"Either-Or Bets" concept from Bob Ciaffone's book

[Runner Runner]

I was just reading the revised Omaha Poker book and came across a paragraph that struck me as being very useful. What he essentially states is that if a flop comes down with draws yet to be made ( say 2 to a flush and 2 to a straight) you should bet the pot to protect your hand or push out weak made hands when you are drawing strong. He also states that if the flop comes with a paired board or 3 to a flush you should often limit your bets to half or 2/3 of the pot. The reason for this is that your bet represents an "either-or" situation, (you are either bluffing, or you have it). In this spot, you bet less to save money when the bluff doesn't work and to get callers when you are made.

This is something I have been doing for a while, and I feel like he has explained the reasoning for it very well.

I believe this "either-or" situation also applies on the turn when say the board pairs after a draw heavy flop (where your opponent was likely drawing). Betting between 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot is usually ideal in these spots whether you have made a boat or whiffed on your draw. If your opponent will fold almost as often whether you bet 1/2 pot or full pot, why risk more?

[Aisthesis]

I like this move on paired boards for sure. I'm not sure about flushy ones, although they do only have 7 outs to fill up with a set, at least if it's on the flop. A flush turn I like less with the set having 10 outs.

Also, I think some paired boards are good for pot-sized bets: For example, board is 885 and you have 85 whatever. 89TJ can have 9 outs to beat you.

I think this is a topic well-worth investigating further, though.

[Runner Runner]

You are correct, protecting your hand is most important so if you flop a vulnerable boat, betting pot would be best.

I also understand what you are saying about wanting to bet more on flush boards, I think that betting smaller into a flush board on the turn applies more when the previous action allows you to deduce that you are probably not up against a set.

[Ribbo]

Popular misconception number 1: Protecting your hand.

There is no such thing as protecting your hand in PLO or PLO8. All there is is betting the 'best' hand. The best hand is not the one currently ranked the highest, but the one currently most likely to win.
Flop 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], the best hand here would be A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. The guy with 9T should not automatically be looking to 'protect his hand' no matter what on the flop. The following scenarios happen:
He bets 9T, a player who would have otherwised bluffed now folds. He bets 9T, a player who would have otherwise bet 95 now folds. He bets 9T, he gets raised by the aforementioned hand, he now has to call fearing being freerolled and when the turn doesn't improve he gives a free card now when he actually IS favourite. He bets 9T, gets raised by another 9T with a freeroll building the pot to a significant size where he could lose all his stack.
Sets on the flop should be bet hard, Flushes on the flop have more protection and can be bet hard or soft depending on players. But straights are the work of the devil. Straights need redraws to be bet hard, because often you will only see heavy action from other people with the same straight.
If you are drawing "strong" as claimed by Ciaffone, then you are often favourite, and you should be betting the hand for that reason, not because you want other people to fold, but because more often than not you will win the hand and you want money going into the pot.
Perfect example being K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] flop where you hold A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
No hand in poker dominates you, only a few hands are slight favourite (AKQJ possibly is ahead, and KKxx where xx are some of your outs). But a load of hands (anyone with 2 pair) are in big trouble, and if you get action you're in great shape. One can argue that you don't want to bet the pot in this situation, betting half the pot may encourage someone with top 2 to raise you back allowing you to shove as a significant favourite, also would allow someone with a bottom set or middle set to raise allowing you to do the same, putting pressure on them to fold fearing you holding top set. It also shouldn't be too big a bet to scare off other players holding straight draws, and indeed if you are lucky enough for it to hit, by not forcing them out on the flop, you get to shove the turn with a freeroll.

[BluffTHIS!]

Ribbo,

I think what he meant about protecting your hand, was that in the situation he mentions, where you flop a full that could be overtaken on a later street, it is a mistake to slowplay it. But you are certainly correct that the equity of your hand via the board should in general determine how you play it.

However, as to when you should bet, specifically with how weak a holding on the flop, it depends on the situation. I.E., how many players, your position, how big the pot is, and how often even headsup an opponent will checkraise (which means you should take more free cards with weaker draws) or will raise light (which means you should c/c more OOP with good draws so as not to get raised off them).

Also in regards to either/or bets in general, such bets tend to work best either on the river or an earlier street when there is a threatening board which would make it harder for a marginal hand (which could be a set when a draw completes) to call.

[Ribbo]

Thanks for explaining the obvious. Now go back to throwing insults rather than spending 8 lines writing what essentially could have been said with two words "it depends".

[RickyG]

I doubt it was for your benefit that he wrote it.

[Ribbo]

My point is, you can't go arguing with strawmen. Each situation in poker is different, but adding disclaimers to everything you say is just stupid. "you should do this when this happens unless the situation is this and unless your opponent has already done this."
Each point you try to make would take forever and always comes back to one thing, "it depends".

[Runner Runner]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for explaining the obvious. Now go back to throwing insults rather than spending 8 lines writing what essentially could have been said with two words "it depends".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the above response is missing a "wanker", "bloody wanker" or "wanker boy". It just doesn't seem complete as is. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[mosta]

I like your post, but one topic in OP that you don't address is bluffing. Do you agree with the value of the under-bet as possible bluff and possible nuts?