Andrew Albright's PLO article

[bozzer]

I don't understand what's going on in the PLO article:

[ QUOTE ]

Given the stack sizes, is there a simple, but unexploitable play available in this difficult flop and turn situation? For the sake of this analysis, we will assume that your villain has, on average, a 10 out draw. This means that just 10/29 (34.5%) of the time your opponent will hit his draw when one of the “messy” cards hits. But, your hand has redraws to a full house on the river, if the board pairs. With these factors in mind, let us calculate the estimated value (EV) using this whole strategy from the flop forward:


[/ QUOTE ]

What whole strategy?? Is it the bet-call line?

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what's going on in the PLO article:

[ QUOTE ]

Given the stack sizes, is there a simple, but unexploitable play available in this difficult flop and turn situation? Let's examine a bet flop and autopush turn strategy. For the sake of this analysis, we will assume that your villain has, on average, a 10 out draw. This means that just 10/29 (34.5%) of the time your opponent will hit his draw when one of the “messy” cards hits. But, your hand has redraws to a full house on the river, if the board pairs. With these factors in mind, let us calculate the estimated value (EV) using this whole bet flop-autopush turn strategy from the flop forward:


[/ QUOTE ]

What whole strategy?? Is it the bet-call line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good catch, that wasn't very clear was it.

The strategy is to determine when you can correctly push (pot flop, pot turn) given stack sizes and the hand range your opponent will play (i.e. how many outs he will play).

Another point worth reiterating is that you have to examine the whole situation (flop and turn combined) to calculate the EV. It would be misleading to calculate each individual street.

[bozzer]

ah right thanks, that clears things up. Thanks for the article - good subject matter and well presented.

[GAL]

I just skimmed through it but I think the situation it examines, ie. top set on a draw heavy board which will have a redraw to the nuts no matter which draw completes), isn't very interesting. Looking at something like a nut straight or nut flush OOP when turn brings a flush or FH would have been more interesting.
It might be because it's late and I'm tired but I don't like it, whos it aimed at people who've never played PLO ever? I get that the point of it is to show that the EV of betting the turn is higher than not but it can be summarised by saying IF YOU HAVE TOP SET ON A DRAW HEAVY BOARD OOP AND CAN GET MOST OF YOUR STACK IN ON ANY TURN DO IT BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS FILL UP ON THE RIVER IF BEHIND

Stuff like this doesn't help either..
"However, if you are OOP against one or more tough opponents that will use position to exploit you, just slow down and/or throw the hand away before committing any money on the flop. A tough opponent will of course bluff you some of the time too adding to the difficult situation."

Throw away top set in a raised pot? Ermmm O.K.

[Troll_Inc]

In your skimming, I think that you've missed a main point of the article:

"2) Discussion of the effect of pot size on profitability"

And I think that you also miss the point of the EV analysis, which is used to prove that a certain line is superior at a given stack size. As the stack sizes change, so does the profitability of this autopush-any-turn play. If you walk around with a summary chart of how to play certain "standard plays", then you can be exploited because there will be a point at which the standard play is no longer correct.

The point about "throwing away top set" was from an example of only being able to commit a small % (e.g. 5%) of your stack on the flop when OUT OF POSITION. So now when a scare card hits the turn, what exactly are you going to do with a solid opponent behind you? Throwing it away may be an exaggeration to make a point, but if you play that top set on the draw heavy board you'll make less money and win more if the positions were reveresed.

I think knowing how to play this sort of situation is interesting in that it shows the important factors that one needs to grasp to make the "correct" play. Only one of those factors is really examined here.

[GAL]

I think the whole "discussion of the effect of pot size on profitability" isn't covered as a concept, its been applied to a unique situation in omaha, that is one where you flop the nuts are drawn out on the turn OOP but still have a draw to the nuts.
The EV analysis and the article as a whole seems to be born out of the author picking up on ABA's comments in his videos about constantly checking EV of plays where most of your money goes in VS Villans hand range and really can be simplified to "set mining with junk 1 pair hands from EP in PLO becomes less profitable as stack sizes increase", isn't this what ALL short stackers know?

I understand the point about throwing away top set was an exaggeration to make a point but when a scare card hits the turn and I have a solid opponent behind me I'm going to try and come up with a less expliotable strategy than simply check folding, I'll look for a balanced play strategy that gives away no information as to whether I just filled up, hit my draw or was just possibly drawn out on and take the one that I think has the highest EV for the combination of the different scenarios.

"Throwing it away may be an exaggeration to make a point, but if you play that top set on the draw heavy board you'll make less money and win more if the positions were reveresed."
What is the point you are trying to make here? that if I have constantly have position on opponents in PLO I'll win more money?

I agree with your last paragraph.

[Troll_Inc]

"The EV analysis and the article as a whole seems to be born out of the author picking up on ABA's comments in his videos about constantly checking EV of plays where most of your money goes in VS Villans hand range and really can be simplified to "set mining with junk 1 pair hands from EP in PLO becomes less profitable as stack sizes increase", isn't this what ALL short stackers know?"

I don't watch poker videos, and I don't know who aba is. Does he construct mapped images?

The first place I read about EV analysis was Harrington's books, although at the time I was too lazy to do it myself. Sklansky of course does simple EV calculations like these in almost all his books. And Mathematics of Poker (Chen and Ankenman) have many excellent EV discussions.

As far as the actual hand example I chose, which you find boring, it is probably the one situation I find myself most uncomfortable with when out of position. I also notice it comes up quite often on the 2+2 forum and is a situation that the "Standard" parrots always remain uncharacteristically silent on.