Shortstack "all-in" PLO strategy.

[zim]

Hello,
Nice board, first time poster here. Thought I'd post a little strategy I've been tinkering with lately. I should preface this by saying I've used similar strategies successfully in NL.

Anyway, here's what I've been experimenting with:

Minimum buy in: (20 BBs)

Limp/raise/re-raise (try to get all-in before the flop):

AAxx
KKhh (h=high cards)
QQhh
JJTT

It's only been a short sample ... but the results have been excellent. However, I know that this game has high variance, so my question:

Is this actually +EV?

Thanks for the feedback.

Best,
Zim

(ps Yes, I'm working on actually learning the game. However, the results of this absurd strategy have been nothing short of excellent. It appears to be even more profitable than similar strategies in NL. I'm at a loss. The only explanation I have is that:

1) Starting hand strength IS important in Omaha, provided you're all-in preflop.

2) At the lower limits, many like to limp in and see the flop cheaply. With my strategy, a limp to trap (in early, anyway) followed by a strong raise forces many out. it's a play that everyone seems conditioned to fold. And perhaps correctly so given the stack size.

3) If by chance you weren't able to get enough money in preflop, a large raise on the flop tends to discourage much further contention for the pot. Rarely are you left competing against more than 1 or 2 players. At which point, hands such as AAxx and KKhh play well against a few players (I think!).

***

Anyway, all thoughts and improvements on this strategy would be appreciated. I suspect I just had a lucky streak over the past few days ... but thought I'd post my experiences to this board.

Best,
Zim

(ps Incidentally, I really enjoyed the articles by Felonius Monk. Simply excellent.)

[Felonius_Monk]

[zim]

[Felonius_Monk]

[zim]

Thanx Felonius,

And more props to your articles. For whatever reason, I have a dreadful time memorizing lists of hands and charts (sorry Skalansky). Your starting hand article really simplified the process:

The hand must work together, and its value can be determined by the strength and number of features it possesses: Wraps, pairs, and suits.

So much easier to grasp than rehersing a hundred different starting hands with seemingly arbitrary cut off points relating to how, where, and when to play them.

So thanks again, and please keep the articles coming.

Best,
Zim

(ps I'm still buying in somewhat short, but I have increased the flops I see to about 10% according to the stats. Don't laugh! I'm new to the game. That said, I haven't yet had a losing session. I actually rather think the game, at least the way I'm currently playing it, has much smaller variance than any other form of poker I've tried. Buying in a little short keeps me out of trouble, restricting my hands to solid holdings gives me a good chance post flop... and drawing only to the nuts pretty much guarantees any potential losses will be cut to the minimum.

I suspect I'm missing out on some considerable EV, mind you. But I'll loosen up and buy in for more as time goes by. Hey, at least I'm playing more than AAxx now.)

[Felonius_Monk]

That sounds like a sensible strategy - as long as there's a reason for playing a degree away from the norm, and you're clear as to what your reasoning is for buying in short and playing few hands, there's no reason why it can't work for you. PLO is one of those games where lots of different strategies can work out - some people play like semi-maniacs, some people do nothing but nut peddle. The ideal strategy is probably somewhere in the middle of the two for MOST games, but both extremes can be profitable.

If you're looking to play with limited variance and are trying to limit the amount of difficult post-flop decisions you'll have to make I see no reason why your strategy can't be a successful one! In time I'm sure your game will "open up" a bit more.

Glad you enjoyed the articles.

