I’ve constantly read that there’s a lot of variance in PLO. I have only recently started tracking my results (using Poker Tracker and my own Luck Calculator) and had found that my luck-adjusted results were fairly steady. This is good news, as obviously it shows that overall I have been getting the money in when in good shape.
Luck-wise, I had been on a steady upwards curve, to the point where at one point in the $200 game I had been lucky to the tune of over $2,000 - 10 buy-ins! This came down a bit but the last two days – only 730 hands – I have seen this continue a further $1,450 down. The good news is that for the two days my luck-adjusted result is a profit of $30.
I note from my records that I have played 252 big [1] pots in the $200 PLO game in a period of 8,451 hands. This works out at one big pot every 34 hands. Compare this with 385 out of 20,267 hands in the $1000 NLHE game – just one every 53 hands.
So what does this tell me? Good question. Well, it looks like there are more big pots in PLO than NLHE. Maybe that’s why they call it the action game. Apart from that, there are no solid conclusions that can be drawn without looking a bit deeper.
My edge so far in PLO is 14% whereas it was only 6% in NLHE, so it’s a bit like comparing apples with oranges. The higher edge in PLO should indicate that the long-run is reached in a much shorter time frame than in NLHE. This is good news.
However, anecdotally, many more pots in PLO are 55/45 or 60/40 than in NLHE. This would indicate that in a short time frame, it’s possible to have a really big swing up or down by winning or losing a high proportion of these coin-flips. I guess this is what’s happened to me these last two days.
The good news is PLO involves a lot less guesswork than NLHE and I believe the pot-limit structure adds to the skill element too. This enables me to play 2-3 tables at once whereas I was unable to maintain a winning style playing more than one table at NLHE.
All in all, it looks like the PLO $200 game can be as profitable for me as the $1000 NLHE game. This is great news, as the bankroll requirements are probably at least 50% lower. The bottom line is: although PLO has huge short-term variance, because a winning player can gain a bigger advantage the long-term is reached much quicker and so variance becomes irrelevant. This assumes that you have the bankroll to cover the short-terms swings and you can remain unaffected by bad luck, continuing to play the same solid game whether the chips make it your way or not.
[1] defined as total value $80 or more.
Wednesday 30 January 2008
Monday 28 January 2008
Focus on $200 PLO
I’ve spent a bit of time playing PLO8 at ($200 and $400 buy-ins) and PLO (at both levels too) in the last couple of weeks. If I am honest with myself I have not performed well at PLO8 (both levels) or PLO $400. In PLO8 it’s generally down to a lack of experience in the game: I simply haven’t worked out a winning strategy yet. In PLO $400 I have been too aggressive in the pots I have played and have got my money in from way behind too many times.
On Monday I decided that I must stick to PLO $200 for the foreseeable future. This is for the simple reasons that I have until now performed well in these games and my bankroll of $12k is simply not enough to play the $400 buy-in game, where I am not even sure that I am a long-term winner.
I had a steady but unspectacular week, managing to play over 17 hours. Although I made plenty of mistakes, there were still plenty of players playing a lot worse than I do.
One thing I discovered this week when analysing past hands is the huge impact having a ‘live’ flush draw has on the value of a drawing hand.
Example
I had QT93 (suited in diamonds) against KK44 (no diamonds) on a flop of KJ7 (2 diamonds). According to simulations my hand wins 55% of the time, even against top set!
However, give the opponent a higher flush draw and my hand become a big (30:70) dog.
Even if we just remove the flush draw from the equation, the drawing hand becomes a 46% shot.
This seems to point out that we should be careful when playing these types of hands. However, in this situation it is often easy to pinpoint the opponent’s range of possible holding down to AAxx or KKxx. If this had been AA44 with no diamonds my hand would have been a huge 71% favourite. Really, this highlights that when you have position and your opponent gives away his hand, it really is a good move to call and see the flop against ‘obvious Aces’ with a decent drawing hand, as the above scenarios do not include situations where we flop a monster. Once again, it shows how bad it is to give away your hand, unless of course you can get most of your stack in pre-flop.
This week the plan is to play as much PLO as possible at $200 buy-in. Hopefully the ‘Disney Target’ will be achieved before the deadline of February 14th.
