FLO8 - Fluctations or Mistakes?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, is not a lack of 'action', it is too much of the wrong sort of action, and gutless wimpy flop play by loose-passive (and tight-passive) players, who are afraid of being 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - The first and often the toughest step in solving a problem is recognizing what the problem is. If you truly have the problem defined correctly, now you have to employ a method that will solve the problem you have, not a method that would solve a different problem.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem area is the 'grey' zone, usually 4 players on a flop, with 2 or 3 bets pre-flop, and 1 bet on the flop, and most turns.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that sounds tough. Why not look for another table or another place to play, one more suited to your taste?

In other words, your problem may not be the game of Omaha-8 itself, as much as the particular opponents you're finding.

[ QUOTE ]
The Starting hand advantages are marginal, and these mindless callers don't make any mistakes like folding, a hand that might win something!

[/ QUOTE ]If they're not making mistakes like folding a hand that might win, could it be that you are not giving them credit for playing well, at least in that aspect of the game?

Stop thinking about what they should be doing and are not doing. Instead start thinking about what they are doing (and then figure out how to beat that or cope with that).

[ QUOTE ]
In FLO8 with the betting structure as is, it appears that loose-aggressive pre-flop, loose-passive players post-flop can push you in the Rock direction; and simply play a mindless strategy and yet avoid through mutual support losing significant chips.

[/ QUOTE ]They don't push me that way. Poor players who jam before the flop take away some of the edge of expert players. But they're still at a disadvantage. Preflop raises mean different things from different players. My own preflop raises mean one thing one time and a different thing another time.

I want to get in situations where I have an edge and can recognize that, in other words, situations where I have favorable odds.

Conversely, I want to avoid situations where I either don't have favorable odds or can't tell where I stand. When I can't tell where I stand, I'm forced to gamble. Jam before the flop or get jammed before the flop, and that's where you are.

[ QUOTE ]
There's something wrong, when top set is a 'marginal' hand, and not a no-brainer raise of a loose calling field.

[/ QUOTE ]Top set is usually very strong (depending somewhat on exactly what rank it is - when the turn is a card of a higher rank than your set, and when the board then pairs on the river, even if you had the top set on the flop, you often end up with a losing full house). In games where you have to seriously worry about someone making a straight and/or flush, I think you play top set like a drawing hand. Whoever draws best on the river wins.

Other times, where top set has a good chance to win unimproved, you can play top set more as a made hand.

How best to play top set (or anything) depends on how your opponents are playing.

You can't expect your opponents to play a certain way and then blame them for your defeat if they play some other way that you think is not as good. the fault is yours for not coping with the way your opponents are actually playing.

I don't mean this post to sound harsh or critical. But you have to cope with the actual opposition you are facing, not the opposition you think you should be facing.

Buzz

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem, is not a lack of 'action', it is too much of the wrong sort of action, and gutless wimpy flop play by loose-passive (and tight-passive) players, who are afraid of being 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - The first and often the toughest step in solving a problem is recognizing what the problem is. If you truly have the problem defined correctly, now you have to employ a method that will solve the problem you have, not a method that would solve a different problem.


[/ QUOTE ]
As you have noticed, I've put in time analysing and really looking for leaks, missed bets, and tuning my game, and also learning to read these "unreadable" calling station type players.

In FLHE, there's certain type of game where all the books are completely wrong, and a radically different strategy becomes wildly profitable, though it's 'unsound' play and would expose you to exploitation by good players.

My problem is, I can't see any such radical tactic that can overcome the basic mindless method of play in these passive FLO8 games with certain number of flop callers. Free card plays are broke, because the turn changes things so radically against a field. You're going to have to have a near nut hand on the river most times, and it's going to cost you speculatively pre-flop to get there. There's a problem of 'Duplication' where you split with a loose-passive player on the river, when in a more aggressive game, you could have figured out the other players hand and folded on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem area is the 'grey' zone, usually 4 players on a flop, with 2 or 3 bets pre-flop, and 1 bet on the flop, and most turns.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that sounds tough. Why not look for another table or another place to play, one more suited to your taste?

In other words, your problem may not be the game of Omaha-8 itself, as much as the particular opponents you're finding.


[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to get a choice of 1 $1/$2 game, or a 25c/50c game, on Poker Stars the busiest site; and the waiting lists can be long (as much as 4-7). The 50c/$1 game was the Rock-iest a while ago, tough but profitable if you avoided falling into traps but because it was such a ridiculously tough game for the stakes level, noone much has played it most days. Why not play Fish at $1/2?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Starting hand advantages are marginal, and these mindless callers don't make any mistakes like folding, a hand that might win something!

[/ QUOTE ]If they're not making mistakes like folding a hand that might win, could it be that you are not giving them credit for playing well, at least in that aspect of the game?


