Are on on mavens? Make a PLO table and sit at it. If you only have 3-4 guys, wouldn't they move?
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Omaha Hand, would you make this call? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter naked_eskimo
- Start date
Jimulacrum
Full House
The main reason to go PL is because it's the better of the two big-bet formats for Omaha. A game with such wild variability does well to be tamed by the betting structure a little.
There's nothing strictly wrong with NLO. It's not the end of the world to spread that instead of PLO, and maybe your player pool does fine with it. But if you're doing it only because your one friend is super vocal about it, that's not an especially great reason unless the dude is so bad that he's funding the game for everyone else.
Seems like he doesn’t understand or appreciate Omaha. Getting rivered is part of that game. Is it even considered sucking out when you have twenty-something outs?
Seems like you’re right that he’s stuck in a Hold’em mindset. He wants to bet people off their draws so he doesn’t get sucked out on, which is why he resist pot limit.
Your friend is a dumbass
Seems like you’re right that he’s stuck in a Hold’em mindset. He wants to bet people off their draws so he doesn’t get sucked out on, which is why he resist pot limit.
Your friend is a dumbass
Darthhoodie
Flush
Right its not sucking out at all, not like you hit some 1 outer, kinda silly for him to be mad at this play.
mattross1313
Full House
I'm very new to Omaha, but enjoying the learning on Pokerstars, even if I end up loosing a few dollars here and there.
We have a guy at our weekly game who sounds just like your buddy. If he plays/wins a hand with some junky hand like K6o, he's the best player around, he knew what he was doing, played it perfectly. But someones calls his KK with AQ (and wins), they are the dumbest players around! If I win a hand but got the chips in bad, my standard response is just 'sorry, I got lucky on the turn/river'.
I can (almost) understand your buddys frustration, he effectively flopped 3 pair so could boat up quite easily and had a fair amount of outs...but didn't hit any of them. But given you turned all sorts of Broadway and the NFD, the chips are going in regardless.
We have a guy at our weekly game who sounds just like your buddy. If he plays/wins a hand with some junky hand like K6o, he's the best player around, he knew what he was doing, played it perfectly. But someones calls his KK with AQ (and wins), they are the dumbest players around! If I win a hand but got the chips in bad, my standard response is just 'sorry, I got lucky on the turn/river'.
I can (almost) understand your buddys frustration, he effectively flopped 3 pair so could boat up quite easily and had a fair amount of outs...but didn't hit any of them. But given you turned all sorts of Broadway and the NFD, the chips are going in regardless.
moose
4 of a Kind
..
Last edited:
moose
4 of a Kind
I don't get the bashing of villian's "poor play".
Pot on flop is $4. He bets $12. He should bet less?
Turn you expect him to check behind? WTF should he do if he feels (and correctly) is ahead?
He quite correctly puts his money in ahead and gets a call.
However that is also why NLO is dumb. You can correctly shove and your opponent can correctly call with a wide range of draws. He can even possibly hold the best hand and be behind because opponent has so many outs.
In summary:
Villian play fine.
Hero play fine.
NLO bad.
Pot on flop is $4. He bets $12. He should bet less?
Turn you expect him to check behind? WTF should he do if he feels (and correctly) is ahead?
He quite correctly puts his money in ahead and gets a call.
However that is also why NLO is dumb. You can correctly shove and your opponent can correctly call with a wide range of draws. He can even possibly hold the best hand and be behind because opponent has so many outs.
In summary:
Villian play fine.
Hero play fine.
NLO bad.
I don’t know—it’s hard to agree that shoving with a middling two pair (and only a guy shot to the second nut straight), when you’re beat by any QT, Q8, Q2, QJ, JT, QQ, JJ, TT, 88, 22, J9, and there are two flush draws on the board is fine. He’s slightly ahead at best to drawing thin.
Villain’s real issue is he thinks the hero made the bad play.
Last edited:
I had a friend (A) that saw poker, and things In general, similarly. He was very rigid in his beliefs. Great guy, though. Another friend (B) in our group would periodically pressing A’s button. A seemed to get over it, but one day, on a separate issue, B kept pushing and pushing until A exploded. That last argument destroyed what had been a really great group. Not saying you’re anything like B, but I agree with you that, despite your intentions. educating your friend is a dangerous cause- I wouldn’t do it again.