On Monday I decided that I must stick to PLO $200 for the foreseeable future. This is for the simple reasons that I have until now performed well in these games and my bankroll of $12k is simply not enough to play the $400 buy-in game, where I am not even sure that I am a long-term winner.
I had a steady but unspectacular week, managing to play over 17 hours. Although I made plenty of mistakes, there were still plenty of players playing a lot worse than I do.
One thing I discovered this week when analysing past hands is the huge impact having a ‘live’ flush draw has on the value of a drawing hand.
Example
I had QT93 (suited in diamonds) against KK44 (no diamonds) on a flop of KJ7 (2 diamonds). According to simulations my hand wins 55% of the time, even against top set!
However, give the opponent a higher flush draw and my hand become a big (30:70) dog.
Even if we just remove the flush draw from the equation, the drawing hand becomes a 46% shot.
This seems to point out that we should be careful when playing these types of hands. However, in this situation it is often easy to pinpoint the opponent’s range of possible holding down to AAxx or KKxx. If this had been AA44 with no diamonds my hand would have been a huge 71% favourite. Really, this highlights that when you have position and your opponent gives away his hand, it really is a good move to call and see the flop against ‘obvious Aces’ with a decent drawing hand, as the above scenarios do not include situations where we flop a monster. Once again, it shows how bad it is to give away your hand, unless of course you can get most of your stack in pre-flop.
This week the plan is to play as much PLO as possible at $200 buy-in. Hopefully the ‘Disney Target’ will be achieved before the deadline of February 14th.
Monday 21 January 2008
Learning slowly
More PLO and a little PLO8 this week, with some interesting results.
On the whole I played better than the opposition except for a brief session of $400 PLO and a brief session of PLO8 at the same stakes.
My PLO game is improving and I am feeling more confident in my hand-reading abilities. Unfortunately, this hasn’t yet manifested itself in terms of better results as I have made some poor people-reading decisions. There are two sides to this big-bet poker coin and I have maybe concentrated on one to the detriment of the other.
At PLO $400, the players are generally more aggressive than at $200, as you would expect. Also, they are more likely to be playing your hand than their own. Obviously this only applies to the better players and its going to be an important requirement going forward to work out which players are playing at which level. Despite this general step-up in the quality of the better players, there are still some total donkeys who play 80-90% of hands and play them badly. This fact alone allows for a great deal of value in the games.
I played against one guy who raised approximately 25% of his hands, calling with perhaps another 60% of them. Strangely, he failed to put in a third raise with a decent AAxx holding, despite being offered the chance to get 80% of his stack in pre-flop. He chose to wait for his opponent to out-flop him before getting the rest in.
My chance to stack him came soon after when a late position stealer raised his SB to $14, he re-raised to $22 and I re-popped it to $44 from the BB with the rather speculative 7544 suited in spades and diamonds. As desired, the initial raiser folded and I was delighted to see the J43 flop containing two diamonds. He bet out on the flop and we got $350 each in with me as an 84% favourite.
Things didn’t always work out this nicely, however. I lost two big pots bluffing, although I do think that they were plausible bluffs, despite both being called by the same player.
Big bluff no.1
A loose player UTG raised to $14 and there were 3 callers before me. I decided to represent AA and re-raised to $44. Everybody behind me folded but the initial raiser called as did the other three cold-callers. The flop was AT2 with two spades and when checked to I wanted to again represent AA and bet $180 into the $230 pot. The initial raiser got a bit stubborn here, in my opinion, and decided that his AKQ3 (no spades) was good here and raised all-in. After everybody else folded I was obliged to call the extra $187 hoping to hit some kind of runner-runner which never came.
Big bluff no.2
About 30 minutes later, after some solid play, I got involved with the same player again. I had built my stack up to $660 since the last bluff and he had me covered. He once again raised in early position to $14 and I re-raised to $32 with Ad6dJsTc. I fired at the flop of 933 (two hearts) and fired again $147 on the 7c turn (making two clubs). The river was the King of clubs and he once again checked to me, so I bet my last $440 which he reluctantly called with a Jack-high flush.
