Villain (UTG) had been playing TAG-ish. He actually was at the table 400BB's deep when i sat down. Sat down with the standard 100BB's. At this hand I about 310BB's deep and he has since dropped to about 240BBs. He is the closest person to my stack. It's clear the first thing will be that I should have folded pre-flop....I was just on a very solid heater and wanted to try and utilize that vs. a well-stacked opponent who was starting to get a little spewy (UTG)
Essentially the 3 bet here on the river, which I'm questioning, only constitutes 13 dollars, which isn't huge compared to the pot, but is still over half a buy in at my table. I feel like that while he may be on fluff, that by the river 3 hands now beat me (99, 66, 7h8h) and for him to re-pot here, he's probably got me, and if he doesn't, it's most likely that he is on fluff that will fold to my 3 bet anyways, even with the crazy odds. Is this a correct post-game analysis for myself....in that I should have just called his pot bet on river?

Also, taking results out. Is my flop check bad here as a long term course of action? I felt it was fine as I just flopped a monster OOP with a pre flop raiser 4 handed. Just 'sucked' that it line checked.

Full Tilt Pot-Limit Omaha, $0.25 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG ($64.08)
MP ($24.06)
CO ($28.22)
Button ($32.83)
Hero (SB) ($76.26)
BB ($25)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 10, 5, 10, J
UTG calls $0.25, MP calls $0.25, CO bets $1.35, 1 fold, Hero calls $1.25, 1 fold, UTG calls $1.10, MP calls $1.10

Flop: ($5.65) 10, 9, 9 (4 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks, MP checks, CO checks

Turn: ($5.65) 6 (4 players)
Hero bets $3, UTG calls $3, 2 folds

River: ($11.65) 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $11.65, UTG raises to $46.60, Hero raises to $71.91 (All-In), UTG calls $13.13 (All-In)

Total pot: $131.11 | Rake: $3

flop check is fine, turn donk is fine, on the river the board puts a second hand out there that beats you i think donking or checking river would have been fine. As for river three bet, what are you getting value out of? AA,KK,QQ,JJ? none of those make sense. Best cause scenario he has a naked 9 for a lessor boat but is going broke with less, i don't think so.



is anyone going to comment?

1 combo of 66
1 combo of 99
2 combos of T9

If he only ever has one of those hands (and never A9xx, etc) we're exactly 50% equity. He isn't folding anything to a 3bet, so I'd get it in.

Yeah, I'm assuming this river pot raise is limited to 9T, 99, 66, 8h7h in this hand. So it's 40/60 including the straight flush. I guess it's pretty clear. I was falsely thinking that 9T would flat this river X amount of the time, or less than pot raise. I was clearly not giving it enough credit as to it's strength in this hand, and the fact that 9T would most probably pot raise this river as only TT, 66, 7h8h beats it, so only 3 specific holdings, and my line could contain a lot of other things, flush, overpair, naked 9, etc. etc.

I just felt like after the fact that his raise clearly meant i was smoked as the board was so grouped, so i whiffed at the chance to keep 13 bucks behind with my 3 bet push.

Donk bet means to bet into the aggressor. The hero is the aggressor on the turn, so he can't donk bet the river.

I greatly prefer betting the river to checking.

really i just say donk bet any time i bet half pot so thanks i didn't realize that. I do agree checking river keeps weaker hands around and lets them bet

I appreciate all responses, but as BJ pointed out, some issues here:

turn donk is fine

I'm agressor, as noted.

on the river the board puts a second hand out there that beats you i think donking or checking river would have been fine

I have plenty to learn, but unless I was trying to induce action to C/R if I thought UTG was weak and folding to any bet if you are checking the 4th nuts over on this type of board, that is a major leak (correct?)

As for river three bet, what are you getting value out of? AA,KK,QQ,JJ? none of those make sense
Agreed, hence the crux of my question....but naked 9's, 96, 9T, or maybe even an ace high flush makes this play if they feel me light (like I say though, I feel strong that any of these looks me up with a call, except 9T)

Best cause scenario he has a naked 9 for a lessor boat

If he's riding a naked 9, he doesn't have a boat, and I feel he is far to competent to not be calling down w/ an okay showdown hand. He wouldn't go broke popping this.

had a feeling i was wrong, like always, i just get pwned on plo posts. i try. don't hate me

Don't sweat it man. It's nice that people are at least trying at the strat forum still here.

there's enough hacks that exist in Gen Po that I'd start to hate before someone trying to help by analyzing a hand in strat. LOL.

You missed the best part obv

I don't mind getting it in here, sure you're beat sometimes but whatever, it's only another $13 and if he calls with something stupid we get to put a nice note on it.

There are a lot of holdings in PLO that I worry about when getting it in with less than the nuts on a coordinated board.

Quads and straight flushes are not one of them. If he has it he has it. You have the fullest boat, get it in.

Cool. This was my immediate thought when I snap-pushed. I also subscribe to top boat being nuts and quads/str8 flushes being a cooler, plain and simple. This specific hand had me second guessing it though, since villain specific, I'm eliminating naked 9's or less from his range with this river repot. Typically, that may be a very tight range....but I think the showdown value vs. shove value of flushes, naked 9's, naked 6's on this river is enough to eliminate them vs. a competent villain. Leading to the 40/60 of topping off his repot, which made me think calling would have been correct here. Is this river ranger analysis after the repot too tight vs. a competent villain?