I might recommend:
A. Keeping it light as @DrStrange and others indicated. Nothing wrong with saying you were feeling lucky and wanted to take it for a spin. Might actually help disrupt his read of you.
B. Look at the relationship as a whole and how poker fits in that. As a rigid player who doesn’t like losing when the odds are in his favor- there’s a potential for a repeat experience. Was he this way in person? Perhaps dial back the online games with him?
Hope you find a way to work this out.
I might recommend:
A. Keeping it light as @DrStrange and others indicated. Nothing wrong with saying you were feeling lucky and wanted to take it for a spin. Might actually help disrupt his read of you.
B. Look at the relationship as a whole and how poker fits in that. As a rigid player who doesn’t like losing when the odds are in his favor- there’s a potential for a repeat experience. Was he this way in person? Perhaps dial back the online games with him?
Hope you find a way to work this out.
A broadway wrap at that. Easy call here.
In this case, yes.
I can’t comprehend poker players who don’t want to learn and get better. But we’ve all seen them. Guys who play exactly the same, for years or decades and just continue to lose. We want them in the game. We need them in the game.
moose
4 of a Kind
I agree it could be spewy play overall but if the guy is going with his read that his 2 pr is still good (esp in a 4 handed game) then what is he supposed to do, check? If his read is that hero is drawing then he makes no money on river when hero misses.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Given Villain's hand, I have to agree with @Beakertwang's assessment. A nothing-special two pair in Omaha is often a sucker hand. It's just not that good, never mind worth stacking off.
My specific argument against Villain's play in this hand is that the disproportionate overbet almost guarantees he'll never be in good shape when he gets called. Almost all the hands he beats fold, and almost all the hands that beat him (or have solid equity, in the case of draws) call.
Even from a Hold'em player's perspective, it's a bad bet. This is why you usually shouldn't overbet unless a situation really calls for it. Even with the best of the best hands, you're typically losing value by making everyone fold. With middling hands, you're just spewing.
But I'm also going to agree that Hero shouldn't give Villain a hard time about it. There's nothing wrong with occasionally shrugging off these kinds of remarks and letting the sucker have the last word, especially if he's a bit of a hothead who could disrupt the game for everyone.
My specific argument against Villain's play in this hand is that the disproportionate overbet almost guarantees he'll never be in good shape when he gets called. Almost all the hands he beats fold, and almost all the hands that beat him (or have solid equity, in the case of draws) call.
Even from a Hold'em player's perspective, it's a bad bet. This is why you usually shouldn't overbet unless a situation really calls for it. Even with the best of the best hands, you're typically losing value by making everyone fold. With middling hands, you're just spewing.
But I'm also going to agree that Hero shouldn't give Villain a hard time about it. There's nothing wrong with occasionally shrugging off these kinds of remarks and letting the sucker have the last word, especially if he's a bit of a hothead who could disrupt the game for everyone.
Mike Wells
3 of a Kind
This hand starts great and keeps getting better and better. I prob would have raised at some point.
I have never played NLO, so trying to adjust from my PLO experience... 
Pre I like a raise from the CO, as I'd prefer for BTN to fold so we can play post in position. For a limp/3bet line I'd like hero's hand to be just a little bit stronger (3 --> 7+), even against a range of mostly random garbage as described in the OP.
As played we see a multiway flop, the pot is $4 and villain bets $12... The two clubs on the board suck and while one player folded, we are not closing the action. I think this is a fold multiway, the odds are just so bad and either the main villain or BTN could very well have two clubs. Against a pot-sized bet I'd certainly try to peel one with our backdoor outs.
On the turn we hit some additional outs, the pot is $28 and villain bets $57. The odds given are better than on the turn, but far from great. Against a pot-sized bet this is never a fold, but now hero needs 40% equity to continue. I think this is really close, with folding perhaps slightly better than calling.
Maybe I'm being too nitty, happy things worked out for hero!
Pre I like a raise from the CO, as I'd prefer for BTN to fold so we can play post in position. For a limp/3bet line I'd like hero's hand to be just a little bit stronger (3 --> 7+), even against a range of mostly random garbage as described in the OP.
