Live Grind: How to Fall Asleep at the Table (Without Getting Caught)

[DunningKruger]

Your statement makes sense to me in general, but not in this context. People playing micro- and low-stakes PLO on Bovada have not (necessarily) read Hwang's PLO books. There are obviously some players who get it in reasonably well most of the time. But then again I've also gotten it in as an 80+% favorite OTF 3 times in my last 2 sessions (maybe 500 hands of play?).

The standard of play is comically bad, even by #brovada standards. It's part of my motivation for continuing. I'm not planning to drop NLH, but IMO keeping some PLO mixed in there so that I can HF and #crush (in a game that I'm still very much learning the ropes) could be good for me.

(Enough acronyms/hashtags for you?)

For years now Hwang's stuff is/was considered the definitive how to for getting into PLO not to mention smashing NLH players trying it who lack a particularly deep understanding of the differences. You're at .10/.25 I think? I'd be amazed if most of the regs didn't know Hwang or his works. He's done more than anyone else I can think of to atm toughen up online PLO though everything he's taught on hand construction, differences between draws, so on and so on. My comment should have been more specific to regulars and actual half decent players though instead of just saying people in general. I concede that it doesn't really apply to fish, and if the games you're playing are as overall fishy as you say then all I really should've said here if I posted at all is to enjoy the monies. lol

This would go without saying I'm sure but it's going to get a lot different and soon if you start moving up. PLO is such a crazy intricate game but it's not easy to appreciate the nuances playing among a sea of morons whose extent of their PLO understanding is probably just to wait until you flop enough perceived equity and start shoveling the money in. If only it were that simple heh.

Logan, being almost 2015 there's no way any semi serious online PLO player hasn't read anything on the game, but as I said to Scourrge yeah when we're talking about uNL Bovada fish then ok that's a different story. Apparently that's more akin to shooting fish in a barrel while sipping lemonade on a hammock then actually playing PLO.

 

[xdeucesx]

For years now Hwang's stuff is/was considered the definitive how to for getting into PLO not to mention smashing NLH players trying it who lack a particularly deep understanding of the differences. You're at .10/.25 I think? I'd be amazed if most of the regs didn't know Hwang or his works. He's done more than anyone else I can think of to atm toughen up online PLO though everything he's taught on hand construction, differences between draws, so on and so on. My comment should have been more specific to regulars and actual half decent players though instead of just saying people in general. I concede that it doesn't really apply to fish, and if the games you're playing are as overall fishy as you say then all I really should've said here if I posted at all is to enjoy the monies. lol

This would go without saying I'm sure but it's going to get a lot different and soon if you start moving up. PLO is such a crazy intricate game but it's not easy to appreciate the nuances playing among a sea of morons whose extent of their PLO understanding is probably just to wait until you flop enough perceived equity and start shoveling the money in. If only it were that simple heh.

Logan, being almost 2015 there's no way any semi serious online PLO player hasn't read anything on the game, but as I said to Scourrge yeah when we're talking about uNL Bovada fish then ok that's a different story. Apparently that's more akin to shooting fish in a barrel while sipping lemonade on a hammock then actually playing PLO.

Confirm in my experiences that this is so so so true

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Logan, being almost 2015 there's no way any semi serious online PLO player hasn't read anything on the game, but as I said to Scourrge yeah when we're talking about uNL Bovada fish then ok that's a different story. Apparently that's more akin to shooting fish in a barrel while sipping lemonade on a hammock then actually playing PLO.

Bolded part is confirmed. I'm not claiming to be a solid PLO player. Just that basically only fish are in these games. Yeah there are a few "regs," but even they aren't doing anything that great. Nut-peddling mostly, and badly at that.

Confirm in my experiences that this is so so so true

Isn't it kind of standard that games get tougher as you move up though? Like that's the definition of moving up. But that being said, it's still Bovada. Even if regs are reasonably solid at like 100PLO it's not like there won't be fish? And deuces I didn't think you played PLO on bovada - wasn't it back on Carbon?

Like 100PLO shouldn't be as tough relatively as 100NL. Granted I have way more skill and experience at NL obv, but even so. 25PLO is seeming like 5NL to me in terms of both preflop and postflop actions from the general population.

