Cardschat Championships of Poker ("CCCOP") and Pot Limit Omaha ramblings

Only my third entry in this blasted thing and I'm already making brag posts? Damn right.

Apparently I won the leaderboard which Ian ran for the CCCOP. Mainly thanks to wins in everybody's favourite games, Pot Limit Omaha and Stud8, the former being a repeat victory as I won the PLO in the last series.

I recorded a live 'action' video of the PLO win which can be downloaded here. I also recorded last year's PLO win, which is up here. I should probably record more tournaments seeing as I appear to do well when I do. The educational value of these videos is somewhat spurious to say the least, but an absolute Omaha beginner may be able to pick up some things.

Of note is that both tournaments feature what I refer to as 'backwards' tournament strategy. Players who are clearly new to the game limping a lot early on, and tightening up as the blinds increase. For a new Omaha player, much like a new Holdem player, the best way to play preflop in general is tightly. The loose-aggressive strategy might benefit seasoned veterans who are exceptional postflop players, but new Omaha players are invariably terrible postflop players (largely as a consequence of (a) often not being sure exactly what they have, and (b) overvaluing weak draws, two pair, and even TPTK). The loose-passive strategy only benefits the other players at your table in the long run.

Another common mistake among newer PLO players is the tendency to limp rather than raise preflop. Their line of thinking is some variant of (and I know this because I've been there myself), "Well if I raise I'm only going to get called, and I won't be comfortable postflop unless I flop a really big hand". This is a fallacy. Anyone who has studied Holdem in any depth knows that we raise for three main reasons:

1) To reduce the number of players in the pot
2) To gain value with what we believe is the best hand
3) As a bluff to steal blinds or as a resteal.

Exactly the same applies in Omaha. Yes, hand rankings are much less 'spread' and closer in value than in Holdem simply because of the nature of the game (four holecards as opposed to two), but these three points still apply.

1) Just as in Holdem, some Omaha hands play a lot better heads-up than multiway, AAxx and other high paired hands being the obvious examples.

2) Although hand rankings are much closer in Omaha (for example there are no 'powerhouse' hands like AA/KK), some hands are still better than others. If you get money in with the better hand, you will profit in the long run, whether your edge is 51/49 or 70/30 (obviously you will profit more when it's 70/30, but that's why Omaha is oft described as a game of small edges).

3) Holdem tournament strategy still applies to Omaha. As blinds increase, you will find yourself having to steal blinds, as you can't always rely on being dealt good cards. Identifying who you can steal from and who will defend with anything is as crucial as it is in Holdem.

Upon reflecting on exactly how I was able to win back-to-back PLO events, three things came to mind.

1) I was lucky. Newsflash - you need luck to win tournaments.

2) I had more Omaha experience than most of the field.

3) I knew how a lot of the players would play Omaha before a hand had even been dealt.

To expand on point 3 above, I came up with a theorem as a result of a conversation with a fellow forum member a while back.

When regular Holdem players but inexperienced Omaha players play Omaha, they become exaggerated versions of their Holdem selves.

This probably doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment because I phrased it so terribly.

Essentially, the traits in a person's Holdem game are magnified when playing an unfamiliar poker game. Take a tight player, for example. Tight players, when met with what they believe to be marginal decisions, tend to fold. Put this tight player in an unfamiliar game, and they are invariably going to be met with more marginal decisions as a simple consequence of not knowing a great deal about the game they're playing. The inverse applies to looser players - they will get looser. Generally, when already tight players get tighter and already loose players get looser without any underlying reason behind it, their game suffers, and crucially they become far more predictable. All of a sudden it becomes evident who thinks they are value betting in PLO with AKxx on a KQ9 board and who will fold Q9xx to a single flop bet on the same board, or who will fold AQ77 when folded to in mid position because they're "not sure how good a hand it is".

This is all retrospective thought (which is why none of it is mentioned in the videos), but I believe that effective retrospective thought is a crucial weapon in the arsenal of a solid poker player.

On a side note, Party Poker have decided to drop me a $100 bonus so I almost feel obliged to clear it. You will probably catch me there over the next week or two under the name "Qhr1s0" if you look closely enough.

'Till next time!