As played we see a multiway flop, the pot is $4 and villain bets $12... The two clubs on the board suck and while one player folded, we are not closing the action. I think this is a fold multiway, the odds are just so bad and either the main villain or BTN could very well have two clubs. Against a pot-sized bet I'd certainly try to peel one with our backdoor outs.
On the turn we hit some additional outs, the pot is $28 and villain bets $57. The odds given are better than on the turn, but far from great. Against a pot-sized bet this is never a fold, but now hero needs 40% equity to continue. I think this is really close, with folding perhaps slightly better than calling.
Maybe I'm being too nitty, happy things worked out for hero!
tabletalker7
Full House
The math says call. Nothing else should matter at that point. Two things went wrong on this hand, and you were not guilty of either.
1. If you have a big hand and don't have enough to protect it, that is it's own problem.
2. If you are silly enough to think two pair with a card to go on that board was going to hold up, that is it's own problem.
You were not guilty of either of these - what's the problem here again?
1. If you have a big hand and don't have enough to protect it, that is it's own problem.
2. If you are silly enough to think two pair with a card to go on that board was going to hold up, that is it's own problem.
You were not guilty of either of these - what's the problem here again?
DonkeyKing
3 of a Kind
This post makes me want to play Omaha again.
RainmanTrail
Straight Flush
It's not a "bad" call, but it's not a super easy one either. The key part of this hand that everyone seems to be overlooking is that there are 2 clubs on board. Those significantly discount a lof of your wrap straight outs. The villain would have to be pretty bad, or pretty splashy, for me to get it all in here on this turn given these odds. It sounds like he is, so I'd call here as well. But if I were up against a tighter player, I could easily find a fold. You don't want to be up against a made straight with a club draw or a made straight with a wrap of their own to the higher straight, or even a made straight with boat potential. You only have 15 clean outs to the nuts, and half of those could easily result in a split pot if you get there.
SixSpeedFury
Full House
He has A LOT to learn if he thinks 2 pairs are good in Omaha.
MrCatPants
Full House
Agree. And no pair to fall back on in case villain is just drawing heavy.
naked_eskimo
Two Pair
That is a good analysis. Thank you.
Ahh the days when I thought 3 pairs were good lol
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
In b4 AckshullyFlop comes. Villain bets $12, I call, everyone else folds. Turn is
and he shoves his remaining $57. I think about it for a bit and call. River is the
for the nuts.
is the nuts.Is this from a calculator? At a glance I would assume hero was the favorite. Villian had bottom 3 pair and no straight or flush draw.
Why?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Okay did the math in my head, so it's 19 outs to a straight or better. So 25:19 against, about 5:4 as you said. You surely are calling in a 3:2 spot there.
tabletalker7
Full House
I will say this - don't let him talk smack about this hand anymore. The more people hear about this the more people will be looking to play with him on their table and the more people that will be plucking your chicken! Gotta keep this guy for yourself!
naked_eskimo
Two Pair
Omaha: the game you hate to love.
naked_eskimo
Two Pair
I do not see two clubs on this board:
Hand #23190-101 - 2020-08-31 22:53:12
Game: NL Omaha (1 - 2000) - Blinds 0.50/1
Site: Brantford Poker
Table: Table#5 NL Omaha .50/$1 6 Max
Seat 2: MrsSmith (129.75)
Seat 3: Hero (158.25)
Seat 4: radarrayner (137)
Seat 6: Villain (70)
radarrayner has the dealer button
Villain posts small blind 0.50
MrsSmith posts big blind 1
** Hole Cards ** [4 players]
Hero calls 1
radarrayner calls 1
Villain calls 0.50
MrsSmith checks
** Flop ** [
]Villain bets 12
MrsSmith folds
Hero calls 12
radarrayner folds
** Turn ** [
]Villain bets 57 (All-in)
Hero calls 57
** River ** [
]** Pot Show Down ** [
]Hero shows [
] (a Flush, Ace high +JT83)Villain shows [
] (Two Pair, Tens and Eights +Q)Hero wins Pot (142) with a Flush
Oh wait..I think I may have made an error when picking the graphics for the board..lemme quickly confirm in the server logs.
Yes, looks like I made an error when selecting the graphics for the flop, but the runout is correct in the show down section of the hand history. There were indeed two clubs on the board.
I have corrected the graphics in the above hand history.
You need to double check your work.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
