,025,760 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 45q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah2has3c	74.04%	3,393,725	4,761,751	919,127	2,031,498	2,687,049
a[2,3]: 20%	25.96%	470,302	1,344,882	919,127	0	2,687,049

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

392,520 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 45qj

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah2has3c	70.54%	215,755	255,077	32,247	90,827	79,214
a[2,3,6]: 20%	29.46%	66,672	105,196	32,247	0	79,214

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

324,360 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 45qj

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah2has3c	71.06%	175,706	215,028	28,771	60,898	79,214
a[2,3]: 20%	28.94%	50,828	80,561	28,771	0	79,214

Without factoring in implied odds:

Villain needs 26.2% equity against to call a bet of 690 on the turn, and he may estimate he has higher equity than he does against your actual hand since you are at the effective top of your range.

Similarly villain needs only 26.5% equity to call the flop bet of 330.


So you should consider betting more on both the flop and the turn but Especially the turn. Another consideration for wanting to bet more is limited your potential to make mistakes on the river (and give the villain good implied odds to call). Make him pay up earlier.

^^Thanks a lot
I felt that turn should have been pot, but will also consider to bet flop bigger in these spots now. More around 75% or maybe pot, with no given reads, what ya say?
I even thought about potting every flop and turn that has at least two lows out, but that might be a bit too dogmatic.
As a somehwat perfectionist (lol oxymoronish), I consider bet-sizing to by far be the most difficult part about this game. I think I already know when to check/bet/raise/fold quite well, but oh lord, this bet-sizing possibilities are wide...

When he has a good hand, it doesn't really matter how much you bet. So you must consider how you are doing against his marginal holdings and how does he react to different bet sizes with those hands.

Here you are dominating pretty much his entire "marginal"-range, so trying to drive them out (="fold equity") is losing chips.
I think you played exceptionally well.

It sounds like you are in danger of falling into a trap concerning bet-sizing. What you should NOT be doing is choosing your bet-size according to your hand strength. Your hand should not matter at all, only the board, action and stack sizes. Of course it's possible to use several sizes in the same spot, but it's pretty advanced. There is enough trouble trying to be in balance with one sizing.

If you want, sure you can use pot-sized bets every time when there is a low draw. Just be aware what kind of side effects it creates, for example it's close to impossible to bluff profitably in many spots. Especially in a tournament I'd favor much smaller bets.

We re-raised UTG+1, hit a great flop, and villain flatted our continuation bet.

What is the downside of betting a value hand for value here again? Hero betting the amount he did on the turn allows inferior hands to call again profitably without increasing Hero's expecting rate of return on various river cards. In fact, it may decrease Hero's rate of return on the river by giving him more room to make mistakes and because villain has initiative.

The only real downside I see betting for value is 'maybe' missing a 'bluff' check-raise but that seems a relatively low concern from the action so far.

On this board texture I think lines seeking to stack value hands with a better value-hand are going to yield a better rate of return than lines focusing to extract the maximum from a hand that doesn't belong in the pot. There is no indication of the type of player UTG+1 is from the OP. Even if we disagreed on what type of hand UTG+1 is most likely to have, I am not particularly convinced our line is best for extracting the most value from marginal hands. I would much rather err on the side of shutting out a few marginal hands in a tournament setting than betting too little and facing many agonizing decisions against villain's still 54 BB stack.

Potting as a default here leads to an "all or nothing" mentality, with less room for flexibility when playing the rest of your range. If you knew knew he was calling off his whole range, then of course, bet the pot for value.

There is absolutely no downside to betting the turn.
Name a few of such hands. Are you sure they can call profitably? Don't forget the future action.
How does villain have initiative? He has check-called twice so far.
As I understand, by "betting for value" you mean to make a significantly big bet. The downside of a big bet is that he knows you have a big hand and will correctly fold dominated hands.
Yes, this is the normal way of playing poker at the lower stakes. Bet big with big hands and hope for setup. You can think about the alternatives and draw your own conclusions.
What agonizing decisions? To bluff catch or not to?

