To Pot or Not to Pot, a PLO Predicament

A couple of weeks ago I moved back over to pot-limit Omaha (from limit hold’em) and have been once again enjoying the game I focused on primarily for the latter half of ’07 and all of ’08. Part of what got me back over onto the PLO tables was reading Jeff Hwang’s new one, Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha, Volume I: Small Ball and Short-Handed Play -- one of the best written, most helpful strategy texts I’ve read in some time.

I’m a big fan of Hwang’s first book, titled Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy, the first half of which focuses on PLO (the rest concentrates on limit Omaha/8 and PLO8). That first book does a terrific job explaining how to think about PLO, and is particularly valuable (I think) in its discussion of starting hand constructions and what Hwang calls “straight draw physics.” For newcomers, it is essential to understand that while there isn’t that huge of a difference between a lot of starting hands preflop, certain hands have a much, much better chance of connecting with the flop than others, and thus there really is a lot to think about when it comes to selecting which hands to play.

The second book neatly follows the first with discussions of various “advanced” plays and concepts. One need not have read the first book to pick up the new one, but it would help to have had some experience with PLO and a basic understanding of why, say, is a better starter than . Or other basic concepts such as the supreme importance of position or knowing that having a couple of aces in your hand ain’t the cat’s pajamas the way it is in hold’em.

I’m not going to delve into a full-fledged review here, but I will say I like Hwang’s new one very much and recommend it highly. Rather, I just wanted to pose a quick question regarding PLO strategy that comes up in Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha, Volume I with which I’ve struggled occasionally.

Early on, Hwang discusses how in PLO the pot-sized bet is frequently chosen -- especially preflop, on the flop, and even on the turn -- when a player is opening the betting. “Generally speaking,” writes Hwang, “unless the board is paired or a possible flush is present, the standard bet on the flop and turn is a full-sized bet. That said, more often than not, a bet in the neighborhood of half- or three-quarters of the pot in these spots is a sign of weakness, amounting to little more than a weak attempt to pick up the pot.”

In many of Hwang’s hand examples whenever an opponent makes a less-than-pot-sized bet it is often described as a “weak stab” -- even if the bet is 75% of the pot or more. These bets then become invitations to play back by “floating” or check-raising or otherwise doing something to take the initiative away from the opponent and (hopefully) claim the pot.

Now, I’m kind of generalizing here -- I don’t mean to suggest Hwang is always regarding less-than-pot-sized bets as “weak” -- but I wanted to present one of his hand examples and ask you what you think about the situation.

In this hand, Hwang is playing from the big blind, but there’s a “Mississippi Straddle” (on the button), meaning preflop action starts with the small blind. The blinds are $5/$10, and the straddle is $25. Hwang is dealt . The small blind folds, Hwang completes, then a player in EP raises to $75. Two players call, including the button, and Hwang calls as well.

Never mind the straddle business -- this is a situation that comes up fairly frequently. You’re in the blinds and get a neat-looking, double-suited hand with some straight potential and a small pair in it, and you want to play it, even though you’re out of position. So you end up in a hand like this where a pot has already been built up a bit and there are four of you seeing a flop -- and you’re there in the worst position, having to act first on every street from this point forward.

Hwang is self-deprecating about his decision to play the hand -- indeed, one of the things I like most about Hwang’s books is his willingness to admit having made errors or less-than-ideal plays here and there (and the humor he uses when pointing out such mistakes). “I am about to get what I deserved,” says Hwang as he readies for the flop, “ -- a marginal situation.”

The flop comes , giving Hwang a bottom set of fours. He says he doesn’t want to bet out and be forced to fold if raised, so he checks. The others check to the button who bets $250 into the $305 pot. Hwang characterizes this less-than-pot-sized bet as a “weak stab.”

One little side issue, here: If the button had bet just $55 more (the pot), is it that much different? Is it no longer a “weak” bet? I wonder about this sometimes, as I notice in my PLO25 games sometimes if I bet even a nickel less than the pot it seems like I am much more likely to get called (or raised) than if I bet the entire pot. (Which is what I desire, sometimes.)

Note, the button wasn’t the preflop raiser, so this isn’t technically a c-bet. But given the not-so-coordinated board (no flush draw, a possible straight draw) and the apparent invitation to claim the pot when the other three checked, Hwang doesn’t really think much of the button’s bet. He notes the stack sizes (most in the $2,000 range), then decides to check-raise the pot to $1,055. All fold.

