Nutflush vs. Straightflush, can I fold here ever? $25PLO

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of low-stakes players would be prime candidates to consider folding against because they're so passive and predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if we're still talking about the ace high vs straight flush thing. But some low stakes players play King high or really any flush as if it were the nuts. So if your PLO$25 opponent shows any proclivity for not really understanding the game very well, you might as well raise with Ace high flush if a str8 flush is possible. And I don't hesitate for a second just calling with a king or queen high flush...that's a definite money maker at this level against that type of player.

Also, the naked ace bluff thing, never try that at this level or in any PLO tourney.

[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
i d never be able to fold this in my life since i m just too bad . think i m learning nevertheless. first time i ran into a str8 flush, i had flopped quads so the loss of a full buy-in was sort of mandatory [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. some days later i flopped the nut flush, bet it all the way down to find myself raised on the river. and i - JUST CALLED with no reads on that player at all. hard to describe how good not going broke on that sort of cold deck felt. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I rivered quad Ks once on a Ks Qd 9d 2c Kd board. I made a mini raise on a pot bet.... my face went blank when I got reraised all in. I paid the guy off.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the naked ace bluff thing, never try that at this level or in any PLO tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this so much (at least for PLO25, I basically agree in tourneys, mostly because of the short-stack problem).

The problem at PLO 25 is that if they call your first barrel, there is a very high chance that they will call you down. First barrel works well enough though. Also, it works better when you lead. Without some knowledge about your villain a raise probably isn't worth the price you're paying (betting 4 to win 2 rather than 1 to win 1) because quite often if they're willing to lead then they're willing to call you down, especially on the river.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't have to *always* be against the nut to make folding right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but unless he always has the nut folding isnt always the right thing to do

[/ QUOTE ]

What? If my opponent is 90% likely to have the stones, then folding for a pot-sized bet on the river is the right thing to do, every single time.

[Neuman101]

at 25 plo it would be insane, i see some of the garbage pushing in 2-4 and can only imagine what its like at .10-.25

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this so much (at least for PLO25, I basically agree in tourneys, mostly because of the short-stack problem).

The problem at PLO 25 is that if they call your first barrel, there is a very high chance that they will call you down. First barrel works well enough though. Also, it works better when you lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is going to be impossible for us to know how often you rep a naked ace and the person folds a made king flush vs lesser made flushes and vs times when they have no flush at all. So it's pretty much pointless (I think) to discuss it in this way.

What I do know is that when I used to push naked aces all the way, I got called a lot. And it seems that a 1st raise with naked ace gets reraised a lot.

I also know that, in my mind at least, I make more money with King high flushes* pushed all in vs naked ace more than I pay off a full ace high flush. I don't know PT well enough to calculate this though, if someone pointed me in the right direction I'd be more than happy.

*I think any game where people will play any flush hard, the naked ace flush value decreases.

[Boredom]

All,

Thanks for responses thus far.

To those saying this is an easy call versus an unknown at smaller limits, at what point of "known-ness" does it become perhaps debateable? If, for instance, I've seen villain on one occasion just call down (instead of raising) with the second nut boat, does this shift things enough to consider a fold? What if I've frequently seen villain play pots for pot-control with less than the nuts, and never suspected him of bluffing? FWIW, these types of players seem way more common at $25PLO on the site I play at, rather than the loose, 9-high-flush-felting type some of you seem to see. Most of the players I'm seeing here are totally passive with all but the nuts, and are missing value left and right because of it. I would say my profit comes mainly from hammering them in the same spots where they let me off cheap, but that's for another thread.

*Edit* Also, these types of players are PRIME targets for the naked A bluff. Just have to hope the spades they have aren't giving them an oesfd on top of the weak flush lol. As long as that's the case, they fold QUICK (often showing).

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is going to be impossible for us to know how often you rep a naked ace and the person folds a made king flush vs lesser made flushes and vs times when they have no flush at all. So it's pretty much pointless (I think) to discuss it in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting the K flush or other good flushes to fold isn't the only point of betting the naked A. Odds are that someone in say a 4 way pot will usually have you beat in some other way. If they fold to you more than half the time to a pot bet, that's enough to justify it.

[ QUOTE ]
What I do know is that when I used to push naked aces all the way, I got called a lot. And it seems that a 1st raise with naked ace gets reraised a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it depends on other factors too, but I get called way less than half the time at these stakes (at least under the circumstances when I choose to use this play). The re-raise is pretty rare in my experience. I will admit, by the way, that this bluff works best at these stakes when you were not a pre-flop raiser.

The "all the way" issue is part of the problem, thus my relative unwillingness to fire second barrel against unknowns.

[Jamma]

How can you be 90% sure he has a straightflush? At $25PLO i'd say its more likely he has a lower flush than a straightflush.. Besides, it was the turn, he could easily have a lower flush with a set or two pair.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you be 90% sure he has a straightflush? At $25PLO i'd say its more likely he has a lower flush than a straightflush.. Besides, it was the turn, he could easily have a lower flush with a set or two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't give any opinion about this hand.