Opponent takes unorthodox line

[Hofstra]

$50 PLO on UB.

My stack is $80, opponent has $60.
I get QQJ9 on the button and raise pot. BB calls, as does opponent in MP. Pot is about $8.
Flop is KQ7, no flush draws. Checked to me, I bet pot, BB folds, opponent calls.
Turn is an 8, putting a flush draw out. Opponent checks, I bet pot again, opponent calls.
River is a blank 2. Opponent moves in. I call. And I lose a big pot against KK.

I walked right into the trap here; somehow I'm too used to the fact that top set will get aggressive on an earlier street (I don't even know if I could've laid it down against a cr on the turn). It would really save me a chunk of $$ to be able to read these situations correctly, since I run into this situation at least once a week. I'm always tempted to believe that my opponent puts me on aces and wants to blast me off my hand when a scarecard hits or when he hits two pair or better...

Any ideas to avoid these traps? (Except for the obvious "make a note that this player plays like this")?? How do you play this situation against the same player next time, knowing that he slowplays his top set against an LP raiser?

Pieter

[Kuso]

[Hofstra]

Thinking a bit more about this (but, of course, still eager to hear more responses), there is only one hand that beats me. Purely statistically I am up against a wrap draw or a two-pair/draw combination way more often than against KK.

As for folding the river, I would have to be really sure about my read here. The pot is $72 on the turn and he bets about $25. I have to be 75% sure that I'm losing here. Whereas I'd never play a the hand like he did, he DID succeed in confusing the hell out of me, and I wasn't sure about anything on the river. Incidentally, I sometimes see players on the high stakes tables make plays like this, either in order to encourage an aggressive player to bluff off some more money or to keep their opponents from getting a good read.

Also, I don't like folding the river from a metagame perspective. First of all, I raise many hands in LP, and I want to have my opponents guessing whether I have a monster or just nothing. If I invest 2/3 of my stack and then fold the second nuts to a 1/4 pot river bet I am inviting all kinds of bluffs on future rivers, whereas I want my opponents to timidly call me down. If I win one big pot having raised preflop with 3456 then my opponents will call me down more often with weaker hands.

So from my opponents perspective: I raise in LP with many hands; if I get several callers I only fire again when I hit a good flop. Against one opponent I'll fire most of the time, but only continue on later streets if I have a good hand or if I'm positive my opponent is drawing.
Therefore my opponent figures that if he represents being on a draw he gets the best of two worlds: he gets all my chips if the draws don't hit, and if a draw hits, he might be able to represent it and bluff me out. Only drawback to his strategy is that I could be betting a big draw, in which case he might have to release his hand on the turn...

Still, I don't see how I can play it differently without having a good read here. Especially the fact that he didn't move in on the turn made it look like a wrap draw: he wants to save the last $25 if he misses.

[Kuso]

i didn't realize that his river bet was so small... this makes a big difference. i was too lazy to do the math.

regardless, the folding on the river idea is definitely read-dependent.

fwiw, i don't think most weak-tight players have the balls to bet a full pot bluff on the river into an aggressive bettor with only a missed draw and a pair or two. i hear a lot of the players on UB are weak-tight... was this the case for your table?

on a second note, driving the betting with second nuts leads precisely to these kinds of problems. i would chalk it up to normal variance if your are going to regularly play 2nd nuts aggressively. if your read on your table is correct, you should paid off by 2pr and/or busted draws enough times to make up for these set-over-set situations. do you find this to be the case?

[Kuso]

also, 2 comments on the metagame concept:

1) I think you might be giving your opponents too much credit -- I doubt that most players put that much thought into it at $50 PLO.

2) If your opponents think that they can make you fold a missed draw if they bet into you on the river OOP with a weak hand, this also means that they will be willing to pay you off when you have the nuts. e.g., swap QQ for KK in you and your opponents hands in your example.

i understand what you are saying about the metagame idea, but there is more than one way to play and get paid off. i suppose it just depends on your style and/or current table image.

[Hofstra]

As for the play on UB: on the $50 and $100 tables there is always a bunch of regulars like me and hopefully a couple of live ones, as well as the occasional maniac. I don't have a lot of experience on other sites (only on stars) but I can say that the average level at the $50 on UB is a bit higher than at, say, Party. One thing that makes the games on UB easy is that there are not many players who will reraise a flop on a big draw, or to play a bluff for their entire stack. Another thing on UB is that there are not always good bigger games going on, so sometimes there are regulars from the $400 tables killing some time. I don't think that many players on UB are weak-tight, although there are more TAGs than LAGs. This table was not very tight, and the average pot size was pretty large...

The opponent in this hand is not a regular, although I spotted him a few times at the $200 game.

[Felonius_Monk]

[Kuso]

monk... would you consider folding to a full-sized pot bet on the river? do you reraise?

why or why not?

you have to win the hand a third of the time to justify the call, so i would say that this is a break even call at best. do people really bluff into aggressors that often at 50PLO on UB without the nuts?

[edited to represent correct pot odd]

[Felonius_Monk]

[Kuso]

i realized the pot odds error and changed it... must have been while you were writing your response.

i definitely see how the villain should push on the turn rather than pull the stop-and-go -- it certainly does suggest a suboptimal player. i'm not yet so clued in on the various ways that people make bad plays in omaha high -- thanks for your comments and insights. they help a lot.