River action? (PLO8)

[TomG]

Party Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Hi-Lo Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
10 players


Stack sizes:
Hero: $359.33
SB: $165.92 (VPIP 35.6, PFR 8.9, AF-Tot 1.86)

Pre-flop: (10 players) Hero is UTG+2 with
2 folds, Hero calls, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, 2 folds, SB raises to $3, BB calls, Hero calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls.

Flop: ($15, 5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets $19, 2 folds, SB calls, BB folds.

Turn: ($53, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($53, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero...

Also, comments on all other streets (how do you like my turn check?) are appreciated.

[Felonius_Monk]

[TomG]

[JDLush]

[Kuso]

[Phil153]

I'd be compelled to bet this river (say $30), but I don't think it's a great play. If the flush wasn't there or you had any wheel card, sure. The trouble with the flush is that while Villain will still call with lows, you'll lose calls from weaker high hands like 2 pair which you would get if the flush wasn't there. It also creates many more combos that can beat you. As it stands, you're not folding out many (any?) better high hands, so the most you gain from this bluff is $26. You can potentially lose $56 (half pot + river bet) if villain decides to get tricky and raise you with a low (which you really can't call). You'll lose $30 if you're beat for high. You gain nothing the times when Villain has no low and no high and folds.

So the profitability of this bet depends on how often villain has a low and folds (+$26) vs how often he has a better high (-$30) PLUS how often villain raises you with a worse high (-$56). From a card distribution standpoint, it's far more likely that villain has a low card than has you beat for high. This means:

-Against a calling station, check behind


- Against an intelligent/tricky player, check behind.


- Against a weak tight player, bet


- Against an average semi skilled player (loose or tight preflop), bet.


BTW, betting the turn is a chip spew.

Apologies if this was long and rambling.

[Phil153]

BTW you can see from the analysis above that pot betting this river is a losing play, just from a card distribution standpoint. $30 is as high as you can go and still show a profit IMO.

[Felonius_Monk]

[Phil153]

I don't know Monk. Some players will fold enough to make this work. Here's some further info anyway:

From a random distribution of suits he'll have a flush on this river 23% of the time.

[C(10,2)*C(33,2) + C(10,3)*33 + C(10,4)]/C(43,4) = 23%

So including 45 and sets that call, about 30% of the time he'll have you beat for high and he'll be calling.

Of the other 70%, let's say he's got a non nut (bluffable) low on the river 85% of the time.** That means 60% of all situations have a profit potential from betting the river. If we bet half pot ($26), he needs to fold 50% of the time he has a low in order to break even. This is a pretty big ask. If we're betting full pot, he needs to fold 100% of the time for us to break even.

So betting full pot is a huge money loser against any player. Betting 1/2 pot will work against players who'll fold their low > 50% of the time. There are definitely players worth bluffing here, but they're an exception rather than the norm. It's a very marginal play any way you look at it.

**Note that if this number is lower than 85%, this hurts us even more.

[Felonius_Monk]

Yeah, I think it has to be opponent specific. I think in general it's probably best to err on the side of aggression, image-wise, though in this case personally I'd probably usually just check it down. But you're right, it's marginal either way.

[januarymute]

[TomG]

Thanks for everyone's input. As you can guess from my reply to Monk earlier, I bet the pot on the river. He insta-called and showed me for the scoop. I felt like a jackass wondering if I was too greedy/aggressive on the river. So I learned a few things...

1) Humbly accept a showdown more often in borderline situations, unless the villain is a weak-tightie
2) Bet less than the full pot to offer myself a better risk-reward on my bluffs