Full Tilt Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $0.10/$0.25
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $8.85
UTG+1: $33.70
Hero: $38.60
Button: $25.35
SB: $50.20
BB: $11.95

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is CO with 7 9 9 Q
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls, Button raises to $0.8, SB folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: 5 9 Q ($3.3, 4 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero checks, Button bets $3.3, BB folds, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Turn: J ($13.2, 3 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero checks, Button checks.

River: 5 ($13.2, 3 players)
UTG+1 bets $13.2, Hero...

tough spot. I probably call.

Did he have nut flush?

Very tough spot. I would need to know who the opponent was to find a fold here.

Isn't this a pretty simple call?

This looks like a flush or a 5s full to me.

If we think it's a flush or 5's full, shouldn't we be raising??

Well Budbundy is a hell of a lot better PLO player than me so if he says it's a tough spot i'm not gonna advocate raising and the other guy mentioned the slight chances of folding i didn't think raising was an option.

Also you could go for an overcall behind and not risk getting re-re-raised by the same guy.

I can't imagine he'd lead out with a pot-bet on the flop w/ QQ (which is also less likely since you have 1 of them yourself), and I can't imagine he'd lead the flop and then check that turn w/ JJ, so it really looks more like a flush or 5's full. I just can't see him playing a hand this way that beats you.

I smelled something funny and only flat called -- sure as shit, he flipped over QQ. I was happy with my play and that it didn't cost me another $20. Almost like winning a buyin, in my book.

That's bizarre. I guess he figured when nobody check-raised him on the flop there were no flushes out there, so he decided to check the turn to feign weakness. Just seems like a strange betting pattern.

What do we think of his play with nut boat here and the donk-pot?

If he bets ½ pot or checks, I guarantee I drop a stack here.

His play makes sense in a way for someone new to omaha.

At the micro micro stakes i play, the game is suprisingly very passive, i think this is because most people see it as a variant from texas hold em and when they learnt the rules they got it drilled into them that everyone of your opponents has a set or better so be carefull.

Likewise, he flops top set but is scarred of a full house but he can't let top set go so he calls. The turn card doesn't matter much but and he still doesn't want to put money into the pot when he thinks he's being beaten by a flush.

The river's a great card for him and as you're meant to bet the full pot in omaha he bets it and hopes someone has a flush or 5s full.

I just think the goal shouldn't be to get someone to pay off his pot bet, he should be trying to get a stack here. When he hits the top boat, realistically, there CAN'T be the nut flush out there because there's no chance that the nut flush lets the turn get checked through. Someone HAD to have been on a draw with a lower set or two pairs. If he had checked here, I would have potted it for sure and most likely called a repot. If he'd bet ½ pot or a bit more, I would have raised most likely.

It's totally a NLHE betting pattern, and one I've used myself. You flop a good hand and bet out, check the turn to make people think you're weak, and then throw out a big river bet to make it look like you're bluffing. Harrington talks about this move in HoH (the bet-check-bet maneuver). He's probably just applying NLHE strategies inappropriately to PLO.

I disagree. He bet the pot on a board and got TWO callers on the flop. He thinks he is behind on the turn, thus why he checks. He's not pretending to be weak, he's checking a hand that is behind.

He didn't bet the flop, he check called.

Ah yes - I was reading from breslin's post about betting flop, checking turn, then betting river - my bad.

Crikey, you're right, this whole time I thought it was the same player leading both streets. Oops. Now it makes more sense. I think Sheiky's analyis at 10:56 am is probably correct. He called the flop hoping to hit his boat, got a free pass on the turn, and then hit his boat. The pot-bet on the river is just inexperience/over-excitement.

I was really suprised about how passive the micro stakes omaha gaes are when i first started playin.

I thought that with everyone gettin 4 cards there'd be none stop raising as everyone thinks they have the nuts, but the opposite seems to be nearer the case.

BDC30, what's the play like at the higher levels? Is it still pretty passive?

There's a mix of uber-tights (like me) and uber-maniacs. You'll find some 30/2's and some 75/30's. You have to know how to adapt your game (or more importantly your game selection) accordingly. Honestly, I'm still learning.

I've found a mix actually. Sometimes I'll sit down at a table with very little PF raising, while other times it seems like someone's throwing out a raise on virtually every hand. It seems that there are some players who like to adopt the LAG image and will raise with a wide range, and there are others who are basically raising NLHE hands (AAxx, KKxx, QQxx).

There's two players i can name who raise EVERY hand PF, every hand, bar none.

You could have made a ton of money before the poker boom, but now people are starting to understand it more

Huh? You mean you could have made a ton of money AFTER the poker boom right?

I disagree. At .10/.25 people are waiting for the nuts. There are very very few people raising or reraising without the nuts....not even monster draws. This level is so passive it is hard to stay awake. It has very little to do with understanding the game more. Even jumping to .25/.50 there is a huge difference in playing styles.