Ok, I had been trying for a while raising more along Rolf-ish lines of making it $6 or $8 usually in the Stars 1/2, and just playing from there. I haven't been terribly happy with the results and still feel like I just wasn't raising nearly enough.

So, I decided to try two things: First, play a bunch of HU matches to try to get better at HU PLO. This is actually closely related to the plan of making quite a few positional raises to max, particularly when I have chances of isolating.

There's no really set "hand selection" on these raises, but I'll never raise unless there are already at least 2 limpers in OR I'm in LP and it's already been folded around pretty much.

Say it's been folded around, then I'm quite willing to raise a hand like maybe AQ69ds or something like that. I'll probably even do the same if the only player in is some kind of 60% VPIP player on whom I have position. But if there are several tight EP players in the hand, I'm more likely to limp that hand in LP or even just fold it. So, it's a fairly flexible strategy, but I always raise max regardless of what I'm raising. The only almost 100% raising hands are pretty much ds or ss wraps, which I'm raising max pretty much regardless of situation.

Then, it comes down to this: If I achieve my goal of making it a 3-way pot or HU with some dead money, then, IF I CB at all, I'll CB at about 2/3 pot--whether I have overpair, top 2, top set, or monster draw.

Basically, where I'm just liking a less-than-pot bet is if it's a very short-handed pot (me and 1 or 2 others). If there are more than 3 players in the hand, I'm always potting if I bet barring paired boards, occasionally maybe also suited flops.

Opinions?

I guess I should add that with these raises, I've been getting up over 10% on the raises finally (last I checked it was around 12%), and I think that's a good thing. It's just critical here to be able to play well in short-handed situations (hence the HU practice, which is coming along but still definitely needs work) if you're going to try this.

Ais,

I'm a very inexperienced PLO player in particular, but I do have some vague (but perhaps insightful in some sense) ideas in response to your post.

First, you'll have to take my word that none of this is meant to be delivered in a sense of talking down--I'm convinced I'll never win at PLO. But the general idea of what I'm thinking in response to your post is that when you're seeking evaluation of a loosely-defined-as-of-now-but-potentially-rigorous system in how to play some general PF situations in any omaha game, you're probably much better off dropping down in stakes and just experimenting for yourself. Omaha, in my experience (compared to others who've shared in detail) depends pretty strongly on how others perceive you, and vice versa. Maybe not so much at mid-stakes, but if that's the case, then even better argument for using lower-stakes experimentation as a solid diagnostic for what would happen at your normal stakes.

Now, with my statistician's hat on, I'd feel compelled to say that it's real tough to get a sense of the success of a system based on a few hands at a lower level than your usual stakes.... however, I do think it would be at least marginally useful in finding a good baseline-system for how you would feel comfortable playing PF and hopefully finding new situations to pressure opponents.

My 2 cents, 40% chance minimum useless in PLO.