Tried my hand at PLO again today after returning primarily to NLHE. This was a kind of interesting hand that came up, I thought:

Table has gotten down to 7 players (100 game on Stars), and I limp UTG with 3678 suited in hearts to the 8. Calls and SB (full stack, seems decent but nothing great) makes it $5 to go. Looks a lot like AA to me.

Flop comes 556r, and SB bets out $7 into the pot of $16. This looks even more like naked AA to me in a 3-way pot. I'm pretty sure my draw is live and decide to rep at least trips myself, so I raise to $21. SB calls. Hmmm...

Turn comes Jh now giving me a little heart draw, and I decide to check. Against better players, this probably wouldn't be a very good play, as I'm inviting a big river bet. Then again, I guess I can call on the river if I make my straight (maybe even flush?). But I'm trying also to control the pot in case he has trips with the AA. Anyone prefer a bet on the turn? maybe half-pot?

River comes an offsuit 9 completing my straight. He checks and I check and win. He indeed has AAT9ds in diamonds and spades.

Basically, my thinking was to control pot-size by checking behind with position, but I definitely played it awfully passively aside from merely pursuing the draw at all on a paired board.

I really think I prefer half-potting the turn and then if he still calls just checking behind on the river even if I make my straight. Showing that much strength, I think he has difficulty calling the turn without at least trips and really should be full to CR me. And he also can't bet the river after all that--unless of course he really is full.

Opinions?

I would bet the turn as I think it would be very hard for him to raise without at least a boat. Even something like AA5 has to be scared that you're holding 56xx so by betting you may push him off the best hand as well as build a pot if you hit on the river.

As played, why didn't you bet the river? Seems like the perfect opportunity for a value bet.

I agree. I think it's much better to bet at least one or the other. I guess I just wan't quite confident enough in my read and was thus too scared of a trap.

Do you think it's going too far to bet both turn AND river? (I'd definitely say both at half-pot on this board)

Oj is quite right about the suits: I have 8h3h and the others were unsuited.

I think this is a solid hand where folding UTG is really more a mistake. I run maybe 22%, and that's actually quite tight by the standards of most good PLO players. I just wish I could figure out more hands that are worth playing.

It's also very much the exception for me to pursue this draw on a paired board. The main reason is that it's a 3-way pot. With 2 or more players behind me who could easily hold trips or a full, I just wouldn't continue. But my flop raise also gains me valuable info from the initial raiser (the alternative is imo simply to fold myself). With a call, it becomes extremely unlikely that he has the 5 that I'm repping.

I really think that you'll get eaten alive in short-handed pots if you routinely fold this. Nothing to worry about in big multi-ways, but short-handed, you've got to pursue some stuff like this imo.

BTW, I think we have to bet the river

i think a lot of the analysis depends on how villain plays trips.

1) if villain likes to jam trips -- esp w a cr -- then a turn bet might not be such a good idea. if seen players like this even at plo8 (where you are much more likely to be called/raised correctly).

2) if villain can fold trips and/or overpairs, then a turn bet is great. this is especially true if villain announces his boat with a raise when he has it.

3) if villain calls with trips/overpairs and jams with boats, then a check behind on the turn is reasonable, as is a decent-sized value bet on the river (fold to a raise).


fwiw, one of the most consistent and most valuable notes i make on people is how they play trips. of course, these plays are often contextual, so there is still quite a bit of room for interpretation.