How to beat PLO25

[jad14]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have never heard Omaha is "all about position" before..

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Ciaffone, position is even more important at PLO that at NLHE, mostly because the drawing-out possibilities makes it very dangerous for a made hand to slowplay. That means you can often win the pot uncontested with a pot bet if you are last to act and it is checked to you. So if bluffing is an important tool in your play (and it should be IMO, even at PLO 25), you can play a lot of hands in LP.

Of course, if you follow OP's tight advice and do not bluff often, position is far less important, and you should not loosen up that much. Having a coherent play is very important to beat any game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, a check in PLO is a better indicator of weakness vs NLHE since it's more dangerous to slowplay in PLO. I will bluff in LP depending on how many to the flop etc. Most hands are 4 to the flop (max 6 players) and that's enough for me to be cautious about bluffing.
I enjoy the game more when there are contrasting players at the table and you can count on a one or two players to take his shots. I like to compare my results with the more aggressive player since I consider myself fairly tight..

[skitzofranik]

To the poster who was thinking of moving up from .10/.25 to .25/.5. Dont even worry about it. Take some shots and see how you do. I played plo25 at ub for awhile and decided to play at ftp. I started playing .25/.5 at ftp and havent looked back. As long as you have any semblance of plo knowledge you can beat plo50 for a good amount. I've doubled my roll in about 2500 hands and am crushing that game from about 20bb/100 (which i really do believe is sustainable at that level).

Also, i suggest taking shots at the new mixed games on ftp. The HA game is pretty much fantastic as you can tilt a guy in HE and take the rest of his money in PLO where your advantage comes in.

I'm was like you in terms of br management and then i read the rempel's well thread and decided to try out his ideas (since he plays a similar game to what I like to play). I highly recommend checking that out if your interested in moving up.

[jad14]

[ QUOTE ]
To the poster who was thinking of moving up from .10/.25 to .25/.5. Dont even worry about it. Take some shots and see how you do. I played plo25 at ub for awhile and decided to play at ftp. I started playing .25/.5 at ftp and havent looked back. As long as you have any semblance of plo knowledge you can beat plo50 for a good amount. I've doubled my roll in about 2500 hands and am crushing that game from about 20bb/100 (which i really do believe is sustainable at that level).

Also, i suggest taking shots at the new mixed games on ftp. The HA game is pretty much fantastic as you can tilt a guy in HE and take the rest of his money in PLO where your advantage comes in.

I'm was like you in terms of br management and then i read the rempel's well thread and decided to try out his ideas (since he plays a similar game to what I like to play). I highly recommend checking that out if your interested in moving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried the PLO50. Only adjustment made was tighter hand selection since preflop raising was more frequent. Post flop aggression was higher as well. Could have been just this table though.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I see, a check in PLO is a better indicator of weakness vs NLHE since it's more dangerous to slowplay in PLO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is necessarily true on either point.

[Silent A]

The primary problem with bluffing at PLO25 and lower is that players are so loose that 5 or 6 players will often see the flop and they're often willing to call you down with rather marginal hands. These two tendencies together make it difficult to pull off most bluffs often enough to make any money with them.

The following is not meant for PLO experts, who obviously know how to bluff effectively in PLO, but for low level newbies who would like to take advantage of the tendency of many PLO players to give you credit for what you're representing. Much of it is fairly basic "Theory of Poker"/game theory stuff.

NOTE: This is all off the top of my head, so it's probably far from complete. One of the main reasons I'm putting this out there is to hopefully get some constructive feedback.

The probability of a sucessfull bluff greatly depends on these factors:

1) Position
2) Number of players still in play and left to act
3) The texture of the board
4) Stack sizes of you and/or your opponents
5) Who raised pre-flop and your position relative to him
6) How you have played the hand so far (particularily on the turn and river)
7) Your table image and your opponent's table image

1) Position
The most basic bluff in PLO is a 1/2 to full pot bet when it's checked to you in last position on the flop. Another comon bluff is when everyone checks the flop and the turn comes up a brick. Those players in early position now have a chance to represent a failed check-raise attempt by potting immediately.

2) Number of players in play and left to act
It is important to realize that the chances of a bluff succeeding decreases almost exponentially with the number of opponents still in play. Also, if you're in middle to late (but not last) position, the reason no one has bet so far may well be because someone still to act has the nuts. Remember this whenever you consider making a bluff.

Bluffing is by far the most effective heads-up on boards where it's relatively easy for your opponent to give you credit for a superior hand. Flush boards and paired boards are usually the best. Also keep in mind that few players at PLO25 are sophisticated enough to try a bluff-raise (and even if they are, they probably assume you're not sophisticated enough to bluff in the first place so they won't try it very often anyway).

3) Texture of the board
When you bluff you're trying to represent a strong made hand. This works best when the number of potential draws is minimized. Probably the worst time to try a bluff is on a board like 589 with two suits. Someone will usually call you here so you will probably be forced to play it fast to the end hoping it will come brick-brick (and there aren't may ways you can expect two bricks to fall).

Another example of a poor time to bluff is on a paired board against many opponents. The odds that nobody has at least trips is much too small if you're against 4 or more players. However, this bluff works extremely well gainst 2 or heads up. The same applies to flush boards and (to a lesser extent) made straights on a rainbow board.

A related concept is betting scare cards (when a card comes that completes a flush, straight, or pairs the board on what was previously a straight or flush board). Since so many players (even the winning ones) play weak-tight ABC poker at these levels it is often fairly obvious when they're drawing and when they have a big hand. These same players also tend to give you credit for having all the draws covered. The primary defence against this bluff is to play well co-ordinated hands and bet your draws as strong as your made hands.

4) Stack sizes
Bluffs work best when everyone is fairly deep stacked relative to the current pot, but not so deep that they have excellent implied odds (or it's so cheap to call that they almost don't care). If there's a short stack at the tale (especially if it's you) bluffing loses much of its appeal.

5) Pre-flop raiser and relative position
The pre-flop raiser will often be credited for having AA/KK no matter what their actual tendencies are. If you raised without AA, it's often in your interest to play as if you have AA when flop suits a hand like AA well (i.e. an A high flop or when the board features low cards with a pair, like 733). Also, it's more risky to bluff after the pre-flop raiser has checked to you since someone one in early position could well be looking to make a check-raise.

6) How you're played the hand so far
It is absolutely vital that the way you've played the hand so far be consistent with what you're representing. This is particularily true on the turn and especially the river.

The Rempel recently posted a hand in which his opponent made the blunder of bluffing on a straight board when it was obvious nobody had the nuts. The mistake was that, given how he had played his hand to that point, it was obvious that he didn't have the nuts either. you can only get away with this against the most unimaginative of nitty players.

7) Your table image and your opponent's table image
For obvious reasons, bluffs work best if you have the image of being a tight player and you're playing against other tight players. The correct balance between bluffs and nut peddling is dificult to quantify. Probably the easiest way to identify if you bluff often enough (or to rarely) is to note those situations where you were tempted to try a bluff, but chickened out. If the ammount of money you would have won by bluffing more is significantly greater than what you would have lost then lean towards bluffing when you're unsure.