Bluff Spot PLO100

Submitted by : Bejamin1

PokerStars Game #25358765261: Omaha Pot Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2009/02/25 22:00:53 ET
Table Celbalrai VI 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: I_lou_again ($31 in chips)
Seat 2: telmah ($306.30 in chips)
Seat 3: room812 ($99 in chips)
Seat 4: Skawty88 ($20 in chips)
Seat 5: Hero ($214.55 in chips)
Seat 6: resetdave ($94.90 in chips)
room812: posts small blind $0.50
Skawty88: posts big blind $1

Holecards
Dealt to Hero
Hero: raises $1 to $2
resetdave: folds
I_lou_again: folds
telmah: calls $2
room812: folds
Skawty88: calls $1

Flop (Pot : $6.50)

   
Skawty88: checks
Hero: bets $4
telmah: raises $6 to $10
Skawty88: folds
Hero: raises $19 to $29
telmah: raises $19 to $48
Hero: folds
Uncalled bet ($19) returned to telmah
telmah collected $61.50 from pot

Summary
Total pot $64.50 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: I_lou_again folded before Flop (didnt bet)
Seat 2: telmah (button) collected ($61.50)
Seat 3: room812 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: Skawty88 (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: Hero folded on the Flop
Seat 6: resetdave folded before Flop (didnt bet)

have the J of clubs next time :D

i fold as well

1)fold this pf
2)if u get there...never frontbet because they will always call you, especially when you are c-betor, check-raise is much stronger, but I dont like this ace bare bluff here

On February 26 2009 10:05 artas wrote: 1)fold this pf 2)if u get there...never frontbet because they will always call you, especially when you are c-betor, check-raise is much stronger, but I dont like this ace bare bluff here

this

IMO this spots are excelent to check raise OOP cuase it looks soooooo like NF, and if the dude checks de flop u can always bomb the turn and steal the pot ezzz

On February 26 2009 18:48 killaherni wrote: IMO this spots are excelent to check raise OOP cuase it looks soooooo like NF, and if the dude checks de flop u can always bomb the turn and steal the pot ezzz

I like this line very much. Good post .

Played PLO100 today. Learned that bluffing is bad.

River on A94T5 with flush completing. I have A4 with Ace of that color but no flush. A solid looking guy had bet the turn and bet the river, I shoved in 150 bb with the bluff. I got this in the chat:
"Wow... That's flush or AAxx 98% of the time"
Followed by pause of 5 seconds.
*call*
with 99xx.

Now that I got that out of my system, pot all-in ship! As for the 3-bet, I think I just repot it to make it more convincing than $29. If I really want to represent the nutflush here, I flat the raise and check-shove non-pairing turn. The problem is that on the flop, sets are inclined to play even if "they're obviously beat" cuz afterall, they can boat up.

Technically, he shouldn't be able to call if you just repot it here, but it's PLO100 and people go broke with Qx here.

And that's just a horrible hand to be playing UTG - or well, pretty much any position at all.

I'm sure it's apparent to you why the ace should be the sooted card in the hand now Otherwise you'll mostly flop shitty straightdraw type hands that are rarely the nuts with no redraws or bluffing opportunities such as this one where the opponent is just too stubborn to give up.

Oh I know that the hand is garbage. People need to ignore PF sometimes its not like I don't understand 4-strong hand depth. I just found it was an interesting spot to bluff. I was also mega-widening my range at the time to get into pots with Telmah who was paying off extremely light .

Edit: And I very much am benefiting from the different suggested stronger lines that look much more like a NF.

If we are playing solid omaha thoughout the session, meaning im showing nuts and ultramegadraws to the nuts, the players at the table are going to tighten up along and fold to our thirdbarrel on a paired/sooted board. We need to make this type of plays to create an image. This situations are EV+ even at every stake i dare say. Our only mistake i guess was bluffing with air, cause even if a situation like this comes up and u are holding 2 pair, u can a least get good odds to gamble. Regardless of the outcome, we have misslead the people on the table we are "wildcats" and that generates many many action to our nitty play. And if we are playing omaha serioulsy, a buyin gamble shouldnt affect our BR that much at all.

What i mean, is that we want to get caught bluffing here

On February 27 2009 11:22 killaherni wrote: If we are playing solid omaha thoughout the session, meaning im showing nuts and ultramegadraws to the nuts, the players at the table are going to tighten up along and fold to our thirdbarrel on a paired/sooted board. We need to make this type of plays to create an image. This situations are EV+ even at every stake i dare say. Our only mistake i guess was bluffing with air, cause even if a situation like this comes up and u are holding 2 pair, u can a least get good odds to gamble. Regardless of the outcome, we have misslead the people on the table we are "wildcats" and that generates many many action to our nitty play. And if we are playing omaha serioulsy, a buyin gamble shouldnt affect our BR that much at all. What i mean, is that we want to get caught bluffing here

I have no idea what you're saying nor does it really make a lot of sense. The purpose of bluffing is doing it when its going to work. Looking at stronger lines and the right places to do it is far more important to me than convincing players who will pay me off consistently regardless... most of them sure as hell aren't thinking about images I can promise you that. Outside of the regs there's not a lot of thinking going on.

I like your line here. In a pot such as this and your stack sizes it definitely should get lesser flushes to be folding in this spot. Looks like a set with clubs imo

I like the bet out, as long as you're betting out when you do have the NF here. That being said, I don't think many of the people at this level are capable of folding the K-flush or Q-flush here so more often than not your play isn't going to work.

grosstastic

On February 28 2009 16:15 sawseech wrote: grosstastic

My play or the situation? Or both

both