There are some very clear categories of hands that villain can easily play profitably on the river without reverse implied odds. A2xx is 30%. Hands like A24 and A25 benefit greatly from the reduced cost. They have maybe 38% equity expected. And how happy are we when we see a 2nd 4 or 5 on the river?

He gets to bet first on the river. That includes on a lot of cards that could potentially be really bad for us. Such cards include any card pairing, any club, and cards completing straights. Whether villains bets into us or not, we may also have a hard time seeking to extract additional value safely on many of these same cards.

Betting for value means betting to maximize Hero's expected value over the entire hand, not any one single street.

I don't think the bet sizes served the Hero well in this hands for at least two reasons.

1. If villain just calls Hero is ill-served to play the most important street (river). Villain has lots of chips, initiative, and since he would equity to call with a very wide range of hands it is very difficult for Hero to place him on a helpful range.

2. Betting larger, on either of the two streets (and not necessarily both) does not significantly differentiate Hero's action with a made hand from Hero's action with a drawing hand. Hero is expected to c-bet this flop with close to his entire range. Hands that whiffed still have backdoors or low draws. Yes, some portion of Hero's range should probably fold to a c/r but that would probably suggest Hero should bet the flop either larger or smaller than the 56% described. Betting an amount that villain needs exactly 26.5% to call (ignoring implied odds) positions the villain to act favorably with a wide range of hands for the next 2 streets. It defeats the purpose of an pre-flop strategy that raises with a hand like ours if we don't seek to maximize equity similarly post-flop.

**Firing a 2nd barrel, and the sizing does tend to be more informational about Villain's range, since checking back after the c-bet doesn't win the pot still leaves Hero plenty of competive hands as well as weaker hands that can still find a way to win on the river.

I would also be curious what type of dominated hands you are worried about folding out.

I think we do both think about hands comprehensively from start to finish, and our philosophies may makes framing the best answer to how to act on the turn more challenging than it would be otherwise seeing as neither of us seemed likely to have taken the same line to begin with.

Still, I don't feel like your comments have explained much about why you liked OP's bet sizes. Instead you say something like 'Its a line I could see being taken in a higher stakes games,' which is all well and good but since this is not a high-stakes game it is not particularly informational for most readers.

At the same time, its not like I am saying 'mash pot' because Hero has a big hand. And I feel like your may have been trying to provide OP with good general advice rather than catering more specific to this hands. Certainly, he is sure to welcome both.

The main point I am trying to make, is that the information presented from the OP leads me to believe that betting the flop bigger is likely to be beneficial to Hero - I would typically suggest 75%-90% of the pot as the best continuation size with these stacks.

Betting bigger on the flop does little to change Hero's effective range from pre-flop and the likelihood of it being a bluff. It also directly increases the chance of him being able to get villain's entire stack into the pot by the river with a hand we are willing play for stacks with. More specifically, I think the specific bet sizing of the Hero suggested a lack of deeper planning for the entirety of the hand.

Stylistically, there is room for fairly large differences of opinion on how to best play the turn with the Hero's line on the flop. While still a good hand, many players would want to slow down and manage the size of the pot carefully for what could be a tricky river or even to avoid a possible check-raise.

It will be difficult to know how to maximize our value in the river on all but a handful of cards. Even if we make the nut low, we may not necessarily expect our high to be good. Just because the the river is difficult doesn't mean a good player shouldn't expect to navigate it profitably. It does suggest though that many players should expect to navigate it more profitably were villain to have a different (and most frequently lower) SPR.

Why don't you use quotes? I'm sure my posts are great but I'm a modest guy so bolding my posts makes me blush.

On the turn SPR is almost 2. So to call twice villain needs 40%. A2 with no high outs is a massively losing call, he is drawing to a quarter for crying out loud. A2+pair isn't a +ev either imo. Don't know where you got the 38% from, propokertools shows ~36%.

