How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

Villain has played very straight forwardly and has been running well to build his stack from a minimum buy-in of $10.

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $0.50 BB (6 handed) internettexasholdem.com

saw flop|

MP ($4.40)
CO ($14.45)
Button ($37.75)
<font color="#C00000">SB ($75.35)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($45.25)</font>
UTG ($44.45)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
UTG calls $0.50, MP calls $0.50, CO calls $0.50, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($2.50) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, MP checks, CO checks.

Turn: ($2.50) K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $1</font>, UTG folds, MP folds, CO folds, SB calls $1.

River: ($4.50) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $2</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises to $10.3</font>, Hero ... </font>

... goes in the tank ...

OK, I admit that this is a fairly rare situation, and it isn't at all deep so it's probably valid to argue that I shouldn't worry and just stack off because villain could be a complete donk.

But I find his check-raise on the river after being so passive 100% suspicious and I'm seriously considering folding.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

I don"t i would fold here cause you have a pretty good hand.
Maybe he has a lower full, a pocket pair.
I just call here.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm seriously considering folding.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOLZ - I guess if you're this nitty you could call instead of stack off against those quad 3's

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

I said considering. And it's not quad 3s I'm putting him on, or at least, I don't think that's his most likely hand.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

Hmm, well according to your description of villain being a passive player, i put his range on quad 5s, quad 3s, 53xx, 5Kxx, and 3Kxx - It looks like you're not really representing a big hand betting less than half the pot on the turn and river.(especially the river, which looks like a scared bet with 5Axx) Remember, since the board double paired, any full house is a BIG hand. Therefore, i put villain's range on all the afore mentioned possibilities, which makes this an easy push.

The only thing I dont like is how he just called on the turn, which makes this a little more trickier. Still, at PLO50, and stacks arent EXTREMELY deep, im not going to be a nit when I have an overfull on a double paired board.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

The fact that villian bet the full pot makes me think he probably does have a really big hand here. Quad 3s actually seems a little more likely to me here than 5555, but both are fairly likely. I don't think you can be confident enough that he doesn't have K5 or K3 to actually fold here, but I certainly wouldn't reraise. A call looks like the play.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

I don't mean to suggest been that he's particularily passive, just that he hasn't been at all laggy.

Normally I'd agree with you about the double-paired board but the sequence of action suggests one hand above all others here (to me anyway). If villain had been doing anything to suggest he had one of these hands before now, I'd push back without blinking.

I am really discounting the 53 and 5K as hands to wake up with a pot-check-raise now, but not before. 3K is a remote possability because I don't think it calls the turn very often. Also, these hands are more likely to lead the river, not check-raise. In the end, I didn't fold because the probability he might have these hands probably justified a call (plus, finding out what he actually had was worth a buck or so).

But all my experience in PLO points right to only one hand: quad fives. I admit my sample of these situations is small, but in the 5 or so times I've seen this kind of "total passive to total aggression on a dime" action villain has had flopped quads more often than not - which, if true here, makes pushing -EV.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

I agree with the last paragraph above. The check check check raise line has been nothing less than flopped top boat about 95% of the time I have seen it, and is quads most of those times.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

[ QUOTE ]

But all my experience in PLO points right to only one hand: quad fives. I admit my sample of these situations is small, but in the 5 or so times I've seen this kind of "total passive to total aggression on a dime" action villain has had flopped quads more often than not - which, if true here, makes pushing -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other hand makes sense to check the flop and then check again after the flop was checked around. While its true any boat goes up in value when the board is paired, why would he wait to the river except with 55? I wouldn't be folding, but hopefully I would smell something and just call in real time.

Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
 

plus stars table are pretty passive, raise on river means nuts, you have top full, so ...