I've had a really good week this last week and this has been due in large parts to sitting in really good games.
I noticed earlier in the week that some bad players from the $200 game were playing in the $600 game and there was even one sitting in the $1000 game with about $800. These looked like games to sit in and take a shot. Also, I spotted a player who was a total maniac at NLHE and he looked like he thought he could profitably play any 4 cards.
Things worked out nicely early on, which was good because I had only earmarked a small proportion of the bankroll to this foray. I concentrated on playing a single table of $1000 PLO and managed to win over a buy-in without doing anything startling. Basically the bad players just gave their money away in bits and bobs. Later I won a bit more playing the $600 game and had a decent session last night in the $400 game.
I actually enjoyed going back to one table and this is something I may try and stick to for a while if I am to play above the $200 game. I think for the long-run goal of becoming a decent PLO player it is essential that I give myself more time to think about how to play my situations as well as being able to spend a bit more time analysing the bad players in the game. This is currently not possible for me when playing 2-4 tables. Its not like I am enough of a PLO expert to be able to play by rote!
I also had a dabble short-stacking the $2000 game with a $400 buy-in, as there was an empty seat to the right of the two most aggressive players in the game. After a lot of folding I was able to get my money in nicely, winning a low-risk $200 or so in less than an hour. These games don't get started very often but there is definitely a possibility that I will try this again.
The good result this week means that the Disney target has been achieved, although I must be careful, as the value of investments may go down as well as up. Its not in the bag until its actually in the bag.
We go on holiday for 15 days on Friday so there's only a few more days left in the month for me as far as poker is concerned. Another couple of nice results would pad the bankroll to give me a nice cushion on my return from the sun.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Friday, 8 February 2008
PLO - big draw v the current nuts
A hand came up last night that got me thinking about PLO in a bit more depth.
I had AsJh10d7s and opened for 18 in the $600 game. The button (on the tight/passive side) and the big blind (decent) called me, so we took the flop 3-handed with 57 in the pot.
The flop was Jd10s8s, giving me top two pairs plus the nut flush-draw. I bet 54 and got raised to 217 by the button. After the BB folded, it was back to me and with the money in the pot already I had too much to fold. The decision was re-raise all-in or just call and re-evaluate on the turn.
My thinking at the time was as follows:
He must have the nut straight (Q9), but probably not a total monster like QJJ9. Hopefully he doesn’t have any spades (reducing my flush chances). I probably have enough outs to correctly call the rest (365) to see the river even if I miss on the turn. If I hit one of my outs I can give him the chance to put the rest of his money in when in pretty bad shape.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking:
If I hit my hand on the turn it will be obvious and he is unlikely to pay me off.
I am unlikely to be drawing dead on the turn, so waiting for a ‘safe card’ here is silly.
Assuming I don’t make my hand on the turn, I am opting to put a large chunk of my money in at approx 25-30% equity when I could have just lumped it in on the flop at 45-50% [2].
I should have just re-raised all-in on the flop and took the toss-up. (I actually had 48% equity against his hand).
This lead me to the following conclusion about how to play a big draw against the current nuts:
Against the nut straight: the flush-draw + full-house draw should get all-in on the flop [2]
Against top set: straight draws + flush draw should keep some money back in case the board pairs on the turn. If the drawing hand hits on the turn, it will be tough for the top set to fold. If a non-pairing blank comes, it is still likely to be correct to call a PSB on the turn [3].
[1] unless he had something as nasty as Qs9sThTc, then I would really be in trouble with only 28% equity on the flop
[2] unless the money is really deep
[3] this is very different thinking to that required to play NLHE
I had AsJh10d7s and opened for 18 in the $600 game. The button (on the tight/passive side) and the big blind (decent) called me, so we took the flop 3-handed with 57 in the pot.
The flop was Jd10s8s, giving me top two pairs plus the nut flush-draw. I bet 54 and got raised to 217 by the button. After the BB folded, it was back to me and with the money in the pot already I had too much to fold. The decision was re-raise all-in or just call and re-evaluate on the turn.
My thinking at the time was as follows:
He must have the nut straight (Q9), but probably not a total monster like QJJ9. Hopefully he doesn’t have any spades (reducing my flush chances). I probably have enough outs to correctly call the rest (365) to see the river even if I miss on the turn. If I hit one of my outs I can give him the chance to put the rest of his money in when in pretty bad shape.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking:
If I hit my hand on the turn it will be obvious and he is unlikely to pay me off.
I am unlikely to be drawing dead on the turn, so waiting for a ‘safe card’ here is silly.
Assuming I don’t make my hand on the turn, I am opting to put a large chunk of my money in at approx 25-30% equity when I could have just lumped it in on the flop at 45-50% [2].
I should have just re-raised all-in on the flop and took the toss-up. (I actually had 48% equity against his hand).
This lead me to the following conclusion about how to play a big draw against the current nuts:
Against the nut straight: the flush-draw + full-house draw should get all-in on the flop [2]
Against top set: straight draws + flush draw should keep some money back in case the board pairs on the turn. If the drawing hand hits on the turn, it will be tough for the top set to fold. If a non-pairing blank comes, it is still likely to be correct to call a PSB on the turn [3].
[1] unless he had something as nasty as Qs9sThTc, then I would really be in trouble with only 28% equity on the flop
[2] unless the money is really deep
[3] this is very different thinking to that required to play NLHE
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Solid but unspectacular start to 2008
I’ve decided to reinstate the monthly results updates from now. The main reason for this is that I want to have some degree of accountability, which was the main reason I started this blog in the first place. So, January 08 is in the bag and after approx 68 hours play I managed a win of $3445. Not a fantastic result but steady enough I guess. After a bad month in December it was nice to get back to winning ways.
I’m struggling with the Disney target ($6000 in the first 6 weeks of the year) but this is as much to do with volume as quality of play. I would like to achieve the target but I mustn’t let it rule my thought processes when playing.
Going forward it would be nice to improve the hourly rate above the $70 per hour I have made so far at $200 PLO, although I guess $100 per hour is probably the maximum achievable playing 2-4 tables.
At the moment I have only a laptop screen (max res 1280 x 800) and am unable to play without quite a lot of table overlap. I suspect that this is not helping the bottom line. I could do with a more professional set-up but then my evening sessions would feel much more like working than playing. I really ought to consider getting a decent monitor that will allow me to fit 4 tables with no overlap.
I’m struggling with the Disney target ($6000 in the first 6 weeks of the year) but this is as much to do with volume as quality of play. I would like to achieve the target but I mustn’t let it rule my thought processes when playing.
Going forward it would be nice to improve the hourly rate above the $70 per hour I have made so far at $200 PLO, although I guess $100 per hour is probably the maximum achievable playing 2-4 tables.
At the moment I have only a laptop screen (max res 1280 x 800) and am unable to play without quite a lot of table overlap. I suspect that this is not helping the bottom line. I could do with a more professional set-up but then my evening sessions would feel much more like working than playing. I really ought to consider getting a decent monitor that will allow me to fit 4 tables with no overlap.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Variance in PLO
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