 

[DunningKruger]

I would say that the difference in skill between the average PLO player at lower stakes and those at higher stakes is more extreme than NLH players across a similar range of stakes. High stakes NLH and PLO players are both skilled and awesome etc and put a lot of effort into their craft so it's the players near the bottom of the pyramid that account for this difference. I think it's just that NLH has been much more popular for much longer and there's so much strategy oriented material out there now compared to 10+ years ago. You can show a newbie a generic NLH starting hand chart by position (which are usually pretty nitty and with reason) and they won't look too horribly out of place at least to start. It'll take a little time to expose and abuse them. Not only are there not as many nitty PLO starting hand charts out there that are easily accessible for Omaha no0bs but fishy players look at many of the hands they get dealt with rose coloured glasses and all they really see is a world of potential. It's a (lovely) phenomenon in NLH but it's magnified imo in PLO. I also think the nature of the game makes it harder for terrible players to realize they're terrible. It's very easy to attribute losing to simply running bad, and equally easy to attribute running good to ability. Again this is a trait of NLH and one of the reasons I think it's a great form of poker but PLO might actually go a little too far with the whole variance thing for my tastes. I dunno. I'm still hung over and it's hard to really articulate what I'm getting at all that well.

I am by no means any kind of expert on Omaha and I can very easily be wrong about most of this. I actually do pretty well at PLO but I feel like online PLO is softer overall than today's NLH games (based on nothing more than gut feel). I don't like the game very much and the amount of time I've spent with it is but a sliver in comparison to all my play and study with NLH. I do know that PLO fish are positively atrocious however. They never seem to realize that most of the outs they're trying to hit post flop are going to a lot of times get them stacked.

 

[xdeucesx]

Isn't it kind of standard that games get tougher as you move up though? Like that's the definition of moving up. But that being said, it's still Bovada. Even if regs are reasonably solid at like 100PLO it's not like there won't be fish? And deuces I didn't think you played PLO on bovada - wasn't it back on Carbon?

It is, but I think certain games have a harder jump is all. Where I think the gap at nl comes into play (somewhere around 25 or 50), at PLO I think its super soft up to 100 and then it becomes very challenging imo.

True, I played on merge, but it's not like games were tough on that site either. Maybe not bovada bad lol, but at 100 PLO is where I started to feel a bit outmatched/getting in spots where I was truly confused and I felt like the regs got more exploitative and less nitty.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I would say that the difference in skill between the average PLO player at lower stakes and those at higher stakes is more extreme than NLH players across a similar range of stakes. High stakes NLH and PLO players are both skilled and awesome etc and put a lot of effort into their craft so it's the players near the bottom of the pyramid that account for this difference. I think it's just that NLH has been much more popular for much longer and there's so much strategy oriented material out there now compared to 10+ years ago. You can show a newbie a generic NLH starting hand chart by position (which are usually pretty nitty and with reason) and they won't look too horribly out of place at least to start. It'll take a little time to expose and abuse them. Not only are there not as many nitty PLO starting hand charts out there that are easily accessible for Omaha no0bs but fishy players look at many of the hands they get dealt with rose coloured glasses and all they really see is a world of potential. It's a (lovely) phenomenon in NLH but it's magnified imo in PLO. I also think the nature of the game makes it harder for terrible players to realize they're terrible. It's very easy to attribute losing to simply running bad, and equally easy to attribute running good to ability. Again this is a trait of NLH and one of the reasons I think it's a great form of poker but PLO might actually go a little too far with the whole variance thing for my tastes. I dunno. I'm still hung over and it's hard to really articulate what I'm getting at all that well.

I am by no means any kind of expert on Omaha and I can very easily be wrong about most of this. I actually do pretty well at PLO but I feel like online PLO is softer overall than today's NLH games (based on nothing more than gut feel). I don't like the game very much and the amount of time I've spent with it is but a sliver in comparison to all my play and study with NLH. I do know that PLO fish are positively atrocious however. They never seem to realize that most of the outs they're trying to hit post flop are going to a lot of times get them stacked.

I read all of this ^ twice and am still unsure what you were trying to say specifically? It kind of just seemed like you were saying PLO is softer at lower stakes but gets tougher faster than NL does at higher stakes? Maybe? But I don't think I'm going to ever get above mid-stakes anything anyway. At least that's not how it's felt for the last 5 months or so.

It is, but I think certain games have a harder jump is all. Where I think the gap at nl comes into play (somewhere around 25 or 50), at PLO I think its super soft up to 100 and then it becomes very challenging imo.

