Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Just want to comment on the tournament structure for the PLOs in the Summer Circuit. There are two of these tournaments (EUR25) and they're both using the "Sputnik" structure - i.e. blind levels start at 3 mins long, then 6, then increase, etc. 

This structure is fine for a rebuy - especially when there's a double stack add-on as there are on Unibet's site, but for a freezeout it's too restrictive.

Omaha is a game that benefits from deep stacks, because the hand values are so close together - i.e. you need to take risks. Sure, all tournaments end up being relatively short stacked, but the principle, I think, should be that at the beginning, there's at least some time to play deep. With the Sputnik structure, a starting stack on 50 BB within the first 20 mins - that's barely two rounds of hands. For a "Premium" tournament (Unibet doesn't regularly run a PLO higher than 10EUR rebuy), that's a little bit too short IMO.

Maybe try 10k chips with Sputnik structure or 6k chips with the regular 8 mins levels?

  • Like 3
Posted

Tourneys in omaha are in general a bit weird because the equitys run so close. 

If I considered play Omaha tourney's, I would only do it in a deep stack setting. The deeper you get, the more edge you can get with your skill, low stacks, it's like a slot machine almost.

Not quite, but, I can't force as big of edge with omaha as no limit short stacked.

The chances of me playing a short stacked omaha tourney are about 0%. I don't get the appeal. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Well, it kind of cuts both ways. While you'll never get 80/20s preflop in Omaha, by the same token (and especially with the pot limit aspect) you can call wider preflop even if you're short stacked, and use your edge in tandem with position to make a difference. So if anything the equivalent of the shove/fold stage of a holdem tournament is more interesting at PLO.

 

  • Like 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted

@Leo-Unibet 

Hi again Leo. I thought I'd bump this previous thread given our conversation in another thread about the Omaha Sputnik structure (regarding adding antes to the Sputnik) but also now that we've had all the Omaha tournaments of UOS IX.

So first of all some notes from E101/E102: the money bubble hit after only about 2:15 hours of play. At the beginning of the money bubble, the average stack had 18 bigs, then 14, then 11, and finally when the bubble burst the average stack had 9 bigs.  Please note that of the five sets of tournaments run, three had the "sputnik" structure I analysed above, and two had the 8k starting stack/6 min blinds that lead to having only 9 bigs on the bubble.

Given that the UOS is Unibet's flagship online series, and given that Omaha is one of only two variants offered on the site, I think these tournament structures are a bit too fast. I mean, if I was going to enter a EUR25 or 50 tournament online, I'd like a better structure than that. Even the more recreational, gambly players might want a better bang for their buck.

By comparison, the hold em tournaments have had some pretty amazing structures - and it doesn't have to be for big buy ins either. Some of the Nanos have been rebuys with 20k stacks/12min blinds or 15k stacks/15 min blinds.

Bear in mind my point about Omaha having closer together preflop/postflop equities. If anything, Omaha tournaments should have BETTER structures than Hold em, not worse.

So please do consider this when creating the schedule for UOS X. BTW, I'm happy to help - I've written lots of articles on tournament structure 😃 (I'm guessing I can't link to them here, but DM me if you want some links)

 

  • Like 1
Posted

@Pickleman wrote:

@Leo-Unibet 

Hi again Leo. I thought I'd bump this previous thread given our conversation in another thread about the Omaha Sputnik structure (regarding adding antes to the Sputnik) but also now that we've had all the Omaha tournaments of UOS IX.

So first of all some notes from E101/E102: the money bubble hit after only about 2:15 hours of play. At the beginning of the money bubble, the average stack had 18 bigs, then 14, then 11, and finally when the bubble burst the average stack had 9 bigs.  Please note that of the five sets of tournaments run, three had the "sputnik" structure I analysed above, and two had the 8k starting stack/6 min blinds that lead to having only 9 bigs on the bubble.

Given that the UOS is Unibet's flagship online series, and given that Omaha is one of only two variants offered on the site, I think these tournament structures are a bit too fast. I mean, if I was going to enter a EUR25 or 50 tournament online, I'd like a better structure than that. Even the more recreational, gambly players might want a better bang for their buck.

By comparison, the hold em tournaments have had some pretty amazing structures - and it doesn't have to be for big buy ins either. Some of the Nanos have been rebuys with 20k stacks/12min blinds or 15k stacks/15 min blinds.

Bear in mind my point about Omaha having closer together preflop/postflop equities. If anything, Omaha tournaments should have BETTER structures than Hold em, not worse.

So please do consider this when creating the schedule for UOS X. BTW, I'm happy to help - I've written lots of articles on tournament structure 😃 (I'm guessing I can't link to them here, but DM me if you want some links)

 


Hey @Pickleman , thanks alot for your thoughtful inputs, I will take those words with me going into next UOS series, I can just say without looking further, It sounds like it make perfectly sense. Cheers  

Posted

 

Hey again @Pickleman
I looked in to those two tournaments, you were right, very shot going into the money E102 only 11,5 avg and E101 9,3 avg
The runtime of aprox 4 hours for these tournaments starting 20:30 cet was perfect, I find a way to sort that to next time.
Could the issue be players being to nitty, doing anything for reaching the money :Smile:

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Hi @Leo-Unibet 

They certainly are being nitty, but not (necessarily) because they're nitty players, they're being forced into being nitty by the structure and what's correct for bubble play when you're short-stacked in Omaha. (I'll post again about this in more detail below)

To reiterate my point, there were plenty of HE tournaments with generous structures, and they lasted 6.5+ hours (some needed to be 2-day events). There's no reason why *only* HE players should be afforded this luxury - especially in the case of a 50EUR buy in. I know it's a bit old school, but maybe consider running more generous structures the more expensive the tournament is? Or certainly allow for the option of that. That's the way poker used to be, and it certainly makes sense from a business point of view - for those larger buy ins, the players are paying more rake, shouldn't they be "rewarded" with more play, more structure? If you offered different structures, at least the players would be able to vote with their feet, as the saying goes, and you'd find out whether better structures mean more runners. 