On this board a call is definitely correct, reraise is -EV. Usually in such spots there is one hand that beats you, here there are three, which a big difference. Not to mention that the hands that you beat that play it this way are few and far between.

I'd even say that folding the river comes into consideration against some villains.

The reraise is only $13 more into a pot of like 90+. It is most certainly not -EV to stick the last amount in.

You're crazy if you ever fold this river.

It doesn't matter how much is already in the pot. Whenever you bet or raise on the last round in a situation where villain will never fold a better hand than yours, you are putting $ into the pot at even money odds - that means you show a profit only when you are ahead more than 50% of the time when called. Once we are reraised on the river, I don't think we are ahead more than 50% of the time, and it is questionable if we are ahead even 33%.

Look, in this spot, we have the 4th nuts. Sure, it happens to be top full house, it's still the 4th nuts. If can't fold the 4th nuts you won't go far in omaha poker. NOTE: not necessarily advocating a fold in this specific situation, but if you never fold TTxx on this board, you will be playing losing poker.

There's a big difference in holding the 4th nuts when there are 9-12 card combos that beat you, like when you hold T8 on a board of 887TA.

This is a situation where even with the 4th nuts there are exactly 3 combos that beat you. You should play it as if you were holding the 2nd nuts on a similar board, because thats usually an analogous situation (If you hold TT on that 887TA board above, only 3 combos beat you).

So no, I'm never folding TTxx on that board in this hand. I'm willing to chalk up any quads or straight flushes to a cooler. If you ever fold this river, you are leaving money on the table, as it is definitely +EV to stick it in.

You also have to consider the action and the number of combos villain would play this way that don't beat you. In the given case, no one is raising the river without at least a full house, so there are two combos of T9, and 4 of 96 (I think we can safely ignore T6 because I don't see how villain gets to the river). That's a total of 6. But you have to discount this to some extent because T9 and especially 96 won't raise the river every time. There's probably just enough chance that villain has one of these hands to warrant a river call here, but I think it's close.

There is not a single time that a villain is not raising T9 on this river. In fact I think it's his most likely holding given the entire hand of action - this is how most un-thinking players play a flopped boat. (OMG I has a boat, I have to slowplay it and let him try to catch up so don't bet or raise until the river)

96 might not raise it every time, but I disagree that you can take out T6. Some people really dont understand PLO hand values as compared to NLH, and might think their T was best after the flop checked through, and the turn bet seems weak to them. Hell, there are players who still think Ax of hearts on this board is fantastic.

Unless you are at a table of nothing but good PLO regs, there is absolutely no reason not to stick it all in here. But even if we go under your assumption that we beat 6 combos and lose to 3, you realize that just with those numbers we can never ever ever fold this, right?

Wrong. The three combos that beat us will raise every time, but the 6 combos that beat us will raise less than 100% of the time. You have to discount the 6 combos that beat us by the percentage of the time that they will not raise the river. This where the judgment call comes in - if we estimate that 69 and T9 will only raise 10% of the time, then a fold is correct, if we say 50%, then it's a call, if it's greater than 50% then it's a raise (assuming that they will call every time). Like I said before, a call is probably correct, but there are arguments for folding.

PS - do you think that raising the river with T9 or 69 would be a good play if you were in villain's shoes, or are you assuming that most players would do it simply because they don't understand omaha?

Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns. You are wrong.

The pot is laying us 2:1. That means that there would have to be twice as many combos that beat us than there are combos we beat for us to even consider folding.

Although 96 doesn't always raise, I will guarantee you with my lifetime poker winnings that T9 always always always raises this river. So even if 96, a flush, or a naked 9 never does, that means there are 2 combos we beat and 3 we lose to. Since we're getting 2:1, we have to make the call.

I do think raising with T9 here is a good play, but not with 96. I would raise T9 as villain here. I think most villains however would raise 96 b/c "omg i has a boat." The reason online poker is profitable is there are still tons of fish/donkeys who don't understand the concepts. PLO is an area where you see that lot because NLHE player's can't or don't adapt to the relative hand strengths.

Briefly, I'm never folding this river. Never. Ever. Ever.

Honestly I don't think PLO can be a profitable game for someone if they fold this river. I agree that with this flop checking around, it stymies these 3 specific combos that beat me, because essentially all 3 are possible holdings. At the turn. That being said, I get where both of you are coming from (except for the possibly folding to river repot). My hand was concealed well. Heck, my line is just as indicative of a guy on a straight steal (I would fire again on the 2nd 6 after the first one most of the time) as it is as a guy on the 10's over boat.

I agree from the odds standpoint that it seems +EV to get his last 13 in here....but my contention is that my read was refined enough and based on his possible holdings for this shove that I'm sub 50% in hands he might raise with and call my 3-bet. It's close I think all told, hence the basis for the startup question. Thx for follow up, it's let me think about this a bit more.

Oh, and this analysis is EXACTLY my train of thought when I posed the original question. I'm calling for sure, but my auto shove felt dumb when I ranged what he would have here that would call me down and it's really just those 5 combos, 3 of which beat me, which made me think more about "why I shoved" and if it's profitable.