If he has A2+fd+pair for example it doesn't matter how much you bet, he should get it in.
Depends. Most of the time we have the best hand. I wouldn't be emotional about it in any way.
This is complete nonsense. Being OOP on the river (with SPR <1) is not better than being IP. Calling correctly is not that hard you know.
Bet big when you have it, eh?
Disagree with everything there, as I said earlier.
I understand nothing what you say and disagree with almost all of your assumptions, but it's OK. Keep doing whatever you are doing if it works for you. You have clearly made up your mind and I can't help you in any way. Also I'm certain that you can't help me in any way.

Edit: Have you already figured out the answer to this? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=47

(reverse) Implied odds is not the correct answer.
Almost any A2, we want them in.
I just pointed out that it's imo a typical leak that especially the players who are climbing up in stakes seem to do a lot (revealing their hand strength).
Agreed.
OK. I wouldn't play or recommend anyone to play like that. You sound like an analytical person and I'm sure you can work out the benefits of smaller cbets if you try to.
Does hero's range hit the flop stronger than villain's range? Imo, no.
Wat. SPR=4,5 so getting it in by the river is hardly an issue.
Again, could not disagree more.
If a player wants to avoid a check-raise on any street with this hand, that player is weak.
Yes, sometimes villain hits his 3-9 outer or whatever when you are trying to maximize your profits. Betting big and trying to drive villains out even when you have a huge hand does have some merit in a tournament, I give you that.

hero played it great, but i prefer slightly bigger on turn, we want to commit as much as possible here. i dont know why HERO would ever want to check the turn, given the board texture.

It's borderline brain-dead indeed and to my knowledge nobody has suggested such play.

ha

The two main things I'd think about for flop+turn sizing is:

1. We 3bet pre. so this isn't a std. raise+cbet.

2. We don't want villain to get to the river "cheap" and then fold.

A huge number of players will call a pot turn bet with AK82, for example. And almost everyone does on the flop, I think.

I understand the desire to be balanced between the hands we want to bet and see a river and those that are happy to be bet/calling turn (and maybe some hands that are bet/folding turn). And I can see how that would be a problem vs. some players, and I don't think you have to go that high before people start noticing betting sizes on the flop (in this kind of situation on the turn, not as much though, IMO).

But on the other side we are leaving 20-30bb in villains stack if the river bricks.

This example illustrates why we want to bet more IMO, maybe we can be more balanced on the flop even in a 3bet pot that hits our range, but we want to punish that "oh he only bet half pot, I for sure have 25% equity so I call" mentality by turning his "25% of pot" flop call into a "200% of pot" call ... only betting half pot again punishes it much less.

And if villain does call AK82 on turn he then has even bigger "pot odds" to call on the river if it's a K or something.

Really? I'd expect a merged 3bet range to hit most HLL flops better. Esp. when the L's are 4-8.

True, this is a 3-bet pot. We don't need to bet big to get the stacks in.
We don't want the villain to correctly fold the turn either. You can't have everything so you need to pick one. I'd pick the line that allows me to have bluffs in my range (=hands that I can bet/fold with)
A huge number of players are complete donkeys then. I'd never check-call AK82 on that flop in a 3-bet pot (I'd never have AK82 though, it's 4-bet or fold pre). On the turn it's an atrocious play imo.
OK. I understand the desire to exploit donkeys' habit to check call huge bets with clearly dominated hands. It's a good exploit if it works.
Imo, his range should be very strong (A2ds/A23-heavy) as he calls 3-bet OOP. He wouldn't be behind my 3-bet range. Oh wait, I forgot that we are assuming he is an idiot. He probably has AJ72r and will check-call every street if we bet pot.

It's good that you brought this up, I had almost forgotten how awful the players in tournaments are.

This is a good thread btw.

I'd personally bet a little more on the flop but my "standard" is 75%+.

I always find the turn to be the interesting spot and kinda the spot and sizing I struggle with most.

