Thoughts on this hand

[beset]

nice post pjn

[youdidwhat]

Yes, very nice post. I like the thought process here. It is the thoughts about image that I find most interesting and perhaps most debatable.
I think it depends on how many players are necessarily (a) following the action closely and, as importantly, are then willing to adjust their own play accordingly. I think there will only be one or two players at the table at most who will be willing to make the proper adjustments. In other words, whatever style they have, most of them are extremely loth or unable to change it. Thus your play may neither gain nor lose any EV later in the session.
However, if they are paranoid, that may well encourage some to fold more quickly against someone who has presented a semi-manic image style, as they can't handle or don't want the variance. Interesting.
I suppose the key besides the theory is: what do you think you gained from this play later on? Maybe impossible to answer.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, very nice post. I like the thought process here. It is the thoughts about image that I find most interesting and perhaps most debatable.
I think it depends on how many players are necessarily (a) following the action closely and, as importantly, are then willing to adjust their own play accordingly. I think there will only be one or two players at the table at most who will be willing to make the proper adjustments. In other words, whatever style they have, most of them are extremely loth or unable to change it. Thus your play may neither gain nor lose any EV later in the session.
However, if they are paranoid, that may well encourage some to fold more quickly against someone who has presented a semi-manic image style, as they can't handle or don't want the variance. Interesting.
I suppose the key besides the theory is: what do you think you gained from this play later on? Maybe impossible to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems the answer is clear. Consider:

Who is more difficult to extract calls from, the random player who is probably checking his email/trying to cyber with some 40 yo dude, or the skilled, but not expert, player?

Who is more likely to be paying attention to the action and hands at showdowns?

(perhaps most importantly)

What do you think the response was of nearly everyone who saw this hand?

Im by no means claiming to be an expert, but in poker when two equal or near-equal skilled players are contesting a pot, the most important skills to have are the ability to read your opponents hand, and disrupt his or her ability to read your hand. In a game with as many possible combinations as omaha, i think the history of a player is probably the most important key to reading hands. If I can scramble my opponents radar at all, i develop quite an edge, and in a game like plo that can be fairly profitable, even if it only results in one advantageous hand.

Think about it this way: This play encourages a certain type of opponent, the typically nittier, or at least tighter, player to play more loosely against me (this is especially true because i think while they probably dont alter thier preflop hand selection much, this image can in fact induce bad post-flop calls). So, who will be in a better position after the flop? We will both likely have equally good cards, i will correctly be reading both how my opponent is playing, *and* how he thinks i am playing, while he will be not only unaware of my play, but also probably be in situations in which he is not comfortable. I think this can result in him making a huge mistake.

Again, i will state that this advantage is tremendously difficult to quanitfy. If all the other reasons for making this play werent correct, i wouldnt have even considered it.


I think there is an additional benefit to making check raises like this, but im reviewing some hands/sessions to see if i still feel that way, so more to come later.


peace


john nickle

[CallYNotRaise06]

i like this play. i do it quite often in situations where i think i can get HU with a decent drawing hand.

if i lose, o well, it helps me out a ton meta-game wise.

[RoundTower]

I'm not sure if you're right.

Firstly I think you are too far behind the guy's range for this move to be +EV for this hand. This is OK if it's not terribly -EV and it helps you for future hands.

You claim it will help you because the nits will loosen up against you. I don't think this is helpful: you should encourage them to play tighter. If they are making mistakes by folding too much, get them to make even more and even bigger mistakes. On the other hand if your opponents call too much, you should encourage them to call more.

The only situation where you should encourage the nits to loosen up is when there are no live ones in the game and the nits will play badly postflop. But then you might be better off finding another table.

I'd like to think about this some more and make a big post about it, because I think this applies to all forms of poker. But this is my natural reaction to what you wrote.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you're right.

Firstly I think you are too far behind the guy's range for this move to be +EV for this hand. This is OK if it's not terribly -EV and it helps you for future hands.

You claim it will help you because the nits will loosen up against you. I don't think this is helpful: you should encourage them to play tighter. If they are making mistakes by folding too much, get them to make even more and even bigger mistakes. On the other hand if your opponents call too much, you should encourage them to call more.

The only situation where you should encourage the nits to loosen up is when there are no live ones in the game and the nits will play badly postflop. But then you might be better off finding another table.

I'd like to think about this some more and make a big post about it, because I think this applies to all forms of poker. But this is my natural reaction to what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this guys range is wide. Very wide. See above. Also, see above about the low-cost of this play.

i knew using the term nits would get me in trouble. At no point am i talking about true nits/nut peddlers.

