Big Pot, Bad Turn

[Foucault]

Thanks for all the responses, guys. I'm very new to PLO, so I appreciate everything you've had to say about ranges, general strategy, etc. A couple of follow-up questions, if I may:

1. A big part of my short-handed NLHE game involves squeezing with marginal but possibly best hands from out of position when facing late position raises. I'm guessing that doesn't work as well in PLO since you get called so much more often and it's harder to play OOP?

2. Why is potting the flop preferable to 3/4 pot? There is exactly one draw on the flop, and I'm still leaving less than a PSB for the turn, so am I really setting myself for such a bad situation? I felt like I could represent a wider range with 3/4 pot than with full pot, since a full pot bet is really committing my whole stack and it seems to me on this board could only be made by a set or wrap.

3. Several people have emphasize the importance of making decisions on future streets, such as the one I faced on the turn here, easier by getting more money in early. That makes more sense to me with deeper stacks, but after pre-flop action stacks are actually quite shallow relative to the pot, so shouldn't I be more concerned about the current value of my hand and less about possibly ending in tough spots later?

Thanks again!

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all the responses, guys. I'm very new to PLO, so I appreciate everything you've had to say about ranges, general strategy, etc. A couple of follow-up questions, if I may:

1. A big part of my short-handed NLHE game involves squeezing with marginal but possibly best hands from out of position when facing late position raises. I'm guessing that doesn't work as well in PLO since you get called so much more often and it's harder to play OOP?

2. Why is potting the flop preferable to 3/4 pot? There is exactly one draw on the flop, and I'm still leaving less than a PSB for the turn, so am I really setting myself for such a bad situation? I felt like I could represent a wider range with 3/4 pot than with full pot, since a full pot bet is really committing my whole stack and it seems to me on this board could only be made by a set or wrap.

3. Several people have emphasize the importance of making decisions on future streets, such as the one I faced on the turn here, easier by getting more money in early. That makes more sense to me with deeper stacks, but after pre-flop action stacks are actually quite shallow relative to the pot, so shouldn't I be more concerned about the current value of my hand and less about possibly ending in tough spots later?

Thanks again!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with 3/4ths or indeed a half pot bet on the flop. I like half pot bets when out of position, especially with an unscary flop like this.
It allows players with straight draws to get their hopes up that they can raise you off the hand, plus players with no hope at all of winning from here peel cards off, such as bottom 2 pair.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
1. A big part of my short-handed NLHE game involves squeezing with marginal but possibly best hands from out of position when facing late position raises. I'm guessing that doesn't work as well in PLO since you get called so much more often and it's harder to play OOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert on NLHE squeeze plays, but I find it hard to imagine that they can be nearly as effective as in HE. Obviously, you can get squeezed in PLO very easily but manufacturing squeezes won't work so well because you simply won't have the required fold equity most of the time (that is, they won't all fold very often).

[ QUOTE ]
2. Why is potting the flop preferable to 3/4 pot? There is exactly one draw on the flop, and I'm still leaving less than a PSB for the turn, so am I really setting myself for such a bad situation? I felt like I could represent a wider range with 3/4 pot than with full pot, since a full pot bet is really committing my whole stack and it seems to me on this board could only be made by a set or wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of people who basically believe your default bet should always be pot sized except in specific situations (pre-flop, river, and paired/flush boards in particular), that's probably part of it. The other is that while there is only one draw it's a pretty common one. The $66 bet might give a naked QT hope but (given your pre-flop raise) most QT you'll see will probably have an A tagging along - especially since you don't have any in your hand. By only betting 3/4 you're making it easier for your main rival to play perfectly.

You'll have more left behind if you boat on the turn thus making it more likely that he'll fold. You'll have more left on the turn if he hits his straight. If the turn bricks you probably end up all-in either way.

The 3/4 bet also won't be any more likely to get action than a full bet if villain has the likes of KJ, JJ, or 44. I'm having trouble thinking of hands villain could have that gain significant value from a 3/4 rather than full pot bet.

Not that betting 3/4 is terrible by any means. I just think full pot dominates it.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Several people have emphasize the importance of making decisions on future streets, such as the one I faced on the turn here, easier by getting more money in early. That makes more sense to me with deeper stacks, but after pre-flop action stacks are actually quite shallow relative to the pot, so shouldn't I be more concerned about the current value of my hand and less about possibly ending in tough spots later?

Thanks again!

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal opinion is that in PLO, if you're given a chance to make your decisions easy then you should take it. It's one thing to manipulate your opponent into situations where his decisions become difficult, quite another to do it to yourself. The tough spots will come often enough without courting them.

With respect to the value of your hand, while you flopped strong, it's hardly a monster since you're only 55/45 vs AQTx. The thing about PLO is that a pot sized bet is often the best way to protect and get value from your hand at the same time.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of people who basically believe your default bet should always be pot sized except in specific situations (pre-flop, river, and paired/flush boards in particular), that's probably part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of people who say a lot of things. Making every bet pot sized is just wrong in so many ways. Plenty of people fold to half pot bets just as much as they would a full pot bet. Half pot bets in the right situation show more strength than a full pot bet, plus on other occasions you get played back at more, which is a great thing when you hold a strong hand.
I would say pot bet your medium/vulnerable hands, half pot bet your strong/bluff hands in general.

[Silent A]

Don't get me wrong Ribby. I love 1/2 pot bets in many circumstances. I was only trying to explain why one should expect to see a lot of "bet pot" type replies no matter what the situation.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong Ribby. I love 1/2 pot bets in many circumstances. I was only trying to explain why one should expect to see a lot of "bet pot" type replies no matter what the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like half pot bets a lot more out of position though. In my opinion it has a lot more chance of ending up all in on the flop than a pot bet. When I have position, a pot bet works just as good since button bets are more likely to be considered bluffs.