If I had managed to check behind on the river I could have been happy with how I played this hand. I suppose it’s a bit much to ask the guy to fold after hitting his hand, after having called all this money drawing to flushes on a paired board. This is what I meant by reading the player’s hand well, but not necessarily the player’s intentions.
PLO8
I played some more PLO8 this week. I did really well at $200 but got creamed at $400, although I was desperately unlucky here, which actually affected how I played. I am a lot less sure in my hand-reading at this game and as a result I need to make sure I stick to $200 and below for the time being. I’m not good enough at the moment to beat anybody decent at the game, simply because my lack of hand-reading makes me unsure of how to play decent non-nut hands. I need to understand when they are winning and when they are behind. At $200 and below it should still be a profitable game for me as there are some shocking players out there just taking a shot with no clue how to play.
At current win-rates I need another 72 hours or so to achieve the Disney target (see previous posts). Or, as succinctly put by my wife, “you just need to start winning more.”
On the whole I played better than the opposition except for a brief session of $400 PLO and a brief session of PLO8 at the same stakes.
My PLO game is improving and I am feeling more confident in my hand-reading abilities. Unfortunately, this hasn’t yet manifested itself in terms of better results as I have made some poor people-reading decisions. There are two sides to this big-bet poker coin and I have maybe concentrated on one to the detriment of the other.
At PLO $400, the players are generally more aggressive than at $200, as you would expect. Also, they are more likely to be playing your hand than their own. Obviously this only applies to the better players and its going to be an important requirement going forward to work out which players are playing at which level. Despite this general step-up in the quality of the better players, there are still some total donkeys who play 80-90% of hands and play them badly. This fact alone allows for a great deal of value in the games.
I played against one guy who raised approximately 25% of his hands, calling with perhaps another 60% of them. Strangely, he failed to put in a third raise with a decent AAxx holding, despite being offered the chance to get 80% of his stack in pre-flop. He chose to wait for his opponent to out-flop him before getting the rest in.
My chance to stack him came soon after when a late position stealer raised his SB to $14, he re-raised to $22 and I re-popped it to $44 from the BB with the rather speculative 7544 suited in spades and diamonds. As desired, the initial raiser folded and I was delighted to see the J43 flop containing two diamonds. He bet out on the flop and we got $350 each in with me as an 84% favourite.
Things didn’t always work out this nicely, however. I lost two big pots bluffing, although I do think that they were plausible bluffs, despite both being called by the same player.
Big bluff no.1
A loose player UTG raised to $14 and there were 3 callers before me. I decided to represent AA and re-raised to $44. Everybody behind me folded but the initial raiser called as did the other three cold-callers. The flop was AT2 with two spades and when checked to I wanted to again represent AA and bet $180 into the $230 pot. The initial raiser got a bit stubborn here, in my opinion, and decided that his AKQ3 (no spades) was good here and raised all-in. After everybody else folded I was obliged to call the extra $187 hoping to hit some kind of runner-runner which never came.
Big bluff no.2
About 30 minutes later, after some solid play, I got involved with the same player again. I had built my stack up to $660 since the last bluff and he had me covered. He once again raised in early position to $14 and I re-raised to $32 with Ad6dJsTc. I fired at the flop of 933 (two hearts) and fired again $147 on the 7c turn (making two clubs). The river was the King of clubs and he once again checked to me, so I bet my last $440 which he reluctantly called with a Jack-high flush.
If I had managed to check behind on the river I could have been happy with how I played this hand. I suppose it’s a bit much to ask the guy to fold after hitting his hand, after having called all this money drawing to flushes on a paired board. This is what I meant by reading the player’s hand well, but not necessarily the player’s intentions.
PLO8
I played some more PLO8 this week. I did really well at $200 but got creamed at $400, although I was desperately unlucky here, which actually affected how I played. I am a lot less sure in my hand-reading at this game and as a result I need to make sure I stick to $200 and below for the time being. I’m not good enough at the moment to beat anybody decent at the game, simply because my lack of hand-reading makes me unsure of how to play decent non-nut hands. I need to understand when they are winning and when they are behind. At $200 and below it should still be a profitable game for me as there are some shocking players out there just taking a shot with no clue how to play.