True, I played on merge, but it's not like games were tough on that site either. Maybe not bovada bad lol, but at 100 PLO is where I started to feel a bit outmatched/getting in spots where I was truly confused and I felt like the regs got more exploitative and less nitty.

I think we have every reason to believe that that cutoff happens well above 100plo on bovada tho... Like, 400plo prob, maybe 600plo. And besides, I'm nowhere near there?

Like I kind of get what you guys are saying, but at the same time, I'm not trying to become a PLO grinder... I know I'm not Phil Galfond, and I probably never will be (I have a full-time job, and the plastic surgery to look like him would be expensive as well). But I'm not even close to peaking out either. There's literally no chance that just 2 levels up from this game is a bunch of savvy regs who will consistently exploit the shit out of me.

Deuces have you even tried PLO on bovada? 25plo is like playing with chimps sometimes. I just don't see how a 2-level jump could equate to that kind of difference.

But let's say I'm wrong. Who cares? What's wrong with wanting to play a game that doesn't completely suck out my soul for a little while? I've been losing at NLHE for 4 ****ing months. That blows. Hard. Deuces you know this better than anyone. You got back on track but it's not far behind you.

And I really never got back on track. Sometimes I want to play poker without the pressure of supposedly being a winner and then coming up short. Sometimes I want to play a game that's primarily about having fun but I still rate to win a little money in. That's what PLO is for me right now. A fun game that doesn't have too much pressure but I'm still excited to learn and improve in.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Addendum to above ^:

Maybe I over-reacted based on what you guys said. It was hard for me to figure out. I almost edited that post but decided not to because I think it really captures my emotions about all this pretty well. Slash I don't understand the big pushback against playing PLO. So that's prob the best explanation I've got. Sorry if I came across as a whiny bitch. I guess I am one anyway.

 

[xdeucesx]

I think PLO is great to work in and if anything, it helped me become a better NLH player exponentially. I'm not saying don't play it, I think it's great to mix in. I just think your similar to me in that neither of us do great with variance and adding a game that raises our potential variance infinitely might not be the best play at a time when your already running bad is all.

That being said, I loved PLO, I just couldn't do the 20-30 bi swings on the reg. Also, I realized how little I actually knew about the game and wasn't willing to put in the work into a game that I felt like I would never seriously end up playing anyways.

 

[xdeucesx]

I would say that the difference in skill between the average PLO player at lower stakes and those at higher stakes is more extreme than NLH players across a similar range of stakes. High stakes NLH and PLO players are both skilled and awesome etc and put a lot of effort into their craft so it's the players near the bottom of the pyramid that account for this difference. I think it's just that NLH has been much more popular for much longer and there's so much strategy oriented material out there now compared to 10+ years ago. You can show a newbie a generic NLH starting hand chart by position (which are usually pretty nitty and with reason) and they won't look too horribly out of place at least to start. It'll take a little time to expose and abuse them. Not only are there not as many nitty PLO starting hand charts out there that are easily accessible for Omaha no0bs but fishy players look at many of the hands they get dealt with rose coloured glasses and all they really see is a world of potential. It's a (lovely) phenomenon in NLH but it's magnified imo in PLO. I also think the nature of the game makes it harder for terrible players to realize they're terrible. It's very easy to attribute losing to simply running bad, and equally easy to attribute running good to ability. Again this is a trait of NLH and one of the reasons I think it's a great form of poker but PLO might actually go a little too far with the whole variance thing for my tastes. I dunno. I'm still hung over and it's hard to really articulate what I'm getting at all that well.

I am by no means any kind of expert on Omaha and I can very easily be wrong about most of this. I actually do pretty well at PLO but I feel like online PLO is softer overall than today's NLH games (based on nothing more than gut feel). I don't like the game very much and the amount of time I've spent with it is but a sliver in comparison to all my play and study with NLH. I do know that PLO fish are positively atrocious however. They never seem to realize that most of the outs they're trying to hit post flop are going to a lot of times get them stacked.

I think this post sums up my feelings accurately. Especially the bolded. In a game where edges are slight and optimal strategy isn't well known among some forums, you'll see lots of bad advice and not realize what your doing is bad. Improving was very very hard for me after the first initial "peddle the nuts, don't play non connected hands, etc." learning jumps were conquered.

