How to play this live game

[Aisthesis]

Casino game with 1/2/5 structure, meaning that blinds are 1/2, but you have to enter the pot for 5. Min. buy-in is $300 and no cap. They also often play with a so-called "rock," which I don't think changes a lot, although it adds yet another twist (the rock means that the PF action begins with the person to the left of whoever won the last pot, the rock, and then concludes with the rock. After the flop, it's all normal).

There are usually several fairly deep stacks, over $1k, and some of these are usually among the good players (there are at least 3 whom I consider very good) in the game. But there are also some less good players who buy in deep.

I've been buying in for $400 simply because I can't afford to lose much more than that multiple times, as can just happen in PLO. I feel like it's enough to play but just barely. If I were a bit more solvent, I'd probably buy in for $800 and take it from there.

There are, as noted, several very good players there imo (know what they have, capable of bluffs, but reasonable), then there are one or two weak-tighties (one guy laid down a 16-outer on the flop for stack) but the remaining majority will chase pretty much anything.

In the extreme case, you get them chasing 8-high flushes, but several will simply not lay down a K-high flush with almost nothing else nor an open-ender on a rainbow board. So they'll draw fairly thin. But there's also not a lot of bluffing.

Flops are usually seen about 7-way when the table is full. I'd say that's about average. And I'd just guess that close to 50% of flops are raised, usually to around $25. I myself try to raise a little more on truly premium hands (more like $30-$35), requiring them to be more premium if I'm OOP. I also feel lke there's a higher risk of an AA re-raise than there is on Stars, as people don't have much problem re-raising it to 30% of stack even though it tips their hand.

Also, despite the increased cost of 5 relative to the blinds of just 1/2, I've concluded that nut flush draws are very good to have with people chasing lower ones all the time. So, I'm very inclined to play AXs for a $5 limp even with completely uncoordinated side-cards in LP.

Some questions, though:

1) Is a hand like AsQhTd3s, i.e. just a decent-ish suited A, which online I'd normally fold to a raise but keep in LP for a limp, worth paying $25 or so to see the flop with if you can expect 5 or 6 others in the hand?

2) What would a good hand selection look like from BB for a limp? Note that you have to pay your 5 to see the flop from BB, so while the per orbit cost is relatively cheap, you never get to see a flop for free (well, ok, maybe once every few hours there's a chop or something, but it's rare). There, I've been folding quite a bit, although I'd again keep the same AQT3 with suited A hand because it does have some decent high card value and can easily get a flush draw to go with the straight. But OOP I find a naked flush draw much harder to play--although there's not a whole lot of semi-bluffing except from the few players whom I was talking about as genuinely good players. From most of the others, you can generally expect some kind of made hand from a pot-sized bet and hence maybe even consider some bluffs with outs OOP (I've avoided it, as it seems like you get plenty of action usually anyway).

So, basically, I'm to some extent assuming that the 1/2/5 structure makes it profitable to play a little tighter than usual, that the pursuit of non-nut flushes makes nut flushes more profitable, and that one's semi-bluffs should be a little more sparse (and on stronger hands) than in a typical online game.

Any suggestions?

I guess one other thing: I probably need to work a bit more on specific targets and their betting/calling habits, also look for seat change opportunities to give me position on the targets.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]

So, basically, I'm to some extent assuming that the 1/2/5 structure makes it profitable to play a little tighter than usual

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have much to say but I think this is true in general. Even though this structure is usually introduced to "create action" or to "make the game bigger".

[Aisthesis]

Yes, what the deal is here is that these guys had a 5/10 going for quite a while and even occasionally a 10/20 during tournament weeks. But almost everyone, including very good players, lost such huge amounts that they couldn't handle it any more. The people driving the game at this casino, though, are players who played those games frequently, where it wasn't at all uncommon to see 5k and even 10k stacks. Hence also a pretty strange mixture of players, from those kind of learning PLO, who don't even like shoving in $300 and often don't protect their hands, to those for whom this game seems really small and usually buy in for a little over 1k--and will play pretty much any 4 for $5.

For me, I don't really mind buying in for $800 in a 2/5 NLHE game (although lately I've been somewhat short on cash and have bought in for $600). But in PLO, you just lose your buy-in way more often than in NLHE, but by the same token can also have much bigger winning nights, so I feel like I can keep my own variance under perhaps slightly better control by buying in a little bit short.

The $5 bring-in is in any case DEFINITELY to create more action. Oddly, this "rock" thing was supposedly created for the same reason, but I think the effect is quite the opposite.

Example: Rock is in CO, and you have a good hand OTB. Well, if there were already a bunch of limpers in, I'd clearly raise. With the rock in place, I usually don't, since I'm now first to act and want as many in there as possible with crap. Ok, now after it goes around a bit, the rock himself may raise, but now that assumes that he has some kind of hand worth raising, which even by loose standards is maybe 20% of the time.