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

@Leo-Unibet 

As promised, some theory about tournament structure in Omaha and why deeper structures suit this variant more. I hope this is especially relevant with the announcement of UOS X and the impending IPO event.

Let's imagine a fairly standard short-stacked situation in a mid-late tournament setting: it's folded around to Hero on the button with a top 10% hand and 12.5bb. Hero can make it up to 3.5BB raise, we'll assume that SB folds and the BB has a hand in the 10-30% range, i.e. a top 30% hand, but not the top 10% among them. So Villain can fold, call, or jam for near enough effective stacks.

(Before we continue with the Omaha analysis, let's just consider the equivalent situation in Hold Em: with a 12.5bb stack and a top 10% hand, Hero can jam if he wants, or he can min raise to try to induce a jam from the blinds. Either way, he likes the spot. Villain has the opposite problem. He's got a dodgy call if Hero jams, and (although he doesn't know it) a poor equity rejam if Hero min raises with his 10% range)).

More about Hold Em later. In Omaha, let's look at the equity on the flop Villain has with his 10-30% range against Hero's10% range. 

1060436390_Screenshot2020-10-07at15_04_02.png.4a0a20d584926940d8368616f3968a47.png

Here's the flop equity graph from ProPokerTools. It charts Villain's range against Hero's range on a whole bunch of flops and then sorts them according to equity. In other words, it's a frequency chart - so against Hero's top 10% range, Villain will flop around 66% of equity or more, 20% of the time against Hero's range. Around 40% of the time, he'll flop 45% equity or more.

The key thing to take away from this graph is how smooth it is. Despite Hero having a really good hand and Villain having a decent but not amazing hand, there are a whole BUNCH of flops Villain is happy with and not so many our Hero is happy with. If you don't believe me, take a look at the exact same equity match up in Hold em:

491958298_Screenshot2020-10-07at15_03_52.png.94968765f50071f0b216332b3298b182.png 

So, same hand ranges, different poker variant. The graph is a lot less smooth. There's a precipitous drop around the 20% of flops mark. On around two thirds of flops, Villain certainly doesn't have enough equity to call a jam, and should worry that a donk bluff bet is playing into Hero's hands. 

So there, in graphical representation, is the idea that "post-flop equities are much closer together in Omaha than Holdem". And just to be sure, here are the preflop equities, once again same ranges, the only thing that's different is the variant:

Range                             10%-30% hand                top 10% hand

Omaha                              41%                                 59%

Hold Em                            35%                                 65%

So what does that mean for tournament structures? First, Omaha is played pot limit precisely because the equities are closer together - if it were no limit, it's simply not in players' interest to hang around if they know they have an equity advantage - wiser to get all your chips in now, because it's that much more likely than in hold em that your opponent will catch up. Second, Omaha players need to be deeper stacked in tournaments in order to manouvre around the subtle differences in equity on flops. In Omaha a raise preflop is only a prelude to what happens on the flop - and therefore players need deeper stacks to make sure those decisions are not standard all-in-or-fold, see who wins situations.

Whilst I understand that for small buy-ins, Unibet might not want to run tournaments that last all night, I think there is an understanding in poker that mid and large buy ins get the structures they deserve. I have to say that some of the structures for the 25 and 50 buy ins have been pretty much crapfests. What's particularly disappointing is that it hasn't been a question of some higher buy ins with good structures, some with worse - they've all been universally too fast, unlike in Hold em where the structures have been varied.

The most influential factor in tournament structure is length of blind level. So please do consider some longer blind levels for some of the Omaha tournaments in UOS X.

Posted

hexapro would be cool but i think it had as small player pool as hexapro banzai...

but bringing back plo8 would be magical...

If u want a chop u do not get it....
If u do not want chop u get it...
Posted

I should have added that the corollary of this is that playing tighter is better when short stacked in Omaha. Since you can't raise all in, and since there won't be enough flops you can be sure to proceed with, knowing you're not making an equity mistake, it means you as the raiser (with a decent hand) can't afford to be so aggressive. (At least not in comparison with the equivalent situation in Hold Em).

By the same token, the caller - even with a mid-range type hand, can afford to be more loose. It's only going to cost them 3.5bb and they have a bunch of flops they can hit which, regardless of their opponent's raising range, they know they have enough equity to proceed. 

In other words, it's more of a flop game, and therefore we need to be deeper to play it properly.

BTW, I know it's only a few days away, but the tournament structure for the IPO Omaha rebuy still has antes in. Just wanted to flag that up in case it's been overlooked.

Posted

PLO8 has a really small player pool so I think, sadly, cash games would not be a flyer. However, tournaments could work - you'd only have to run one a night. It's really good for recs because you're always backing into something in O8 which means you've always got some equity to cheer on. And of course, you can never bust if you have The Wheel 🤣

The good news is it's only a minor software tweak to add the low bit of high/low if the existing software copes with the four cards bit. However, I'm guessing the Unibet bods have their hands full already 😏

Nice to dream though!

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...