 

[DunningKruger]

While I personally don't like PLO a whole lot and shared that opinion in your topic, it was more of an aside than anything else and I didn't mean for you to take it that I meant you shouldn't be playing PLO (I didn't mean it in any kind of offense manner at all in fact). I was pretty much preemptively explaining why I'm not studying and crushing a game that's ripe with as much dead money as PLO has right now. Play whatever you want obv, and other than maybe very minor concerns about splitting a rapidly declining pool of online poker players among a myriad of formats I don't have any problems with the momentum PLO is gaining and its increasing popularity. More power to it. I think I've just about said all I'm going to say on this particular subject since I'm prone to being misunderstood on these boards.

I realized how little I actually knew about the game and wasn't willing to put in the work into a game that I felt like I would never seriously end up playing anyways.

Yeah I'd say that just about every PLO player as they work to improve has that same epiphany of sorts where they realize there is a lot more to the game than they first assumed - even players with a decent background in other forms of poker. I was a little different in that I always knew of my overall ignorance toward PLO theory, but as I was trying to get at before I think a lot of players who play the game haven't yet hit that point where they suddenly become aware of just how bad they truly are.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Yah sorry I'm just super edgy like all the time b/c half the people are like "lol you must suck at poker" and half people are like "naw variance just head down and keep grinding" and then the other (third?) half of people are just saying what they think. Apologies for my stupid post. That's why I almost just didn't even post it, but like I said, felt the emotions behind it were worth putting forward.

Love the posting itt, and I need any and all input tbh. DK especially, you rarely post but when you do it's always good - way, WAY better than the average poster on the forum, or any forum. It was less about you being misunderstood and more about me being over-sensitive. That's not even quite the right word. I feel like I'm just more exposed in general? Like I've just been burned by months of poker feeling shitty, so it's still raw and painful too easily. I appreciate your posts a ton, even when you think you're just making a semi-random side-note.

Deuces, as always your input is, if not like gospel, close enough for me because it speaks to me on a personal level. We're similar in a lot of ways, both in how we think about hands (though you get it right more often than I do ) and in our mental game issues and epiphanies.

As for the variance, I haven't put in enough hands to know how much it's going to bother me. As with NL, I think it will bother me more as time goes on and I hit bigger swings. But so far the few -5ish BI sessions I've had haven't bothered me at all. I'm sure that first -10 BI day is going to hurt though, and it's just too soon to tell in general.

And as for not knowing stuff and then realizing I don't know stuff - isn't this just true in general? Like I'm sure I'll still run into that feeling, but it also doesn't concern me too much I guess. I've been experiencing that in NL practically since starting to play the game, and I still run into it relatively frequently I think.

I quite frequently - these days especially - say that I'm a complete fish; I'm just better than the people I play with. And while I partially say it facetiously - since I have put in a lot of work into the game - it's also true. For NL as well as PLO.

Don't really have a good way to wrap this post up, so cliffs:
- Sorry for getting pissy.
- Y'all should keep posting.
- I still enjoy PLO and I need to make poker about enjoying myself a bit more than about "moving up" or "making money." Those things will follow when I have more of the joy back (which PLO is giving me, at least for now).

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Gonna go to bed before I can make an even bigger fool of myself. G'night, thread.

 

[Logan2]

Not much to say after all above, moar nlhe hands please.
​

 

[Matt Vaughan]

$0.25/$0.50 No Limit Holdem
pokerstars
6 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($47.45) 95bb
UTG+1 ($29.20) 58bb
CO ($82.31) 165bb
BTN ($59.52) 119bb
SB ($74.40) 149bb
scourrge (BB) ($58.25) 117bb

Pre-Flop: ($0.75, 6 players) scourrge is BB
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $1.50, CO calls $1.50, 1 fold, SB calls $1.25, scourrge calls $1

Flop: ($6, 4 players)
SB checks, scourrge checks, UTG+1 bets $1.50, CO calls $1.50, SB raises to $5.24, scourrge calls $5.24, UTG+1 folds, CO calls $3.74

Turn: ($23.22, 3 players)
SB checks, scourrge bets $15, CO calls $15, SB folds

River: ($53.22, 2 players)
scourrge goes all-in $36.51, CO calls $36.51

Final Pot: $126.24
BTN shows

SB shows

scourrge shows a flush, Ace high

UTG shows

UTG+1 shows

CO shows


scourrge wins $123.24 (net +$64.99)

SB lost $6.74
UTG+1 lost $3
CO lost $58.25

 

[Beanfacekilla]

Hey scourrge....

I think this hand was well played.

