Friday, September 18, 2009

PLO Ring Hand

This happened last night and I'd be interested in any feedback.  I'll get this on a forum or two once I get out from behind the great Internet prison that is my office.
 
PLO 0.10/0.25  I selected this table because it had a very high % flop and very high average pot size.  Turns out the three people to my right clearly know each other and are making no attempt to hide this in the table chat.  One of them was discussing how he was winning $1k pots at some other table simultaneously - I didn't go to verify this at all, but thought it was a bit telling that they may just be joking around here - the action would back that view up.  I don't believe they're colluding, but they are playing pretty big pots with one another with sub-premium holdings.  So the strategy is simple - wait for a big one and play it big. 
 
I've lost a big pot played three-way against two of these clowns earlier.  I flop a pair and a draw, turn the nut straight and get it all in.  One guy calls with a set, the other guy calls with the flush draw and the flush gets there on the river.  They bantered back and forth about the hand in the chat, about how each of them had to do what they did, basically ignoring that I got it all in with the current nuts.  I was silent. 
 
OK, in the key hand, I'm in the BB with 458J.  Bleh.  It's a free flop for me though.  The flop is 445 with two spades.  I bet out and the villain on the button raises me.  I call it in the event he has the flush draw - I don't want to scare him away.  Plus given his play it's hard for me to necessarily put him on 55, though it's certainly a possibility. 
 
Turn is a J and we get it all in here.  Sure enough he has the 55.
 
Well the river is a J and I make Jacks full...I take the $45 pot down.  And then the expected chat box banter starts in.  "Fckn donk"  "f a g", etc. 
 
And my contention was this...neither one of us had the nuts.  44 is the nuts.  I knew he didn't have 44 because I had one of the fours.  Only one hand could beat me: 55.  BUT he couldn't contend that he had the nuts post-flop either because I could have had 44 there.  Each of us, essentially, got it all in with the second nuts - based on what each of us were holding.  I happened to be the one who was behind and I happened to be the one who sucked out. 
 
I told him that I couldn't put him on exactly 55 and 55 alone there, but of course this band of idiots didn't want to hear anything about it.
 
Questions:
* Am I looking at this right?  "Each of us got it in with the second nuts" is the correct view?
* Could you fold the under-full here?
* Should you fold the under-full here?

4 comments:

Zerbet said...

I'm stacking off there easily (even with less than the subjective 2nd nuts) given the quality of the opposition and the circumstances - there's only three combinations of cards that beat you fer crissakes.

Zorag said...

Oh, I'm stacking off, too. You have the nuts blocked, one of the 5s and one of the Js. The only 2 hands that beat you when you put it in are 5,5 and J,J. Neither are entirely unreasonable holdings, but if you're going to be afraid of the monster under the bed, you can't play PLO.

Snuffy said...

What those two said.

DJM said...

Thanks all. I'm a relative PLO newbie and thought I had to go with this hand. The feedback from the peanut gallery at the table was surprisingly strong, but it turns out they're just fools. Should've known.