PLO25 AKKTss

Standard bet gii on the flop; you could bet slightly bigger but i think overall i like your sizing. Turn is the million dollar card like you mentioned, so i like going for a small bet like you did precisely because he is not betting much himself. Well played. He prob just had a weak pair otf with a bdfd or something

Yes, I'm very tempted to check turn when we have locked this hand such way. It might be hard for him to call any bets with weak holdings when board runs that way and you've cards blocking nuts and strong made hands (ace, kings). He might turn his weakest hands into bluff, or make even bad valuebet when you rep aces. Of course if he super passice calling station type of a player, we know what to do He might cb hands like KJ, KQ, but you've option to put him all-in on river too.

Originally posted by Skodljivec
Standard bet gii on the flop; you could bet slightly bigger but i think overall i like your sizing. Turn is the million dollar card like you mentioned, so i like going for a small bet like you did precisely because he is not betting much himself. Well played. He prob just had a weak pair otf with a bdfd or something

I know in Omaha you should almost never slowplay, but is this not an OK spot for checking? We have the uber-nuts here and there's basically no river that changes that; the worst river would be an A or 9 just because it makes it harder to get paid by worse and we wind up chopping a lot.

Originally posted by MJPerry

Originally posted by Skodljivec
Standard bet gii on the flop; you could bet slightly bigger but i think overall i like your sizing. Turn is the million dollar card like you mentioned, so i like going for a small bet like you did precisely because he is not betting much himself. Well played. He prob just had a weak pair otf with a bdfd or something

I know in Omaha you should almost never slowplay, but is this not an OK spot for checking? We have the uber-nuts here and there's basically no river that changes that; the worst river would be an A or 9 just because it makes it harder to get paid by worse and we wind up chopping a lot.

It's not about slowplaying it's about not loosing value. Giving a passive player a rope and hope he hangs himself just doesn't work. Therefore what we do vs these opponents is start making small bets hoping that they call.

His flop calling range should hit the K to some degree; his range for calling flop is basically Qxxx, some Jxxx, T9x, gutshots etc... A big % of them is improved on the K as well, that's why i like betting. I'm actually surprised he folded, but he probably had some hand like a Q or J with low cards, and vs those we are hardly getting value on other streets as well

71/39 doesn't sound passive to me...

I'm tempted to check too, as it is pretty hard to get two streets of value. So even if he check the turn with a hand that might have called our bet, we can still get the same one bet value on the river. But with checking we at least give him an opportunity to make a bluff.

If he was 71/9, I would bet slightly bigger. How may hands you have on him?

Yes I agree it's not the standard "passive" player, I only got 80 hands on him. But he wanst all that aggro post, most monkeys that I would check to are like 70/50 or 55/35 in my games.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
71/39 doesn't sound passive to me...

I'm tempted to check too, as it is pretty hard to get two streets of value. So even if he check the turn with a hand that might have called our bet, we can still get the same one bet value on the river. But with checking we at least give him an opportunity to make a bluff.

If he was 71/9, I would bet slightly bigger. How may hands you have on him?

Preflop statistics doesnt idicate postflop play. There is plenty of aggro pre players who plays passive or fit of fold postflop.

Preflop tendencies doesn't always correlate to postflop. I know passive preflop players whom are aggressive postflop and vice versa. But if 90% of passive preflop players are passive postflop players, and 90% of aggressive preflop players tend to be aggressive postflop, wouldn't it be a good starting point to assume that correlation until there is better information?

Can you prove your statement about 90%?

Originally posted by Janosikgdy
Can you prove your statement about 90%?

He's obviously not literally quoting an exact statistic, but a fish who likes to raise and 3bet any two (or four) cards preflop isn't going to be the type of player to be fit-or-fold and passive postflop in most cases. Likewise, the type of fish that only limps and calls preflop isn't going to be bluffing a lot postflop. That statement shouldn't really need proof tbh it's intuitive.

Yeah, that 90% was just a number to show my point. Actual number is probably higher, as I can remember only couple players where heavy preflop aggression/passivity didn't correlate to postflop play. And on the other hand there are hundreds of players where it did. Check your own database and compare preflop aggression to postflop aggression for passive and aggressive players. How many clearly non-correlating players you find with decent sample size?

Hey Kyyberi,

I got 300k hands in my datebase. I am not sure where and how compare thoose stats. It might be intetesing to filter this.
From my experience, this is more 50/50 not, 90% or more, but would be nice to check raw date.

I tried to do it with my database but my laptop couldn't handle it. Checking if I can get the report to work.

I got the filter to work. I searched my small database (this year) for players with VPIP 50+, PRF under 10 and over 200 hands. Then I looked total AF. Found only 17 players (not sure if the report shows all sites) and only 2/17 had AF over 2. They had 2,05 and 2,21. Rest had under 2. 14/17 had under 1,5 and 7/17 had under 1.