Monk
xxxxx

[euri10]

I don't see the point in buy in short as you'll never be able to fully benefit from your good hands,
You just reduce your variance, that's great but if you're not ok with high variance you shouldn't play that game imho, it's as simple as that.
The worst side of this strategy is when you'll be in front of a near maniac like me.
I played the other day with a semi maniac, overagressive an lost 2 buy ins in a row, all in preflop with the aces in position, once against KKxx, the other time against 679T.

what do you do with this type of opponent, you buy in short again ? he raises and re-riases everything preflop so that you'll be all in every hand you wanna play.

like monk said it s a game where you have a decision to make on every street, you don t learn ANYTHING imho by using this strategy, you wont be able to fold top set when flush arrives on the turn, fold top flush when board pairs the river etc etc.....you basically learn to select good starting hands and wait for a coin flip, that's silly

maybe I'm too tough in my reply but I'm really sure that it's worth the effort to play full stack and learn the "real" game, PLO is much more interesting than waiting for a good hand...

[Xaston]

haha Euri was the maniac's name Xaston by any chance? I hear he is one crazy PLO player..........

[zim]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses.

Well, pondering this the other night, I bought in full. Interesting dynamic change. Whereas before, my limited buy in would keep me away from tough decisions (no reason to ever fold!) now I had to think a little.

Long story short: Ended up nutpeddling and doubling up nicely.

Hate to say it, but limping in with solid hands, waiting for the nuts, and calling raises was rather successfull. Kinda funny actually. I went from making huge raises preflop to playing only when I could limp in.

I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not. Actually, it's the same basic philosophy (push the chips when you have the best hand), only now I'm emphasing post flop rather than pre-flop.

It seems like many approaches can be successful. I suspect one of the reasons is the nature of the game: You either have a top hand at any given moment or you don't. In comparison, I find Texas Holdem much more vague ...

Anyway, I've read that a good win rate for low stakes Pot Limit Omaha is around 12 PTBB/100 hands. Ie, 24 big blinds per 100 hands. This I find interesting in light of the nutpeddling approach:

Buy in is about 100 Big Blinds. So if I'm to strictly nut peddle in order to make, on average, 24 big blinds every 100 hands ... that means I only have to double up once every 400 hands (about 10-12 hours of game play), to attain this win rate.

Of course, blinds take their toll. And you won't double up everytime you hit the nuts. However, strickly nut peddling seems to be a viable strategy. Perhaps someone could do the math and determine how frequently you'll be dealt the nuts in 10-12 hours of play.

Needless to say, if you have the patience of a saint ... I think this game could be very profitable.

Best,
Zim

(ps Euro ... best avatar. By far.)

[euri10]

[zim]

[Felonius_Monk]

No, you're more or less correct. There are some occasional situations in PLO where you need to be cautious with the nut hand, these almost invariably involve nut straights on the flop, which can be very vulnerable to being freerolled.

In terms of whether to buy in full or short, well, the best players tend to buy in full. You'll win more money that way if you are one of the strongest players on the table.

To qualify my previous answer, however, there ARE situations where buying in short in PLO is a perfectly viable strategy -

1) Where you are the worst player there, or when you're still learning the game and (say) buy in for 60% of the full amount to cut down tough turn and river decisions.

2) When there are players with short stacks who are particularly poor, but the rest of the table is (comparatively) strong - you want to cover the players against whom you have an advantage (in terms of the quality of your play) but there's no harm in keeping your stack small enough so as not to tangle with the big boys, at least until you double through thanks to one of the weak players.

3) When you are starting up and wish to teach yourself a solid grounding by restricting yourself to the better starting hands, and concentrating on perfecting your flop and preflop play without additional complications. In general the decisions you make on the flop and preflop are simpler when you don't have to worry so much about the later streets.

4) When you are up against opponents who are generally strong players but who have a major weakness for playing (or getting committed to) weak hands preflop and on the flop, thus allowing you to take advantage of their major weakness (thanks to a conversation with Rolf S for this one!).

I played off short buyins online when I was playing PLO; even though I knew the game well enough I found it reassuring to play at least for a month or so with the knowledge that I would only lose $60 or $80 (rather than the full $100), which helped my game for a little while I think (note - whilst I have played omaha for quite a while, I've only been playing online seriously for 2 years or so and started in the $100 games)

Anyways, keep experimenting! Good luck.