[/ QUOTE ]
Their strategy is this :

Pre-flop: If everyone's in the mood raise, or 3 bet pre-flop, but usually limp in or cold call with a huge range of trashy trap hands.

Flop: Auto-call, unless I was the lead bettor pre-flop. Then I usually bet (and I'm bluffing 80% of time in this spot), but sometimes in position check behind. Never fold.

Turn: This is 2nd real decision point. If I can't see a way to win 1/2 the fold to a bet. If I have near nuts bet, raise someone mindlessly if I have the nuts (any direction); no need to think about building the pot up.

River: Always call unless another Fish bets or raises. Fold if have nothing.

[ QUOTE ]

Stop thinking about what they should be doing and are not doing. Instead start thinking about what they are doing (and then figure out how to beat that or cope with that).


[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem, and why I posted on "Betting Structure" last week. I know exactly how they play, why; but I'm struggling to find opportunities to exploit the play.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In FLO8 with the betting structure as is, it appears that loose-aggressive pre-flop, loose-passive players post-flop can push you in the Rock direction; and simply play a mindless strategy and yet avoid through mutual support losing significant chips.

[/ QUOTE ]They don't push me that way. Poor players who jam before the flop take away some of the edge of expert players. But they're still at a disadvantage. Preflop raises mean different things from different players. My own preflop raises mean one thing one time and a different thing another time.

I want to get in situations where I have an edge and can recognize that, in other words, situations where I have favorable odds.

Conversely, I want to avoid situations where I either don't have favorable odds or can't tell where I stand. When I can't tell where I stand, I'm forced to gamble. Jam before the flop or get jammed before the flop, and that's where you are.


[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble is, your implied odds are cut down. Now you have to recognise pot equity advantages and also call much more post-flop.

But at end of the day, you can do little in FL to win more pots, what matters is that you tend to win bigger pots, and spend less investing on your losers.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something wrong, when top set is a 'marginal' hand, and not a no-brainer raise of a loose calling field.

[/ QUOTE ]Top set is usually very strong (depending somewhat on exactly what rank it is - when the turn is a card of a higher rank than your set, and when the board then pairs on the river, even if you had the top set on the flop, you often end up with a losing full house). In games where you have to seriously worry about someone making a straight and/or flush, I think you play top set like a drawing hand. Whoever draws best on the river wins.

Other times, where top set has a good chance to win unimproved, you can play top set more as a made hand.

How best to play top set (or anything) depends on how your opponents are playing.

You can't expect your opponents to play a certain way and then blame them for your defeat if they play some other way that you think is not as good. the fault is yours for not coping with the way your opponents are actually playing.


[/ QUOTE ]
True, and absolutely agreed. The reason for this post, is not to 'complain' but to check on my analysis, and also seek any ideas to exploit what is very poor play.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mean this post to sound harsh or critical. But you have to cope with the actual opposition you are facing, not the opposition you think you should be facing.


[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree. But I also have to recognise which games are 'good' and which ones are not worth spending time with.

In FLHE I could move tables, and also gain edge by seat selection. This is proving less practical in FLO8 due to shortage of games, and long waiting time to join the table.

What I'm doing, is pursuing every possible avenue of advantage, and trying to leave no stone unturned.

I could just be running bad, but doing calcs, I think there's reasons why beating the rake by much is tough, and it's down to the betting structure (in my view).

The biggest fault in FLO8 players is loose flop calls, but without some action players to increase the flop betting, these calls are only marginal errors. They put made hands into worse reverse implied odds, because you'll miss lots of river bets if you're too cautious, but also lose extra bets on many occasions if you are brave.

[luckyluckyjoe]

I've always felt like limit O8 is one of the best games to play against real bad players. If you are forced to play with somewhat intelligent players it becomes a great game for the house. Why not try PL 08. The edge in PL 08 is much greater for the good player over the average player in my opinion.

[RobNottsUk]

In FLO8 in many games, I think there's often too many players pursuing the same Rocky Locksmith tight-passive strategy, mixed in with Fish loose-passive's (some of whom are pre-flop aggressive).

That means it's hard to scoop, but making 1/2 pot is barely profitable, and it costs too much pre-flop to make the nuts, as when you hit the flop hard, there's too little action, due to very cautious play.

That fails to extract the money from the Fish, and deters value betting (& raising) in position with good (but not great hands), because so many passive players call when they should protect a hand by raising for value.

That means the tight player's edge of making good folds, is much reduced, as they're just for small fractions of bets. All the pots given away to backdoor outdraws by feeble flop play more than compensate, for the small gains of marginally wrong loose calls; nevermind the missed value bets charging weak players to catch their draws. Similarly often scare cards come that lose the market, so you make the nuts and only win a small pot.

If you wait till the river, to put in a raise, how are you different from the weak Fish players, who do exactly the same? The folds, and if the flop bet is too small then those good decisions don't really earn you anything.