Can you give an example of a hand you think is not analysed correctly?
What kind of games is he playing in/ describing?

The first hand I disagree with:

in the SB

I'd say complete and he bets the pot. "It's true I'm out of position, but I do have a major hand. The very least I should do is put pressure on the pot. Position is much less important in Omaha high than it is in hold 'em or Omaha high-low." (emphasis mine)

Flop

I check. It's a great flop and I might build a pot, but I'm out of position and prefer to trap from here. He bets the pot. Two callers.

Turn

We both check here. First caller pushes all in and second raised all in. The decision is call 2500 for a pot of 5720 (pounds). We both call.

River

My score indicated I'm probably too timid. Swash a few buckles.

Where we disagree, obviously, is whether to raise from the SB. Yes, it's a good hand to play and if I was LP, I'd raise. But, it's definitely a hand that has to improve, on the flop. A bad flop and I've either thrown away a lot of chips, or the pot is out of control and I've got a tough decision. Calling the turn has to be done. I'd have rather had an easier decision, which not raising the pot PF would have given me, although we might have ended up in the same place (most likely).

Saying position isn't as important is patently wrong, imho.

CJ

Hand 2 which I think is crummy play from both.

UTG

Call, and six callers.

Flop

We both checked. Button bets 30, the pot. He calls, I reraise. He says the button is much too good a player. If he's bluffing, he will reraise. If he has a lower flush, he'll fold. Ok, what's wrong with either scenario? If he reraises and is bluffing, I'll give him credit for having position on me. If he folds, I'll take the pot. I'm out of position. Sucks to be me.

Turn

Button bets the pot and is called.

River

He bets 150 into a 240 pot and button calls. Final outcome is button has the A high flush and we lose 390. And he says position isn't important.

On the river, he bets about half the pot and button calls. With the nut flush? Granted a 3 came on the river, but what hands could we have that he'd be worried about a full house? Did the half-pot bet scare him? Our play is so passive that it might be tricky or it might just be weak.

He says, "Unless he has a full house himself, it's unlikely (button) will bet. (HUH???) Thus the pot will be checked out. (HUH?????) However, I might have held perhaps JJ. Then it would be logical to bet 150 rather than the full 240, tempting my opponent into a call. If I choose this line, then I've saving 90 if he does call or raise me."

Sorry, but I don't get this at all. He makes what is really a bluff bet and he's worried about saving 90 when he could have saved a lot more had he raised on the flop and gotten the same result? He's dead to the FH or the nut flush and out of position.

Is it me, or is this just terrible playing?

CJ

IMO this is the best book about PLO i've ever read. Though admittedly there's little competition. Lyle Bermans bit in SS2 is alright but it's only a vague intro, same can be said of Ciaffone's book. There isn't really a book out there AFAIK that teaches more than the fundamentals, so there's a serious gap in the market. Rolf S was writing one at one point but from what I understand that's kind of ground to a halt now, shame.

The game structure in Reuben is very different to what you find online so you have to filter the wheat from the chaff to some extent. His hand selection is far too loose preflop for a typical online game. Most everybody in these games is half decent and knows the basics very well so to make money you have to deviate and do unusual things sometimes, in a huge stack game I think raising out of the SB with that hand has a lot of disguise value, and may lose an opponent or two which is never a bad thing. The big decisions in such huge stack games will tend to be weighted more to the latter streets, as well, so PF is less of a factor.

Bare in mind he plays with stacks 1000BB+.

Thanks for the reply, Monk. I'll post some more as I work through the book. It's interesting, the hands, and good practice. I really like PLO and want to improve, so it's helpful. I hope you'll give me more insights as I go along.

CJ

For me it's not specifically a book of advice or plays that you'd use on the table, per se, but a good book for making you think about situations and options. The very fact it's got you posting and analysing hands has to be a good thing, anyways....

Not a particularly good book for fundamentals, as I say, but I feel I got more out of it than any other books i've read because by the time I got to ciaffone etc a couple of years back I already knew 99% of it from having played a little bit.

You're correct that some of his plays are a bit odd, and like you I do disagree with a few of them, but I think it's a nicely presented book and it got me thinking more about the mechanics of the game than anything else i've read.

You just need to remember in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS, the proviso that the game he plays is VERY DIFFERENT to the online environment and thus much of the book is not applicable directly, but serves more as a conduit to more in-depth thinking about the game. That's what I got from it, anyway.

Have been interested to read about your early PLO progress, CJ, hope it works out for ya!

I didn't know there were any pros posting in this section. I hope Rolf is not playing in the BTP PLO game