The Madness of PLO
Mar. 6th, 2005 05:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI was getting bored with things, and I had read on Big Dave D’s site that the PLO action was a bit juicy at the moment, so I decided to give it a go. This was despite my having very little idea about the game’s nuances.
I deliberately chose a low-stakes game (10c-25c) and bought in for the max ($25). One good sign was that most of the players seemed to have bought in for less than the max!
About 8 minutes and $50 later I realized that things might not be that simple. I put my head down and clawed my way back to $25 down. Then the table broke. Flushed with the speed of my (semi) recovery, I moved up to the 50c-$1 game and bought in for $50. It gradually became clear to me that the tactics that were needed at the Vic’s one hundred quid buy-in game were not the same as those needed here. For a start, there were a lot of minimum raises – clearly these guys were limit players at heart. Any pot raise seemed to indicate Aces. And a lot of people were seeing flops. It seemed to me that, rather than play fast pre-flop, I could win money by better post-flop play.
Anyway. My stake had been whittled down to $37 when the following hand came.
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 06/Mar/05 11:53:38
Madman 1 is at seat 0 with $45.30.
Madman 2 is at seat 4 with $24.
Madman 3 is at seat 5 with $85.85.
Birks is at seat 8 with $37.05.
The button is at seat 5.
Birks: 5s 6d 4s 4h
Pre-flop:
Birks calls
Madman 1 calls.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls
BB checks.
Flop (board: 3h 9h 4d):
So I have trip fours and a four-card straight. My only worry is the hearts. I decide to bite the bullet and check
Birks checks
Madman 1 bets $3.25.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls.
BB folds.
Birks raises to $22.75.
Madman 1 goes all-in for $44.80.
Madman 2 goes all-in for $23.50.
Madman 3 folds.
Birks goes all-in for $36.55.
Madman 1 is returned $8.25(uncalled).
Turn (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s):
(no action in this round)
So far, so good.
River (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s Tc):
(no action in this round)
It’s looking promising. QJ, 67, J7 or a set above 4s are all that beat me.
Showdown:
Madman 1 shows 5d Qs Qh 6h. Madman 1 has Qs Qh 9h 8s Tc: a pair of queens.
Madman 2 shows 2h Ah 9s Th. Madman 2 has 9s Th 9h 8s Tc: two pair, tens and nines.
Birks shows 5s 6d 4s 4h. Birks has 4s 4h 9h 4d Tc: three fours.
$3 is raked from the main pot of $80.25.
$0 is raked from side pot #1 of $26.10.
Birks wins the main pot $77.25 with three fours.
Birks wins the side pot $26.10 with three fours.
Running the whole thing through Pokercalc, I see that my equity on the flop against these two opponents was just over 60%, which makes my raise all-in okay. With just the three fours I would probably have taken a card off the top, but with the 4-card straight as well, I’m prepared to risk the 35% chance of a flush (especially since I amd 40% to house up anyway.
Madman 1 thinks he has lots of outs, what with a 4-flush and 4 straight, but in fact he is going for a Queen to win. A straight ties with me, and the heart loses to the other hand. The other hand is in fact only a 3-to-1 dog, so he is getting pot odds to his $23 bet.
This appears to be the general standard of play at the moment. What, I must ask myself, am I doing playing limit hold ‘em?
Well, of course, the variance will be much higher at PLO, and the games seem to break up with alarming frequency. This isn’t surprising, because most of the players are so bad that they either go broke or get a big win. In either case, they seem to leave.
I deliberately chose a low-stakes game (10c-25c) and bought in for the max ($25). One good sign was that most of the players seemed to have bought in for less than the max!
About 8 minutes and $50 later I realized that things might not be that simple. I put my head down and clawed my way back to $25 down. Then the table broke. Flushed with the speed of my (semi) recovery, I moved up to the 50c-$1 game and bought in for $50. It gradually became clear to me that the tactics that were needed at the Vic’s one hundred quid buy-in game were not the same as those needed here. For a start, there were a lot of minimum raises – clearly these guys were limit players at heart. Any pot raise seemed to indicate Aces. And a lot of people were seeing flops. It seemed to me that, rather than play fast pre-flop, I could win money by better post-flop play.
