We’ve banded together a select group of pot-limit Omaha specialists to tackle some tricky situations
You’re playing in a four-handed $5/$10 pot-limit Omaha game. You’re on the small blind with 10♥– J♦-9♣-8♦ and your stack is $1,000. The player under the gun folds. The button, with a stack of $4,500, raises to $35. You call, and the big blind ($770 stack) calls. The flop is Q♦-10♣-6♦. You check – intending to check-raise. The big blind checks, as does the button. The turn is J♥. You check, big blind checks, button bets $100, you call, big blind calls. The river is 10♠. You check, big blind bets $400. The button folds, as do you – reluctantly, believing the big blind either had top two on the flop or a set of Queens.
Whilst out of position, you still can’t afford to give free cards away. You have hit a great flop and need information that only a bet can provide you with. I’ll bet three quarters of the pot and if re-raised, would gladly put all my stack in the middle on the flop. Regarding the fold, I would – depending on the information gathered – probably call. With top two on the flop – and when in position – your opponent should have bet.
I would have bet the flop $100, so that I could possibly get raised (as four-handed is usually aggressive). I could then re-raise and get all of my stack in on this flop. I like to gamble with this sort of hand. I may have also called on the river, depending on this player’s ‘form’. If he has a history of stealing on the river, or value betting, I may have paid him off. Another option is to lead out betting $200 half the pot on the river. This will often get called by worse hands, but usually only raised by the stone-cold nuts – in which case I would pass.
JOHN ‘THE GREEK’
If I saw this hand down to the river, I would definitely call with the full house. In a four-handed game this is a pretty good hand. Chances are my opponent hit the nut-straight on the turn with no redraw to the flush, which would explain the check-call.
I think it’s wrong to fold – and would check-call. There’s no value in raising as you’re only called if you’re beat – you only lose to two hands. I don’t think anybody checks a set of Queens. The big blind could have a set of Jacks and checked the turn because the straight got there. I think he’ll bet Q-10 as well, so he probably doesn’t have that. I check- call a lot in Omaha on the river, because people bluff a lot. I think it’s too hard for the big blind to have Q-Q or Q-10 and not bet the flop.
You’re playing in a ten-handed $2/$4 pot-limit Omaha game. You’re on the small bind with 7♥– 5♠-4♠-A♥. The player under the gun folds, while UTG+1 calls, you call, and the big blind raises to $24. The big blind is quite aggressive, but has suffered several bad beats recently and seems to be on tilt. UTG+1 calls, as do you. The flop is 4♣– A♦-A♠. You check, which the big blind follows up with a bet of $77, UTG+1 folds, and you call. The turn is J♠. You check, as does the big blind. The river is 5♣. The big blind just about has your stack covered. Now what?
I don’t know why this player chose to check on the turn; free cards in Omaha are a no-no. Anyway, I would check-call the river, giving the big blind a chance to bluff me as a bet could only get action if I am beat. A bet would also allow the big blind to re- raise me with a bluff – and then I would have a tough decision to make.
To me, it sounds like the big blind doesn’t have a hand, so a bet is probably pointless as he will fold as a result. I would check and hope that he attempts to steal the pot.
JOHN ‘THE GREEK’
I don’t like the check-call on the flop. Even though I have flopped the stone-cold nuts – assuming my opponent has been playing a weak Ace – there are several overcards that can pair his kicker. I would re- raise on the flop. After the big blind checked on the turn, I would also fire out on the river, as the 5 has improved my hand and I can only be beaten by A-J.
I’ll check-call. He could have A-J and that’s why he checked the turn – you don’t want to risk getting stacked off against the nuts. If he’s got two Kings he’s not going to pay you off, but he might bet.
|I’ll check-call the river, giving the big blind the chance to bluff as a bet could only get action if I am beat. A bet would also allow him to re-raise me with a bluff|
You’re playing in a six-handed pot-limit Omaha game. Blinds are $50/$100. You’re on the small blind with $40,000 and pick up Q♥-J♥-6♣-9♣. The action folds to seat five ($10,000 stack), who raises to $350. Seat six ($11,000) calls.
The button folds, you call, big blind calls ($10,000). It’s four to the flop of 2♦-J♠-Q♦. All check to seat five, who bets $1,400. Seat six folds, you call, big blind folds.
The turn is 7♠. You check, seat five bets $4,200, you call. The river is 4♠. You check, and seat five goes all-in.
You call and he turns over A♠-K♠-x-x. In the same six- handed game, about 10 minutes later, you’re on the button with Q♦-9♥-A♠-9♦. Everyone limps. The flop is 2♦-3♦-7♥ and the action is checked to you. You bet $500 and only the player under the gun (who had the Ace-high flush earlier) calls. The turn is 9♣. UTG checks, you bet $1,500, UTG calls. river is 4♦. UTG bets $4,600, you fold. Considering the hand that had taken place earlier, was this the correct play?
In all games you have to be fluid in your thoughts and not put players in a box. This player has position on you and if your read is correct, he has the nut-flush. But you have to ask yourself why would he check this flop? If he always plays weak and ‘nut only’ hands, then your final decision is correct. But I would struggle to see why he does not make a flop bet, if he had a nut-flush draw.
When you analyse his previous play you would realise that he bet the pot with a nut-flush draw on the turn, so really you would expect him to bet this flop – surely? From all the info given, I would have called.
I couldn’t play the first hand so passively; I would have to raise the flop and make my opponent stick most of his stack in. He would have to pay dearly to make this back door flush. Second hand: I wouldn’t bet the flop; it’s a losing proposition and I would take the free card. The final decision is tough. It’s probably a pass, but I would have been looking for other info.
Many online pot-limit Omaha players would have raised with the nut-flush draw on the flop. If this player had been showing this trait to bet his draws (he appeared to bet a draw on the turn in the earlier hand), I would call with the Queen-flush.
JOHN ‘THE GREEK’
In the first hand, seat five had the action checked to him on the flop and decided to bluff at the pot. After getting called, he picked up the nut-flush draw, and the action checked around to him again. He now bets out a semi-bluff. When he rivers the nuts he pushes his remaining chips in and gets paid. In the second hand, he is check-calling the action all the way to the river. I believe the way this hand played out that seat five hit the flop and may have a possible flush redraw. He may also have viewed the 4♦ as a scare card for me. Nonetheless, I would look him up.
In the first hand I would have never let him make a flush. I don’t call the river, obviously he has the nuts. In the second hand, I’ll probably fold. What’s he calling you with – on the flop and turn – then betting into you on the river with? I don’t fold based on the hand before as you don’t want to get your money in and speculate. I just don’t like my hand. I’ll wait until I have it locked up good before putting my money in.