CONTACT: resipsapoker at hotmail dot communism is a failed system

online casinos accepting US players

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

PLOverbet For Value?

With my reduced level of play I don't spend as much time thinking about poker as I once did. Yesterday's play (and recent sessions also) however have gotten me to think about a situation that comes up fairly often in Pot Limit Omaha:

The river card has been dealt and it has given you the nuts.
You are up against one villain who has been leading the betting.
You assume that the river card has counterfeited villain's made hand,
or at worst he/she has the same hand you do (e.g. broadway).

What is the optimal bet size to get villain to call you?
(assuming you have no read on villain).

Any time you have the nuts you want to extract maximum value. The issue, really, is whether PLO players respond differently than NLHE/PLHE players.

When playing NLHE, I am a fan of the overbet for value. Bet as much as possible. While it doesn't work every time - and you certainly are going to have opponents who are too weak/tight/savvy to call even if they think they're ahead - there is a very good chance that the overbet is a +EV play against a random opponent.

I'm not so sure that's the case in PLO. This is results-oriented thinking at its worst, but it doesn't seem like I get very many calls when I pot the river. Some of that may be table image, but I'm really starting to wonder if it's more about your average full ring PLO dabbler being a weak/tight nit who refuses to call without the nuts.

If that's the case, there should be an optimal bet size - again assuming a random opponent - of less than the pot that incites calling (or better yet raising) all out of proportion to what you would expect. I simply don't know what that bet size is. I don't seem to get many calls with any reduced bet size either - it's almost as if a 1/4 pot or 1/2 pot or 2/3 pot bet is a giant flashing "I have the nuts!" sign.

If there isn't an optimal sub-pot bet size - if any bet greater than zero (i.e. a check) will make a call a low-probability event, then it would seem that the full pot bet would most likely be the optimal strategy.

Since my thinking on this is a work in progress, I'll leave it at that for now. With the addition that the above shows just how useful it is to know your opponents, and also that I should be taking a stab at more pots than I do when I can represent a hand that got there on the river.


BWoP said...

Really depends on your opponent (i.e., does that player tend to call down with non-nut hands)? I like 1/2 pot to 2/3 pot in that situation depending on opponent - I will pot if villain tends to call down light. 1/2 pot to 2/3 pot may even induce a re-pot from villain, which is just fabu!

Buffalo66 said...

Mandy B is a mid-stakes tourney grinder. There are a couple of threads on 4 about her.

IIRC from past threads, red pros (not on team full tilt) get a $35 hourly wage plus 100% RB.

Drizztdj said...

How much left behind is the first thing I look at. If they're getting 4:1 or 5:1 on their remaining stack or have already put in half of their stack, just shove away.

One trick you might want to try is the min-bet to induce the bluff or the nit just might think they're value betting with that straight on the paired board.

I've done it, and had it done to me. Heck you might even get folds in the future for the cost of a BB.