SSS Omaha

  • 16 replies
    • TribunCaesar
      TribunCaesar
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.04.2007 Posts: 13,264
      variance is huge and it's hard to make that work.

      Best regards,
      TribunCaesar
    • Jackalof
      Jackalof
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.06.2008 Posts: 1,462
      I've met about 3 regular shortstackers in PLO. They all were losing players.
    • kingdippy2008
      kingdippy2008
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.08.2008 Posts: 2,107
      Hey,

      I moved it to omaha discussion :)

      Best regards,

      -Jack
    • Ratatuj
      Ratatuj
      Gold
      Joined: 27.08.2007 Posts: 14,089
      sss at sh tables is practically impossible. it does work at FR (variance is huge sure), but actually it's no sense as there are no tables...
    • Nunki
      Nunki
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 865
      I've short-stacked over a pretty insignificant sample (5kish atPL25) with good results. Simply put, I essentially tried to see flops for either one bet (contra SSS) or for my entire stack. I felt that my (perceived) edge came mostly post-flop (I'd buy-in for 40BB).

      The main point to realize is that hand-values are much more dynamic in PLO than HoldEm. This means that there is far less to gain by trying to maximize value PF in PLO since your PF equity edge is typically small (especially in the micros 'cos of the rake) and you also deny yourself the opportunity of outplaying the opposition post-flop. In PLO there is also much less dead-money around since PF limpers etc. are usually priced in to call (ie. less FE PF).

      PLO or HoldEm and your short-stacker ALWAYS has an intrinsic advantage over full-stacks. Why so many people in this thread say that short-stacking PLO is no good is beyond me. The fact that no-one goes into any detail as to why not is pretty obvious though.

      BTW, the games in which I played were pretty soft/passive/loose and I'd imagine that in a more aggressive game you'd be forced to take many more close gambles which would require adjustments to the simple strategy that I outlined above.
    • alejandrosh
      alejandrosh
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.07.2008 Posts: 4,346
      but you need a good knowledge in ranges , which is much harder to do in plo than in holdem. I heard that good applied SSS is unbeatable at PLO ... I guess in the "me limp calls any 4 cards stakes" is not that hard to make it work.
    • Jackalof
      Jackalof
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.06.2008 Posts: 1,462
      I felt that my (perceived) edge came mostly post-flop (I'd buy-in for 40BB).


      I see absolutely no reason playing shortstacked if you have an edge post-flop! Just makes no sense.

      The main point to realize is that hand-values are much more dynamic in PLO than HoldEm.


      That's why one can call shorties very lightly, because they get the right price for their draw almost all the time.
      If you are shortstack and hit a monster, you lose tons of value against a drawing hand.

      PLO or HoldEm and your short-stacker ALWAYS has an intrinsic advantage over full-stacks.


      Please elaborate. You are basing this on your 5K hands or...?

      All in all, shortstacking in full ring might be reasonable in one case: your postflop game sucks, so you raise PF and go all in on flop. In SH, SSS is doomed.
    • Nunki
      Nunki
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 865
      Originally posted by Jackalof

      I see absolutely no reason playing shortstacked if you have an edge post-flop! Just makes no sense.

      I only played short-stacked while I was trying to get a feel for equities/ranges.

      Originally posted by Jackalof

      PLO or HoldEm and your short-stacker ALWAYS has an intrinsic advantage over full-stacks.


      Please elaborate. You are basing this on your 5K hands or...?

      I base nothing on my insignificant 5k hands.

      Shortstacked: you don't suffer so much from RIO scenarios.

      Aggressive big stacks bet each other out of the pot (free money BTW).

      You needn't play like such a nit OOP.

      Your opponents can't bluff you so easily. (Forget this one if you are an unbluffable station.)

      Leverage.

      There are more....



      Originally posted by Jackalof
      All in all, shortstacking in full ring might be reasonable in one case: your postflop game sucks, so you raise PF and go all in on flop.
      This might work to a certain extent in NLH but due to dynamical hand-values (see my OP in this thread) it would be disastrous in PLO.

      Originally posted by Jackalof
      In SH, SSS is doomed.
      I'm sure that there are a bunch of pro-PLO-shorties who are already up >$100k this year already.

