If you're planning on learning PLO

[wazz]

Sticky this please.

So it appears we've had a bit of an influx of people in the last couple of weeks in this forum, all apparently holdem players looking to get better at this game. That's fine, in fact it's pretty indicative of a resurgence of sorts of the popularity of pot-limit omaha, and no-one's going to be unhappy about that.

Everyone's here to discuss hands, give feedback, ask questions etc, basically share our knowledge for our mutual benefit. First: if you're looking to get feedback on how you played a hand, it's crucial that you give as much information as possible that can help us analyse the situation. This means reads on your opponents, some description of the general table dynamic, and if applicable your table image. Even better if you can describe how the action went in other hands recently. It is true that readless there is some standard line in all situations, even if two options may have equal EV, but for the purposes of extracting maximum EV and mixing up your play, please please please try to say something about who you're playing with.

Secondly: if you're new to the game and are wanting to get better at it, don't just post 'how do I improve' followed by your poker resume, it's of no interest to anyone else. By all means post retarded, unconverted hand histories, but don't expect any meaningful replies. Instead, read as many posts as you can in here, work out for yourself who the best posters are, and read what they're saying. Do your own research, don't expect other people to do it for you.

Third: In terms of literature on the game, the consensus seems to be that Ciaffone is the best place to start, followed by Slotboom once you've got a bit of experience under your belt. The section in Super System is apparently good, various respected sources have said that Cloutier is awful, and there have been mixed reviews of Reuben though no-one's denying that his book is of some value.

Fourth, and this should be common sense: play some hands. If you're competent at holdem, you should, given the nature of most low-limit games, be able to win a decent amount at this game just through common sense and tight, aggressive play. The best way to get better at something is through experience, so play a few sessions, identify leaks if you can, post problem hands (converted and with reads!), posit your thoughts on other peoples' hands, play more hands of your own, and try to see if you can reconcile your own ideas of this game with the majority of (good) posters on this forum.

Sorry if I come across grumpy in this post, I'm just trying to live up to the forum reputation, but I'm starting to understand why this reputation has come about. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
Sticky this please.


[/ QUOTE ]

[guilt_trip]

[ QUOTE ]
Sticky this please.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ellsworth T]

I feel as if you broke into my mind and wrote this.

[CrushinFelt]

Holy [censored], don't recommend "you know who" as reading material.

Also, perhaps a "Fifth" should be added to this regarding bankroll requirements.

Fifth: There is a fair amount of debate about bankroll requirements on this forum. If you're playing anything including PLO 100 and below then you will be playing very straight-forward Omaha and not need as big of a roll. If you go on an 8 or more buy-in downswing at the lower levels then you're probably not playing the game properly for that level.

If you're playing above that, the games become much less about nut-peddling and much more about applying presure in position (probably closer to 15 buy-ins are needed as a base and more if you are more aggressive of a player).

Also, 6-max games have more swings than full ring so multiply the buy-ins by around 1.5 and that should be an ok place to start. You'll figure out what your own bankroll requirements are as you play more and go from nut-peddling to adding more dynamics to your game and moving up in levels. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[roger1111]

As a newbie I'm grateful for all the help this forum gives. My one gripe is the one or two word answers to questions. ie "standard play" "fold" "push" etc. As a learner I need to know why it's standard play or why I should push or fold. I need to know why I should do it, not simply do it. It's much easier to do something when you know why it should be done. Thanks again for any help given.

[Professorn]

[ QUOTE ]
As a newbie I'm grateful for all the help this forum gives. My one gripe is the one or two word answers to questions. ie "standard play" "fold" "push" etc. As a learner I need to know why it's standard play or why I should push or fold. I need to know why I should do it, not simply do it. It's much easier to do something when you know why it should be done. Thanks again for any help given.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same thing as you sometimes, but I guess it's because posters don't want to type the same thing over and over again.

But don't forget to think for yourself, why do I think this is standard, often it's fairly obvious.

[cmyr]

Just want to quickly say that the idea that a winning player would be fine playing above plo100 with a 15 buyin bankroll is clearly coming from somebody who doesn't know how running badly works. If you are a good winning player (7bb/100+) and you don't ever want to have to move down, I think 50 buyins is your low-end estimate. I have had 60 buyins for a 1-2 game I beat comfortably and still had 2-3 month break even stretches, including some pretty impressive drops. If you want to play with 15 buyins feel free, but it will catch up to you eventually.

[Hattifnatt]

I agree with cmyr, 15 buy-ins at plo100+ is definitely too little.

[CrushinFelt]

Sorry guys but from the games I've played I am rarely down 2 buyins per table at 3 tables. That is the most strained I ever get. There are enough bad players out there to keep variance lower than you might expect.

Edit: The highest I play is 2/4 and I definitely see more swings in this game than anything below it. But even in those games table selection can help reduce variance a lot.