I obviously don't see myself bet folding the turn with this hand, but I do want to be able to bet fold my bluffs without committing loads of unnecessary chips. I want to be able to bet call if necessary.

On the flip side, I know I want to be able to maximize fold equity with certain holdings and betting smaller makes that tricky. I also want to bet an amount that sets me up for betting a nice size on the river when that low draw comes in.

Added to these two points, I don't want to be varying my bet size to indicate my hand strength in anyway.

At the moment, I can't say I really vary my betsizing from flop to turn that much.

This spot is still something I am grappling with, and kinda still am after reading this!

...over three streets. We do if we'd prefer to get most of it in on the turn.

I understand, but I'm not sure how much I'm bluffing here. To be fair I might just be unbalanced to exploit the idiots I'm playing with ... But I wonder about the size of your range that you 3bet pre. and fire 1/2 a pot on flop and turn, and then fold when you need a bit more than 25% to call.

So ... I think this is where our range problem starts. Maybe this is true of a $200 or $2k buyin tourney, but even if villain opens only 20% and then only calls something like A2ds/A32 it means he's only calling like 10-15% of the time ... if he opens wider then he calls even less often.
I've never been in a plo8 game where someone opens and then folds to a 3bet 75% of the time, and if asked I'd have assumed that game didn't exist

I mean ... when you say it like _that_ it sounds like people are giving their money away and we just need to hold our arms out to catch it, but A2 is hard to fold and with a ok pair top kicker too!

Ofc. no matter what I do they probably hit a 7 or J on the river

Missed this reference to your post from another thread. I found the argument extremely misleading then, much as I continue to see many of your statements as misleading now.

Hero's potential profit in position (and even out of position) easily stands to be much greater than the cost of starting with an equity deficit. That's why the stack sizes are so important. While Hero will want to evaluate his potential profit on a street-by-street basis, the conclusion you imply - that Hero is being eaten away gradually from starting with an inferior hand 'whatever' the board texture may be, is a comically unrealistic way to approach any real poker analysis.

Yes, actually we'd like to get it all in on the flop, but we can't control villain's actions.
If villains draw to hands like nut low way too much, you probably don't need bluffs and all your bets can be for value. I always want to have bluffs in my range too, but you are right that in this exact spot bluffing range can't be very big due to numerous draws. AK+random garbage like 48.
Yes, A2ds/A23 is too tight, I must have been writing in a hurry - let's say top 40-50% of A2-hands (excluding ones that you should 4-bet). Also, it depends on how wide 3-bettor 3-bets. If his 3-bet is always AA (reveals his hand!) you can probably call with a wider range as an exploit. If he adds strong/all AK2-hands to that range it gets more difficult.

I'm sure there are many players who call their entire opening raise vs 3-bet out of habit (excluding aces, which they 4-bet).
My advice would be to avoid especially check-calling with nut low draw + weak/no high, just because they are easily dominated. If people seem to do it a lot, exploit it by playing a hand like top pair + nut low draw hard.

Years ago I had a discussion with someone who played much smaller games than me on stars (he was a big winner, probably one of the biggest). We had a serious disagreement on flop LLH, hero has nld+top pair. He thought it's +ev to get it in for 100bb on the flop in a single raised pot. My experience was that I'm always up against a set/huge draw with that action and would even fold to a raise vs many players. So, the correct play probably varies a lot according to how villains on average play on a certain level. End of cool story.

It's an example that might make someone understand something that they had previously misunderstood. Sorry if you felt like you were being underestimated.

Still, for example in that thread you insisted on calling a 3-bet with AQ84s claiming that you had implied odds, which made me wonder if you had any idea what implied odds are or if you understood that having a potentially dominated hand on the flop makes you have a potentially dominated hand on the turn, too.

So I don't think the example is comically unrealistic - you might have 33% vs villain's range on multiple streets and was just pointing out that it's nowhere near enough to call, and the reason is not related to implied odds.