At current win-rates I need another 72 hours or so to achieve the Disney target (see previous posts). Or, as succinctly put by my wife, “you just need to start winning more.”
Monday 14 January 2008
More thoughts on PLO
I played exclusively PLO again this week, but only managed a disappointing total of 8.5 hours.
As previously discussed, I haven’t looked to see how I did for the week: short-term results are not important and being a slave to them can lead to the setting of conflicting goals. I can tell you that I played really well all week except for a brief spell during last night’s session were I got a little bit over-eager.
My cumulative win rate stands at $51.73, so I must have won at a higher rate than my final 2007 rate of $49.35.
My wife has set me a goal of winning $6,000 before we travel to Disneyworld in Orlando on February 15th. Things are progressing well on this, although I have again tried to shield myself from the results to avoid anxiety. All I know is that at my current rate I need to play another 75.7 hours to achieve target. (I will pretend for now that I can’t calculate that 75 x 50 = 3,750!!)
I have read Rolf Slotboom’s PLO book in the last week or two and I have to say that I found it very helpful.
Omaha is a funny game: as such there are really no bad beats, as the game is all about drawing to the best hand. Sometimes you have the best hand and the best draw, other times you have the worst hand but are a big favourite to have the best hand by the river. In Hold’ Em, the preferred way to play is ‘from the front’, i.e. having the best hand, you set the price for your opponent to chase.
I think the nature of PLO compared to NLHE makes it a much less tilt-inducing game. In Omaha, often a player will be a 3:2 shot on the flop and then a 2:1 shot on the turn. Obviously as the bettor, the worst odds you can offer your opponent is 2:1 so he is quite often correct in chasing once there is some ‘dead money’ in the pot. As the favourite in the pot, you need to accept that your edge comes as much as anything from getting yourself into more situations where you are 60:40 than 40:60, despite the fact that you will still lose plenty of them. I guess this mostly comes down to pre-flop hand selection.
In Omaha the hand values run closer together, especially pre-flop. However, the best hands are those that have nut potential, as they allow you to make a value bet that a non-nut hand can’t necessarily make. Hand-reading is also very important, as it allows you to determine what equity you have currently and how that is likely to change as the hand progresses. From that knowledge you can then determine the best way to play the hand. However, I am aware that I’m not really playing the players that much: I’m simply playing my own hand for the most part. In most hands I am only able to put my opponents on a very wide range of possible hands.
Because it’s Pot Limit, you have to be a bit cagier about how you bet. You can’t always price out drawing hands and the next card can often look horrendous to you unless you improve your hand, especially when out of position.
So far, I feel as though I am doing quite well. I need to tread carefully but I guess that if I am going to step up successfully to the $400 game eventually I will need to add a few things to my game: not least reading my opponents much more accurately than I am currently.
As previously discussed, I haven’t looked to see how I did for the week: short-term results are not important and being a slave to them can lead to the setting of conflicting goals. I can tell you that I played really well all week except for a brief spell during last night’s session were I got a little bit over-eager.
My cumulative win rate stands at $51.73, so I must have won at a higher rate than my final 2007 rate of $49.35.
My wife has set me a goal of winning $6,000 before we travel to Disneyworld in Orlando on February 15th. Things are progressing well on this, although I have again tried to shield myself from the results to avoid anxiety. All I know is that at my current rate I need to play another 75.7 hours to achieve target. (I will pretend for now that I can’t calculate that 75 x 50 = 3,750!!)
I have read Rolf Slotboom’s PLO book in the last week or two and I have to say that I found it very helpful.
Omaha is a funny game: as such there are really no bad beats, as the game is all about drawing to the best hand. Sometimes you have the best hand and the best draw, other times you have the worst hand but are a big favourite to have the best hand by the river. In Hold’ Em, the preferred way to play is ‘from the front’, i.e. having the best hand, you set the price for your opponent to chase.
I think the nature of PLO compared to NLHE makes it a much less tilt-inducing game. In Omaha, often a player will be a 3:2 shot on the flop and then a 2:1 shot on the turn. Obviously as the bettor, the worst odds you can offer your opponent is 2:1 so he is quite often correct in chasing once there is some ‘dead money’ in the pot. As the favourite in the pot, you need to accept that your edge comes as much as anything from getting yourself into more situations where you are 60:40 than 40:60, despite the fact that you will still lose plenty of them. I guess this mostly comes down to pre-flop hand selection.