So here’s my question. I’ve been in this same situation frequently, and sometimes I’ve played it exactly the same way. (Of course, you can divide the total amounts in Hwang’s example by 50 or so, lol.) I understand why calling is awful here -- you can’t give the straight draws odds and you don’t want to let the pot get bigger and bigger while playing from out of position.

But what troubles me here is the idea of betting $1,055 to win $505.

Readers of Harrington on Hold’em instinctively recall his advice about c-betting half the pot and how the move only has to work once every three times for you to break even. I realize we’re looking at an entirely different situation (and game) here, but in this case Hwang is betting twice the size of the pot -- and really, really doesn’t want callers, preferring to take it down right here. So it seems like the move has to work almost all of the time to be profitable. Because when it doesn’t -- say, when the button (or one of the other players) comes back over the top with a bigger set -- you’re likely playing for the rest of your stack, and also likely in sad shape when putting the rest of your money in the middle.

I say I recognize the situation and have experienced it before -- what I mean is I’ve played hands where I’ve made a bold pot-sized raise after the flop, won the hand, then, when looking at my stack afterwards, thought to myself “is that all?” Because I’ve put a lot of chips at risk to win what amounts to a relatively small pot.

Anyhow, I guess the real advice here is to avoid these “marginal” situations if you can. As Hwang himself states at the start of the “Advanced Concepts” section of his new book, “The true mark of an expert player is not the ability to maneuver in tight spots, but rather the ability to avoid putting himself into tight spots to begin with.”

If anyone has thoughts about this situation, I’d love to hear ’em. Like I say, for those of you thinking about moving over to PLO, I greatly recommend both of Hwang’s books.

Have a great weekend, all.

Chance, Though Not the Only Element of the Franklin Circuit Court, Is the Element Which Defines Its Essence

Okay, so I’m paraphrasing. Even so, that seems to sum up what was signified by yesterday’s order from the Franklin Circuit Court to allow the state to seize 141 domains hosting gambling sites if the sites do not block Kentucky residents’ access.

“Disappointed” was the word the Poker Players Alliance used in its response to yesterday’s order. The PPA is disappointed in the way the order dismisses the notion that poker is a skill-based game. The PPA is also disappointed in other implications of the ruling, saying it has “set a dangerous precedent for censorship on the Internet.” A lot is up in the air at the moment, it seems. Hard to tell how much of this here ruling is even enforceable (never mind constitutional). I suppose we’ll find out in the coming weeks.

I’d probably use other words, too. Outraged. Appalled. Dismayed. Others come to mind as well.

The milder “disappointed” I’ll reserve to describe my play in yesterday’s LeTune Challenge, another one of those blogger tourneys to which I was fortunate enough to be invited. This one was hosted by RakeBrain, and 30-plus bloggers were recruited to play a “HA” (pot-limit hold’em/pot-limit Omaha) tourney over on Full Tilt Poker.

Got to play a bit with my bud Spaceman against whom I was also pitted in that Run Good Challenge last month. After getting moved to his table, he immediately commented that I probably liked the fact that PLO was in the mix. I said something facetious about the glass being half-empty.

The fact is, I don’t really like PLO tourneys that much. The game’s too volatile, really, for tournament play. At least it feels that way to me. Was recently listening to Jeff Hwang talking about the same subject on the latest episode of Howard Schwartz’s Gamblers Book Club podcast. Hwang is the author of the terrific Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy and has also started contributing strategy columns on PLO to Card Player. When Schwartz asked Hwang about his tourney record, Hwang said he mainly played cash games, and that he felt PLO wasn’t a game that was very well suited for tourneys.

A debatable issue, I suppose. All I know is, I’m much more comfortable playing PLO in a ring game than in a tourney.

I played okay for the first hour or so. I’d built up to around 2,000, then had a hiccup of a hand versus PokerPeaker. We were playing hold’em. It folded to my button, I raised with A-7 offsuit, then PokerPeaker repopped it from the small blind. After his reraise, he had less than 300 chips behind, and I rashly put him all in only to see his Big Slick. An ace and king both flopped, and I’d stupidly thrown away a third of my stack.

One orbit later we were still playing hold’em. I was on the button again with pocket eights and again open-raised. This time LawChica repopped it from the big blind, and I had no choice but to go with it. When LawChica also turned over A-K, I was starting to feel a little snake-bitten, but my eights held up and I was back in bidness.