      Originally posted by alejandrosh
      but you need a good knowledge in ranges , which is much harder to do in plo than in holdem. I heard that good applied SSS is unbeatable at PLO...
      QFT
    • LuborC
      LuborC
      Bronze
      Joined: 20.04.2008 Posts: 1,243
      Where do you guys get the information from?
      I read some discussions online on 2p2 and such but what I took from that was that SSS is possible at PLO but most people move to playing with bigger stacks later anyway..

      I ordered 3 books on PLO a few days back and I think SSS is a topic in one of those so I might post here about what I learn later..
    • Jackalof
      Jackalof
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.06.2008 Posts: 1,462
      To Nunki:

      I'm too sure there are alot of profitable shorties...in a higher level. Also, regarding your "unbluffable station", what the hell? Let's face the facts: we're talking about micro/small limits here. Playing SSS in those limits is just crazy. People don't give a damn about your stack size, they're just too stupid to do that. They don't think in the categories of "he's too small for me to make that call". They think "it's raining outsize, the sand in the sandbox is wet, I'll play some poker until the sun comes...Lol I got 4 cards, dealer made a mistake" (rephrasing Bahmrockk). Buy in for full and take advantage of them. Jackalof out.
    • Kruppe
      Kruppe
      Black
      Joined: 20.02.2008 Posts: 2,144
      shortstacking PLO50 SH is insanely easy imo
    • marvinas
      marvinas
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.04.2009 Posts: 70
      Could you give some details on that?

      Besides, (I'm a SSS noob, so might get things wrong here) the strenght of SSS in NLH comes from very clear and strict starting hands chart. How do you decide which hands to play in PLO SSS? only AAxx, KKxx, or maybe JT98, ss or ds? Of course its possible to buy in for 20 or so bbs and try to get allin pf with AAxx, but is this profitable long term?
    • Jim9137
      Jim9137
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2007 Posts: 5,608
      I can't see there anything being wrong with getting it in with aces preflop, ever. Rake be damned, you tend to have a 60+ equity against most crappy hands that call you. It's like, a monster. Sadly, you can't shove so freely with the pot limit (otherwise it would be correct for you to shove them preflop anytime regardless of your stacksize).

      I personally feel the biggest downside shortstacking micros is the fact that you lose value. While the passive preflop play and really, really passive postflop play might play for you (free cards!) and against you (more opponents at SD, and smaller pots), it also means the micros are ridiculously easy to play with BSS as well. So you'll just take the cents and leave the hundred dollar bills, which were just as easily at grabs.

      Rolf Slotboom describes his reasons for playing SSS in his book of Secrets of Pot Limit Omaha (also touches briefly on topic of shorthanded shortstack). Most of the scenarios he described were very loose with lots of gambling and bad players - and monster stacks - while on the other hand, he played in 'tough' live games where Europe's best duke it out together. This differs radically what you can expect in online microstakes.

      I don't personally recommend SSS. It's a hard strategy to put to work (table selection, preflop play and postflop play are all a lot more difficult than in NLHE), and the advantages of it seem to be - in the end, in most common scenarios - quite minimal compared to full stack.
    • KidPokersKid
      KidPokersKid
      Global
      Joined: 27.02.2009 Posts: 653
      I am no PLO expert at all but there has to be something to playing with a midstack iv seen a lot of players at mid/high stakes SH games buy in for 40bbs including durrr himself... isnt it profitable in aggresive games to play the midstack since you reduce implied odds of draws and such? sort of like how CAP PLO works ?(
    • Jim9137
      Jim9137
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.11.2007 Posts: 5,608
      In very aggressive games with lots of multiway pots, playing small stack reduces your possible mistakes in the game. It's less variance (in BB, at any rate), and you tend to be involved in such huge pots with so much dead money at the river, it's simply easier, profitable and less risky than playing for the massive stakes Slotboom faced in live rings.

      And are you sure durrr wasn't just chasing his losses? :f_p:
    • KidPokersKid
      KidPokersKid
      Global
      Joined: 27.02.2009 Posts: 653
      Originally posted by Jim9137
      And are you sure durrr wasn't just chasing his losses? :f_p:
      Who knows it was a 200/400 HA table