In Omaha the hand values run closer together, especially pre-flop. However, the best hands are those that have nut potential, as they allow you to make a value bet that a non-nut hand can’t necessarily make. Hand-reading is also very important, as it allows you to determine what equity you have currently and how that is likely to change as the hand progresses. From that knowledge you can then determine the best way to play the hand. However, I am aware that I’m not really playing the players that much: I’m simply playing my own hand for the most part. In most hands I am only able to put my opponents on a very wide range of possible hands.
Because it’s Pot Limit, you have to be a bit cagier about how you bet. You can’t always price out drawing hands and the next card can often look horrendous to you unless you improve your hand, especially when out of position.
So far, I feel as though I am doing quite well. I need to tread carefully but I guess that if I am going to step up successfully to the $400 game eventually I will need to add a few things to my game: not least reading my opponents much more accurately than I am currently.
Tuesday 8 January 2008
I've actually won more than I realised...
The PLO has been going great since I made the switch down to $200 max. I have managed to play a decent game on 3 and sometimes 4 tables, although probably 2-3 is best.
When reviewing my results I made an interesting discovery. Well, it interested me anyway, but I like numbers and theories about them. For those who have little interest in this, it’s been nice having you along. Maybe you should spend your spare time reading something decent: maybe a political autobiography or a thrusting novel full of espionage and intrigue.
Anyway, here goes. It’s to do with the calculation of EV in pots that make it to showdown. Here are some assumptions that I have made previously when determining how to estimate my EV (in both showdown pots and otherwise):
Non-showdown wins and losses are ‘pure.’
If you manage to win a pot without showing your cards, the EV is simply your net return. If you lose, your EV is negative to the value of the amount you put into the pot. To this end, the over-riding factor in determining your EV is the result. The number of players seeing the flop, turn or river is irrelevant because your ‘pure wins’ come as a direct result of your actions (betting, raising, check-raising). Your ‘pure losses’ come as a result of folding after having invested money in the pot.
Show-down wins and losses are ‘partial’
They are calculated based on pot equity at the point of betting. For instance, if my AA beats my opponents KK and all the money goes in pre-flop (in NLHE) then my equity is 81% of the pot. If all the money goes in on the turn, my pot equity is 90%
Pot equity
I had calculated pot equity as MB x %W
(where MB = the total money bet on a specific betting round, and %W is the chance that the hand will win by showdown).
On the face of it this seems OK. However, something I never even considered as an option was this: between how many ways do we split the equity on any given betting round? Do we split it between all players who put money in on that betting round? Just those who see the next card? Or just those who see the showdown?
I had been splitting the equity between all players seeing the next card, but this is wrong. When a player folds, either on the current betting round, or on a future betting round, they forfeit their equity in the pot. Therefore, it makes no sense to do anything except allocate pot equity between only those players making it to showdown. I had been calculating equity split amongst all players seeing the next betting round.
In heads-up pots, as most are in NLHE, this makes no difference at all. But in multi-way pots, as many more are in PLO, this understates EV of players making the showdown quite significantly.
Effectively, by betting or raising on the flop, we can thin the field and improve our equity in the pre-flop pot. Obviously, this could mean that we are putting money in at –EV on the flop, but that it a separate matter. If 3 players see the flop but only 2 players go to showdown, it means that the pre-flop pot is ‘owned by’ the 2 players going to showdown.
Conclusion
I realised that I had been under-stating my EV in many pots and have since gone back and re-calculated for all hands in my database.
My 2007 profit figure of $39.65 is now actually $49.35 – a huge increase that has made me feel really good about my play. Obviously, no more money has changed hands but I now realise that I haven’t been as lucky in 2007 as I first calculated. More of my bankroll increase was caused by +EV play than previously thought.
2008
The start to 2008 has been great too, and I have increased my cumulative win-rate to $51.57 thanks to a $100.00 per hour win-rate at PLO $200max (playing on average 2.31 tables)
When reviewing my results I made an interesting discovery. Well, it interested me anyway, but I like numbers and theories about them. For those who have little interest in this, it’s been nice having you along. Maybe you should spend your spare time reading something decent: maybe a political autobiography or a thrusting novel full of espionage and intrigue.