Anyway. My stake had been whittled down to $37 when the following hand came.
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 06/Mar/05 11:53:38
Madman 1 is at seat 0 with $45.30.
Madman 2 is at seat 4 with $24.
Madman 3 is at seat 5 with $85.85.
Birks is at seat 8 with $37.05.
The button is at seat 5.
Birks: 5s 6d 4s 4h
Pre-flop:
Birks calls
Madman 1 calls.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls
BB checks.
Flop (board: 3h 9h 4d):
So I have trip fours and a four-card straight. My only worry is the hearts. I decide to bite the bullet and check
Birks checks
Madman 1 bets $3.25.
Madman 2 calls.
Madman 3 calls.
BB folds.
Birks raises to $22.75.
Madman 1 goes all-in for $44.80.
Madman 2 goes all-in for $23.50.
Madman 3 folds.
Birks goes all-in for $36.55.
Madman 1 is returned $8.25(uncalled).
Turn (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s):
(no action in this round)
So far, so good.
River (board: 3h 9h 4d 8s Tc):
(no action in this round)
It’s looking promising. QJ, 67, J7 or a set above 4s are all that beat me.
Showdown:
Madman 1 shows 5d Qs Qh 6h. Madman 1 has Qs Qh 9h 8s Tc: a pair of queens.
Madman 2 shows 2h Ah 9s Th. Madman 2 has 9s Th 9h 8s Tc: two pair, tens and nines.
Birks shows 5s 6d 4s 4h. Birks has 4s 4h 9h 4d Tc: three fours.
$3 is raked from the main pot of $80.25.
$0 is raked from side pot #1 of $26.10.
Birks wins the main pot $77.25 with three fours.
Birks wins the side pot $26.10 with three fours.
Running the whole thing through Pokercalc, I see that my equity on the flop against these two opponents was just over 60%, which makes my raise all-in okay. With just the three fours I would probably have taken a card off the top, but with the 4-card straight as well, I’m prepared to risk the 35% chance of a flush (especially since I amd 40% to house up anyway.
Madman 1 thinks he has lots of outs, what with a 4-flush and 4 straight, but in fact he is going for a Queen to win. A straight ties with me, and the heart loses to the other hand. The other hand is in fact only a 3-to-1 dog, so he is getting pot odds to his $23 bet.
This appears to be the general standard of play at the moment. What, I must ask myself, am I doing playing limit hold ‘em?
Well, of course, the variance will be much higher at PLO, and the games seem to break up with alarming frequency. This isn’t surprising, because most of the players are so bad that they either go broke or get a big win. In either case, they seem to leave.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Posting while I'm replying to the previous...
Date: 2005-03-06 06:12 pm (UTC)This is the standard of play here. A friend of mine (knows (of) you of old, details available privately) has been playing there a lot recently, and has been regaling me with the easy money (and slightly wild) variance he's been getting. Two statements to remember about PLO:
Sklansky rates PLO as one of the easiest poker games to learn to play mechanically (mathematically) well.
Devil Fish on PLO: "I love PLO, because people don't know how much trouble they're in."
Iain.
Re: Posting while I'm replying to the previous...
Date: 2005-03-06 08:05 pm (UTC)I will think long and hard about a regular Sunday lunch or Saturday dinner.
Re: Posting while I'm replying to the previous...
Date: 2005-03-06 10:17 pm (UTC)Playing with fish is a little different: I remember a game at your place when I won a hand with a K flush, announcing 'small flush' - half the table nodded knowingly, the other looked shocked at the 'small' categorisation. You could play a little looser, but your vol would go up in line with your ev. Playing tight would work as long as most people don't recognises you as a rock (like fish know the difference).
ISTR Sklansky rating PLO not only as easy to play well, but also having a relatively low variance. on a tight bankroll you can afford to steer away from the marginal ev situations, and still pick up the big pots where you have a good edge.
Until the fish supply runs out, financially it will be much better in ev and vol terms than Limit HE. Know what you mean about the intellectual satisfaction of being good enought for the Bellagio $40-80 (probably need a $20K bankroll for that though).
Sunday lunch would work better for me, but I could manage Saturday dinner. Separately, I could do a weekday lunch in town sometime (not this month though).