In a game like omaha, in which against two skilled players with big stacks are contesting a hand, it seems like i would rather encourage my opponent to call too often, assuming we start off with hands of reasonably similair strengths and i make correct post flop decisions, i want the tight players to be in there making bad calls that otherwise they would not be making due to their perceived image of me.

I will rarely be making much money off these players by being in pots HU with them and having them fold to a cb. The pots arent big enough, and thier play is too close to optimal. Where i really make my money from these guys, is situations where i know i have an edge, and they should know it, but call anyway. This is what i am encouraging by making this play.

You are correct that in a table entirely composed of players at either end of the loose/tight spectrum, i want to encourage them all to go further towards their chosen extreme. However, rarely are real-life tables composed of such a lineup. As i discussed, this play has the advertising value that is only targeting *those players who will be most affected by it*.

Although, if some random loose player happens to be watching, and sees what i push with and watches me river the pot, do you think i will have encouraged him to fold more often to my value bets?

It should go without saying that after making a play like this, i reduce the number of semi-bluff raises and such that i make. Utilitze the image you are given.


pjn

[MadScientist]

Cnfuzzed, your response is well thought out and you make some interesting points from a theory of poker point of view.

However, at PLO 200, this is a horrible play.

First, you are not heads up, in fact, no one has folded, so you often will be called by a dominating flush draw.
Second, your meta game ideas are silly at PLO 200.

Make it PLO 2000 and I think things would be different. However, I don't yet play that game, so I am just speculating.

Your hands was crap to start with and it is crap now.
By the way, you do not need to play junk like this to get your opponents to make mistakes. They are looking to stack off to you at PLO 200. Just look to generate opportunities to let them do so.

From your response, it seems you really like your play here. I think you may be suffering from fancy play syndrome, a serious case of it.
If my tone is harsh, my bad, I just think it is something you need to hear.
Also, your argument that CO is shortstacked is specious. If he is doing this move with the nut flush draw and an overpair, you are justifying his play. Also, you are losing money to him if he has any set.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
Cnfuzzed, your response is well thought out and you make some interesting points from a theory of poker point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
However, at PLO 200, this is a horrible play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, but ive explained above why i think its not...

[ QUOTE ]

First, you are not heads up, in fact, no one has folded, so you often will be called by a dominating flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]

Second, your meta game ideas are silly at PLO 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive explained, several times, why these metagame ideas apply specificly to a group of players who i have consistently seen playing the plo200 games. I explained why i think this isolation move will usually work in this game. Ive explained even why i would be more hesitant to make it at plo2000. Your move.



[ QUOTE ]

Your hands was crap to start with and it is crap now.
By the way, you do not need to play junk like this to get your opponents to make mistakes. They are looking to stack off to you at PLO 200. Just look to generate opportunities to let them do so.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, i dont sit in the games where everyone at the table always stacks off to me everytime i have the nuts. In fact, more than a few players have commented on plays ive made, and ive even seen one guy fold. Probably just a freak occurence though.



[ QUOTE ]

From your response, it seems you really like your play here. I think you may be suffering from fancy play syndrome, a serious case of it.
If my tone is harsh, my bad, I just think it is something you need to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries. I wish you could explain why you feel this way more coherently. Its entirely possible i have fps, but i also have the extra three buyins i took off that table after this hand went down. Fps and results oriented thinking. Man, i will be broke soon, no?

[ QUOTE ]

Also, your argument that CO is shortstacked is specious. If he is doing this move with the nut flush draw and an overpair, you are justifying his play. Also, you are losing money to him if he has any set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats on both repeating what i said several posts, and knowing how to run sims. What if i said he folds just as often as he has me worse than a 60/40. And keep in mind how often i said he would fold.

peace

john nickle

[liquid]

I like almost all elements of this scenario. The PFR-er is in early position, so only UTG could be sandbagging. As you pointed out, CO is short-stacked, so you will likely be putting much less of your stack at risk than your raise implies. Your draw fares well against a bare set or two pair. Your meta-game points are well taken. In all, I think this is an ideal time for this move in every respect but one: I would greatly prefer to have at least a pair on the flop to fall back on if I am against any kind of draw. But you can't always get what you want.

[JerseyTom]

[ QUOTE ]
I would greatly prefer to have at least a pair on the flop to fall back on if I am against any kind of draw. But you can't always get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP has a pair of 6's in his hand. Or were you talking about being able to beat at least one pair on the board?


Tom