Anyway, here goes. It’s to do with the calculation of EV in pots that make it to showdown. Here are some assumptions that I have made previously when determining how to estimate my EV (in both showdown pots and otherwise):
Non-showdown wins and losses are ‘pure.’
If you manage to win a pot without showing your cards, the EV is simply your net return. If you lose, your EV is negative to the value of the amount you put into the pot. To this end, the over-riding factor in determining your EV is the result. The number of players seeing the flop, turn or river is irrelevant because your ‘pure wins’ come as a direct result of your actions (betting, raising, check-raising). Your ‘pure losses’ come as a result of folding after having invested money in the pot.
Show-down wins and losses are ‘partial’
They are calculated based on pot equity at the point of betting. For instance, if my AA beats my opponents KK and all the money goes in pre-flop (in NLHE) then my equity is 81% of the pot. If all the money goes in on the turn, my pot equity is 90%
Pot equity
I had calculated pot equity as MB x %W
(where MB = the total money bet on a specific betting round, and %W is the chance that the hand will win by showdown).
On the face of it this seems OK. However, something I never even considered as an option was this: between how many ways do we split the equity on any given betting round? Do we split it between all players who put money in on that betting round? Just those who see the next card? Or just those who see the showdown?
I had been splitting the equity between all players seeing the next card, but this is wrong. When a player folds, either on the current betting round, or on a future betting round, they forfeit their equity in the pot. Therefore, it makes no sense to do anything except allocate pot equity between only those players making it to showdown. I had been calculating equity split amongst all players seeing the next betting round.
In heads-up pots, as most are in NLHE, this makes no difference at all. But in multi-way pots, as many more are in PLO, this understates EV of players making the showdown quite significantly.
Effectively, by betting or raising on the flop, we can thin the field and improve our equity in the pre-flop pot. Obviously, this could mean that we are putting money in at –EV on the flop, but that it a separate matter. If 3 players see the flop but only 2 players go to showdown, it means that the pre-flop pot is ‘owned by’ the 2 players going to showdown.
Conclusion
I realised that I had been under-stating my EV in many pots and have since gone back and re-calculated for all hands in my database.
My 2007 profit figure of $39.65 is now actually $49.35 – a huge increase that has made me feel really good about my play. Obviously, no more money has changed hands but I now realise that I haven’t been as lucky in 2007 as I first calculated. More of my bankroll increase was caused by +EV play than previously thought.
2008
The start to 2008 has been great too, and I have increased my cumulative win-rate to $51.57 thanks to a $100.00 per hour win-rate at PLO $200max (playing on average 2.31 tables)
Wednesday 2 January 2008
Pot Limit Omaha
Following a bad few weeks in December I decided I needed a break from poker. Unfortunately, I also needed money to pay for Christmas and a holiday in February that we have booked, so I decided that I would try some other games instead.
I have played Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) before, both live and online, both for high hand only and hi-lo split (PLO8) and I have a reasonable understanding of the games. So I jumped in at $2-$4 and after a good start at both games had a couple of bad sessions at PLO. I quickly realised that the players at this level were better Omaha players than me and that if I was going to persist with a change of scenery it would have to be at lower stakes. Also, the player pool at PLO8 was very small indeed and I suspected that I was way over-matched in this game.
At $1-$2 the players are a lot worse and I have able to multi-table quite comfortably for a number of reasons. First, there is a bit less guesswork involved in Omaha than Hold-Em. Your own hand is more important to your decisions than it is in Hold-Em: you either have a good draw or you don’t. Secondly, as the game is Pot Limit and there are often multiple draws available, there is a lot less trapping than in NLHE and generally if a scare card comes and your opponent checks it is often very likely that they will fold to your bet.
I have been tracking the big pots again and am quickly getting better at estimating my EV in pots. So far, at $1-$2, I have got my money in quite well although it’s too early to draw too many conclusions just yet.
It’s quite tough to approach a different game, one where my level of experience is way below the game I have been playing. It forces you to get back to thinking about the mechanics of the game. I have been re-reading some chapters from The Theory Of Poker. This book will never be out of date, and is always useful as a reminder of what you should be thinking about whilst playing.
