Theory Question: Leading on paired boards

Posted by

Posted by posted in High Stakes

Theory Question: Leading on paired boards

So I have been brushing up on my PLO and was just discussing the following situation with a friend of mine who has a very strong theoretical understanding of the game.

PokerStars Zoom Hand #152351140068: Omaha Pot Limit ($2.50/$5.00) - 2016/04/24 0:04:43 WET [2016/04/23 19:04:43 ET]
Table 'Humason' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: miszczunio85 ($907.32 in chips)
Seat 2: dingdongderb ($834.26 in chips)
Seat 3: stevie444 ($542.48 in chips)
Seat 4: tonyfo14 ($500 in chips)
Seat 5: LcikingLab14 ($1055.63 in chips)
Seat 6: kareempirias ($1101.51 in chips)
dingdongderb: posts small blind $2.50
stevie444: posts big blind $5
HOLE CARDS
Dealt to stevie444 [Kd 5c 8d Qh]
tonyfo14: folds
LcikingLab14: folds
kareempirias: folds
miszczunio85: raises $10 to $15
dingdongderb: folds
stevie444: calls $10
FLOP [3h 5h 3c]
stevie444:

My friend contends that we should have no lead range as the BB in this spot as we gain more from forcing a high checkback frequency and playing the 2 street uncapped branch of the game tree rather than splitting immediately on the flop.

BB has 18.5% trips+ in this spot vs just over 8% for the button and 49% equity range vs range. I know that with this kind of nut threshold imbalance in NLH solvers suggest the BB should have a leading range. Not having one doesn't sacrifice much but BB has the option to get all in with overbets which it obviously doesn't in PLO. I wasn't fully convinced by my friends arguments but he is a better PLOer than me so I thought I'd ask for some more opinions.

Do you think BB should lead this board? If so, what size and range composition? If not why not?

Loading 16 Comments...

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

This thread has been locked. No further comments can be added.