[alavet]

dont stop posting here please

[TimberBee]

1.) I'd definitively played AQT3ss for 25$ in LP, if the pots are usually 7-ways.

2. ) And yes, I'd definitively played that hand in BB for a limp, but perhaps not for a raise, unless there was a family pot or something.

[sards]

You should be raising AQT3 with a suited ace in mid-late position in this game.

[Kala1928]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be raising AQT3 with a suited ace in mid-late position in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its kinda hard to hit a flop good with AQT3 when you always get called in 5-6 spots preflop, so why not just limp.

[wazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should be raising AQT3 with a suited ace in mid-late position in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its kinda hard to hit a flop good with AQT3 when you always get called in 5-6 spots preflop, so why not just limp.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. This is a raise. With shortstacks at the table it's a limp more often, with deep-stacked targets at the table it's a raise more often.

[Aisthesis]

Hmmmm... I kind of waver a bit on this. I'm certainly not averse to Kala's opinion.

I like the raise more also if they tend to put you on AA with a raise, as they did me (mainly wrongly) for a while just because I'm tight. Now, I think the more perceptive players are realizing I'm more likely to have a wrap of almost any rank. I do raise AA, but I'm fairly selective about it, probably a little less than half of them.

Could you elaborate a bit more on the stack-depth aspect, wazz? That sounds interesting. Here's the way the game has been set from my perspective: There are two older players who are always deep but whom I don't really view as targets. Then it varies. On Friday, those were the only deep-stacks, and on Saturday, there were 3 other deep stacks whom I did view as targets (but on whom I regrettably was OOP most of the time).

Also relevant seems to me whether I'm deep myself. If I have only $400 or even $500 on the table, the targets can have $1,500 or more, but that's still all the stack-depth I'm playing with.

I'll just also hazard an attempt at how this might play deep and short: First, of all, you've got some good high card value (top 2, possibly ability to rep AA), but obviously not nearly as much coordination as with something like AQJT or even AQJ9, both of which are going to give you much bigger chances at straight draws.

With AQT3 to play a big pot for value, you're really looking for your flush draw imo, at least as the main strong feature of the hand (with a little extra for some straights and possibly draws to top 2, so it's certainly better than AQ73ss).

Let's say you hit your flush draw. If the pot is raised to $20 (I'm thinking this is kind of nice when I'm playing $400--5% of stack-depth), then a flop bet (or call) is going to be probably $120 or $140, and the field still in on the turn is likely to be small, like 1 or 2.

On the other hand, if you limp, you can bet or call with the flush draw and are getting phenomenal pot odds, because there are still going to be 4 or 5 in, maybe one of whom also has a bad flush draw.

I dunno, I'm kind of liking the limp given the way that it's likely to play out in this game.

I do think a lot of the value of the hand comes from calling with your naked flush draw on a board of say K57 when you can put villain on a set or top 2 or even AA and don't have an extra player in. Then (with stack-depth and reads), you can rep a straight on the turn while still having outs to the flush.

But the way this game plays, I almost think I need to have $800 or so in available stack-depth (and possibly larger cojones) to make this hand interesting for a raise.

But I'd be very interested to hear more of your thoughts on this, wazz.

[wazz]

Your game has an interesting feature in that a limp is in fact a small raise. In effect, the game is a $2-5 blinds game, though for tight players there is the benefit of lower blind pressure. As a result, $700 or $800 isn't particularly deep in terms of the average size of the pot before the betting on the flop, which is, I assume, something in the region of $150-$200. In which case a lot of the time people will just be getting it all-in on the flop, and you need a bit more money behind (like $1k+) before decisions get really tough.

If the worst players are short-stacked and like to limp a lot, then your strategy becomes to see a lot of cheap flops. Sometimes this means limping in EP with a hand like AJ97ss (to the ace), because you're reasonably assured of seeing a cheap flop and when you do you can expect to get a shortstack or two in with little equity reasonably often.

When your targets are deepstacked, the main adjustment is to loosen up in position and tighten up out of position. This applies to limps, calls and raises. Again your game has the interesting twist of preflop position not going according to the button, and this complicates things. Limp-reraising your button now becomes a viable option, and one you might choose to do with any above-average strength hand, though you would fold some of the gash you might otherwise limp your button with.

Post-flop, you want to be playing in position against deep stacks because it becomes so much more important than when you're short and either you or the villain can just get it all-in whenever he wants. This trivialises a lot of the decisions.

AQT3ss is a solid hand. You'd probably fold it UTG in a 100BB full ring game but it's otherwise mostly playable. You're not necessarily looking to flop the nuts, but rather a solid draw to the nuts, especially when the pot is multiway.

I've got a few more thoughts but I'm off out for the night, let me ponder them and I can come back with some more coherent ramblings.