Made it to the first break with 2,434, putting me 11th of the 19 remaining. Held steady for awhile, then completely mangled a PLO hand to knock me back down to about 1,000. Made at least three mistakes on the hand, maybe four. This, frankly, is the hand where I’d most readily use the word “disappointed.” It is also a hand that proves beyond doubt that the Franklin Circuit Court is dead wrong when it says “no matter how skillful or cunning the player, who wins and who loses is determined by the hands the players hold.”

I had 2,334 when the hand began. It was folded to me in the cutoff where I had been dealt . First mistake was even playing this weak-ass cheese. I was vaguely influenced by the fact that Fuel55, sitting on my left, was AWOL, and so I essentially had the button if I wanted it. So I limped for 120. That was the second mistake, I think. Shoulda raised if I’m playing at all there.

So me and both blinds -- LawChica and PokerPeaker -- see the flop come . They both check, and I bet the pot with my top two pair. They both call, and I even say out loud “straight draw.” Another trey comes on the turn, and they both check again. I’m frozen, and make my third mistake of the hand by checking as well. I have to bet there if I’m going to proceed at all in this hand.

The river brings the , and both check again. Mesmerized by the pair on board, I somehow forget about the straight draws and make a horrible bet of 950 (about two-thirds the pot). Both LawChica and PokerPeaker call, and both show 10-9-x-x to split the booty.

Just terrible, that bluff. Bet just the right amount to solicit the calls. But so it goes. I pick up A-A-x-x single-suited soon after and push, and double up a just-arrived Fuel55. Left with less than 500, I push again with K-Q-J-7. This time LawChica has the aces, and when an ace flops I’m out the door in 16th.

Thanks again to RakeBrain for the invite! Would’ve liked to have had that one hand back, but to be honest I think my chances were less than favorable getting to the top four paying spots anyhow.

Unless, of course, as the Commonwealth of Kentucky insists, “Chance, though not the only element of a game of poker, is the element which defines its essence.” If that were true, well then, we all could win!

Going to California

Am headed to San Fran this morning for a week’s worth of R & R. Might well find my way to a cardroom while I’m there -- am not sure at this point. If so, I’ll surely report back what happens to transpire. I have never played a hand of poker in California before (not in a casino, anyway). So am definitely curious to get out there and see what’s what.

Have had a not-so-hot little stretch of online play here for the last few days, mostly at the PLO tables. And while I can’t say for certain, it seems like things should be going better.

Jeff Hwang makes a smart observation at the very beginning of his Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy. “Pot-Limit Omaha is not a 50-50 game,” writes Hwang. He explains that while those “coin flip” situations do come up fairly often (e.g., a flopped set vs. a big wrap+flush draw), “it is a pure fallacy that you have to be in a gambling situation when the money goes in.”

He’s absolutely correct. There are numerous scenarios whereby one can get one’s opponents all-in drawing dead or nearly dead, if one is savvy enough to recognize those spots and take advantage of them.

Even so, been feeling as though I have endured more than my fair share of suckouts here lately where I have my opponent at a severe disadvantage and he or she gets there by the end. Seems like everyone gunning for that flush draw (and nothing else) keeps hitting after I get ‘em all in on the turn with my big set. Those are usually 85-to-15 type situations. Then, of course, there are the cases where I have a smaller edge, or it really is a coin flip, and I don’t seem be winning enough of those to make up for the other losses.

Then there are the hands I just simply screw up – mistimed bluffs, stubborn big calls with no redraws, etc. Ended up scampering back over to limit Hold ‘em just to clear my head a bit.

Probably a good time to get away, frankly. The online poker world is such a headachy mess, and I ain’t even referrin’ to them crummy beats. For more on that, go check out Frank Frisina’s latest over at Life’s a Bluff. Frank is discussing Ultimate Bet’s admission to a cheating “scheme” occurring on its site and how little coverage it has received.

In his post Frank invites readers to Google “Ultimate Bet cheating” and see what they find. Let me invite you to do the same. On that first page, sort through the old stuff -- and a couple of links pointing you back here to Hard-Boiled -- and you’ll find an interesting post from last week that appeared on Richard Marcus’ site suggesting the UB scandal might be a lot bigger than even the site has let on. (Marcus is the author of Dirty Poker.) Take a gander at that list of problems going on over at UB . . . just horrific.

Meanwhile, do stay tuned over at Life’s a Bluff for the interview with John Pappas, Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance coming forth later this week, which I think should prove interesting as well.

Not sure at the moment what sort of access to the intertubes I’ll be enjoying while I am in San Fran, so my streak of posting at least once per weekday may well be in danger. So I’ll talk to you next either from California or after I return . . . .