Omaha is quite different to HE in that it’s quite tough to be a massive favourite over another hand, particularly pre-flop and on the flop. However, the river is the betting round where you have either 100% or 0% equity, and this is probably the most important betting round in PLO. I guess the aim in this game is to be strong by the river and be called by a worse hand, or be able to pinpoint an opponents hand and force him to fold when he has you beat but doesn’t have enough of a hand to call a big bet.
Also, as people seem to gamble more in PLO than NLHE, the stacks are often way more than 200 big blinds and this reduces the importance of pre-flop and flop play. It becomes very wrong to try to protect a weak made hand that has little chance of improving by the river.
The pots are almost twice as big at PLO compared with NLHE with the same blinds and this probably means that it’s possible to play tight pre-flop and gain a significant edge over the looser players when you hit your hand on the flop.
So far at PLO $1-$2 my win-rate is $64 per hour ($28.57/table/hr). This is great but obviously based on a very small sample size so I won’t start to get excited about it just yet. My overall win-rate per hour has dropped down after a poor run in December to $39.65. This is much lower than it was in mid-November but it’s actually way above the $25 I budgeted when I started this blog in May.
If there are any PLO experts out there reading this I would be very interested to hear your comments on my thoughts so far. There is very little detailed PLO literature out there and I would appreciate any help to improve my game as fast as possible. I'm sure there is much money to be made here.
I have played Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) before, both live and online, both for high hand only and hi-lo split (PLO8) and I have a reasonable understanding of the games. So I jumped in at $2-$4 and after a good start at both games had a couple of bad sessions at PLO. I quickly realised that the players at this level were better Omaha players than me and that if I was going to persist with a change of scenery it would have to be at lower stakes. Also, the player pool at PLO8 was very small indeed and I suspected that I was way over-matched in this game.
At $1-$2 the players are a lot worse and I have able to multi-table quite comfortably for a number of reasons. First, there is a bit less guesswork involved in Omaha than Hold-Em. Your own hand is more important to your decisions than it is in Hold-Em: you either have a good draw or you don’t. Secondly, as the game is Pot Limit and there are often multiple draws available, there is a lot less trapping than in NLHE and generally if a scare card comes and your opponent checks it is often very likely that they will fold to your bet.
I have been tracking the big pots again and am quickly getting better at estimating my EV in pots. So far, at $1-$2, I have got my money in quite well although it’s too early to draw too many conclusions just yet.
It’s quite tough to approach a different game, one where my level of experience is way below the game I have been playing. It forces you to get back to thinking about the mechanics of the game. I have been re-reading some chapters from The Theory Of Poker. This book will never be out of date, and is always useful as a reminder of what you should be thinking about whilst playing.
Omaha is quite different to HE in that it’s quite tough to be a massive favourite over another hand, particularly pre-flop and on the flop. However, the river is the betting round where you have either 100% or 0% equity, and this is probably the most important betting round in PLO. I guess the aim in this game is to be strong by the river and be called by a worse hand, or be able to pinpoint an opponents hand and force him to fold when he has you beat but doesn’t have enough of a hand to call a big bet.
Also, as people seem to gamble more in PLO than NLHE, the stacks are often way more than 200 big blinds and this reduces the importance of pre-flop and flop play. It becomes very wrong to try to protect a weak made hand that has little chance of improving by the river.
The pots are almost twice as big at PLO compared with NLHE with the same blinds and this probably means that it’s possible to play tight pre-flop and gain a significant edge over the looser players when you hit your hand on the flop.
So far at PLO $1-$2 my win-rate is $64 per hour ($28.57/table/hr). This is great but obviously based on a very small sample size so I won’t start to get excited about it just yet. My overall win-rate per hour has dropped down after a poor run in December to $39.65. This is much lower than it was in mid-November but it’s actually way above the $25 I budgeted when I started this blog in May.
If there are any PLO experts out there reading this I would be very interested to hear your comments on my thoughts so far. There is very little detailed PLO literature out there and I would appreciate any help to improve my game as fast as possible. I'm sure there is much money to be made here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
