Pickleman

@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. 

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:

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.

@Stubbe-Unibet 

Hi Stubbe,

Am I right in thinking the leaderboard payouts have now been done? I ask because I got two payouts with no explanation accompanying them, as follows:

1) I got some bonus points in my account (with no tag/explanation attached) on Oct 13th 11:00 GMT, which I presume was the Low leaderboard payout; and

2) today I got some money deposited directly into my account, with only a weird reference number, which I presume was the nano leaderboard payout?

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. 

@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)

OK, bit more serious this time. E55 again, it logs me out during a hand when I'm facing a bet, and by the time I've logged back in - like no more than 30 seconds (i.e. easily enough time for the disconnect protection) - it had folded me.

on E55 tonight and constantly being logged out again. Not even looking at the lobby this time - logging me out straight from being on the table window. About 45 mins in and happened about 5 times already

to be clear - it was the lobbies of the UOS E40 and E37

Yes this happened to me too while registered in a couple of UOSs. Happened multiple times over a few hours while plalying on the iPad version. Also didn't have a rebuy button (when I was below starting stack) in the rebuy nano). Trying the desktop version now.

+1

As every book on poker that has ever discussed the issue says: antes are there to encouage action, and becuase in Omaha hand values are so much closer together preflop, you don't need to encourage action. By contrast, as stacks get shorter towards the latter stages of a Hold em tournament, it's rational to take fewer risks preflop because of the the threat of domination/coolering. Adding antes to the mix makes it more rational to take those risks. That's just not necessary in Omaha

I have to say, I would love to have been at the meeting where it was decided that the PLO bounty should have antes. This is a bounty tournament (bounties = action) in omaha (omaha = action) which truly lived up to its billing as the most insanely action filled tournament. You would literally get four way all ins preflop on the first level. This was BEFORE antes were introduced.

Yes shame about the lack of print screen, but I transferred to my desktop to post the pic, and by then you can't get a visualisation of the hand in the hand history. Maybe on the new client you can always visualise hands? Always found that a bit galling - like you can only visualise the last 100 hands or so. So much easier to parse them visually.

regarding the other issue: remember AX only needs to hit one ace to beat 66, not four. So that's not really a bad beat, just a 70%/30% standard. And as I say, it doesn't really mean anything big that the 66 hits under full, because it's also fairly standard to be FH v better FH in that spot e.g. against opp's 77

But I do agree with @Stubbe-Unibet that by the rules he picked, that hand does win.

You're quite right @Merenitsu there is some controversy 😃

@Stubbe-Unibet Whilst technically AAA66 is a bigger hand than JJJ99, and not wanting to take anything away from @OmNomNom , I'm not sure having 66 on an AAA board even counts as a bad beat, given that sevens, eights, nines . . . etc. also beat you.

However, having JJXX v 99XX on a J79-2-9 board. Now that is a bad beat. Even in Omaha. 

right, toys well and truly outside of pram, thank you and goodnight :waterfall: 😏

Was about to post this in the Bad beats thread but then I realised that's only for UOS tournaments🤣. Would have been nice if a beat from the community masters had won it. 

Admittedly it's Omaha, but it was for a top five stack with 23/304 players left

Thank you!

Hi Leo,

Have PMed you as I'm not 100% sure which one's my alias!

It's surely a mistake which will be corrected.

But of course Unibet will reward us for pointing out the error and saving them about 2k or so, right?🆒

Hi guys,

I'm thinking whoever populated the client with the numbers for the upcoming UOS got them slightly wrong for E78. It says it's a "mid" stakes tourney, but the buy in is set to €10. I'm guessing it should be a €25? In any case, the guarantee is set to €6000 which for a €10 buy in might be a bit of an overlay, although I'm ever hopeful we might get 600 runners for an Omaha tournament one day 😃 

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.

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?

Access requested please

hello? level 6 is about to end and I still have a ticket left which I cannot use

I can't use my second ticket in the EBC freeroll. No option to rebuy/addon/start with a stack of 2000. What's going on? What am I missing here?

Ditto me - I mean, I got it, but when I tried to register, it was full. Run another one of the same (for unused tickets) tomorrow pls?