Calling pre seems kinda mandatory, decent pot odds. However, we could 3-bet here, and potentially squeeze out all the dead money (and maybe reduce the pot to HU).

On the flop, price was right I suppose. Implied odds are also there too because board is pretty wet. So all in all, I think calling is just fine. No point in raising - I feel like we have less than zero FE.

As for the turn, my first thought was you should pot it, or jam. However, considering SPR, I think your sizing was awesome. You planned ahead really well (or it seems that way).


Very well played. I bet you are glad UTG+1 folded lol.


NH.


These are just my thoughts about it. I am not that great at HA. I have been away for a while, and I wanted to contribute.

 

[Logan2]

NH.

I think flating > 3b pre as first raiser is utg and shorty and could shove over, and if he just flat then could invite the rest to call too, so i think flating is fine.
Turn looks fine.
With your luck was expecting CO was the one with the Jc , wp.

​

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Nice to see you bean! Yeah this hand was kind of weird, cause I was in a call at the time - not sweating, but chatting - with duggs. And the river just sucks something awful because it's sooooo easy for villain to have QJ with the Jc. But equally he can gave QJ with the Qc or KQ with the Kc, so I felt like I had to jam.

I felt preflop was mandatory, and flop was basically the only point at which I could potentially let it go. I think I agree with logan that while 3betting is +EV, a flat is likely better here. I think with so much money in it's going to be tough to size it so that we get HU or take it down, and if we DO get HU or 3way, the pot is massive. So I'm comfortable 3betting but prefer the flat.

Thanks for input guys, will try to find some more interesting ones soon.

 

[zEric7x]

I felt preflop was mandatory, and flop was basically the only point at which I could potentially let it go.

What made you decide to call? Spots like this are hard for me. If the turn was a brick what would you have done then?

 

[Matt Vaughan]

What made you decide to call? Spots like this are hard for me. If the turn was a brick what would you have done then?

Playing for implied odds pretty much the whole hand through, so I called to try to make a nuttish hand and get paid. If turn is a brick then it all comes down to sizing and pot odds. Playing for implied odds like I said, so I'm not trying to bet anyone off a made hand in this game. But these are really call-happy games.

 

[zEric7x]

Playing for implied odds...

That makes sense. Pot odds and implied odds are something I need to spend time on to understand. I honestly just call down draws when bets look "low" and sometimes I can have the wrong judgement and take that too far.

 

[vinylspiros]

in all honesty, im bet/folding this river if not check calling it. You now have the third nuts and will only get called by better most of the time (his K high flush call is horribad IMO). What is calling a jam on this runnout?


Looking over it again Pot to stack ratiowize,i dont know if we can ever let go of it but still ....not the greatest runnout for our hand.

 

[Logan2]

We cant bet/fold river as when we bet are allin.
​

 

[vinylspiros]

yea, if you look back at my post, i kind of mention that in my last line.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Check call seems like the worst option to me. Does he really bet a single worse hand? I'm fairly certain he doesn't have any reason to bet the king of queen of clubs. We can't bet fold because of stack sizes. So it's either jam or check fold. Granted check fold is fine because as I said he's not betting worse than a straight flush. But imo we can expect him to call with any KcXx combo. Yeah it's terribad but he's still going to do it. I don't know his exact stats off the top of my head but this was a regular table and he was quite fishy. Just as many if not more combos of KcX than JcX, and there's still a small chance he calls with the bare Qx imo.

And yeah it's the nut worst runout for our hand (given that we actually hit a flush). That's the whole point of posting it. It's important to know how to play standard spots but it's also easy to make massive errors in the tougher spots.

 

[vinylspiros]

Check call seems like the worst option to me. Does he really bet a single worse hand? I'm fairly certain he doesn't have any reason to bet the king of queen of clubs. We can't bet fold because of stack sizes. So it's either jam or check fold. Granted check fold is fine because as I said he's not betting worse than a straight flush. But imo we can expect him to call with any KcXx combo. Yeah it's terribad but he's still going to do it. I don't know his exact stats off the top of my head but this was a regular table and he was quite fishy. Just as many if not more combos of KcX than JcX, and there's still a small chance he calls with the bare Qx imo.

And yeah it's the nut worst runout for our hand (given that we actually hit a flush). That's the whole point of posting it. It's important to know how to play standard spots but it's also easy to make massive errors in the tougher spots.

I hear ya scourge. Interesting spot really. Keep em coming.