Villain was good, running pretty aggressively, 3-betting at least once an orbit. The only flaw I thought I saw was that he seemed to 3-bet a little too light when it was clear that his opponent was pot-committed, but for all I know he had notes on all the players he did that too and thought he was ahead of their range and knew they would call. All streets welcome.


PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

UTG ($97.80)
MP ($123.25)
CO ($102.20)
Button ($182.45)
Hero (SB) ($50.50)
BB ($220.25)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8, 4, 8, A
1 fold, MP calls $1, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.50, BB bets $4, MP calls $3, Hero calls $3

Flop: ($12) 7, 8, K (3 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $7, 1 fold, Hero raises to $32.40, BB raises to $57.80, Hero calls $14.10 (All-In)

Turn: ($105) 4 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($105) 6 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $105 | Rake: $3

Why are you sitting with half stack? Also, if he's aggressive, 3betting often and "good", I'd be looking for a better seat elsewhere.

I don't mind completing sb, but once it gets raised by bb I'm done with the hand. Once you get to the flop I guess you're stuck...You play A884ss to either flop a set of 8's or some kind of flush. You got your set, you have to go with it now, especially with only 50bb to start the hand and with a villain who you've seen 3bet or stack off lightly before.

I started playing PLO pretty heavily a couple of weeks ago, and I've found that I play more optimally and get better action if I buy in for 50bb's, as well as limit the swongs in my bankroll. To me, it's more profitable to play half-stack against generally bad players at a level that makes it easier to get all my money in than try to do it at say .10/.25 with a full $25 or .25/.50 with $50.

I've started to foray into .50/1 with $50 buyins and everyone hates you and thinks you're a huge fish, but I do have to tighten up a bit since there's a lot more raising and 3-betting preflop at that level.

If BB has you covered and you know MP is coming along with the raise, and that you can c/r almost always if you hit the board hard, calling is still bad?

It might be, I'm just not sure.

meh, with a half stack and very few ways to "hit the board hard", I'm waiting for premiums to start calling ~10% of my stack preflop from the small blind.

I think preflop is a fold too.

As played have to go with it.

I'd think so, possibly even enhanced by only playing a half stack. The amount of times you are folding after a bricked flop is going to more than tip the scales to -EV in this equation i think. If I'm gonna prospect in the headlights of a limp-raise situation, I'd much rather have suited connectivity vs. the nut flush draw + PP. You flop the flush and often come up light....you flop the set, and it's nowhere near a guarantee to be the nuts. Plus, you either drill the flop or you miss it, with very little in between.

I agree with all above. Fold to raise, but as played you can't not stick it in. Theoretically he's not near those low cards, so you should hopefully be way ahead, or completely toasted by KKxx...so for your 88xx, you'd be murdering the above EV discussion by folding in this hand, which is probably already -EV to begin with.

The preflop complete is standard, but calling a raise is bad. You just don't have the implied odds to be calling with a hand like that. Flopping a set with 88 isn't as strong in PLO as it is in NLHE, because oversets are a LOT more common. If you had ATT4 I would be ok with the call.

Is there really that much difference in strength between the two hands?

Yes. For two reasons, the ability to make a broadway straight and the higher likelihood that if/when you flop a set with TT it will be either top or middle set.

Think about the hand we have here, what nut straight can we make? None.