Thoughts on this turn check-raise?

I'm a novice at this game but I like the challenge. My thoughts are that you played fine up until calling the flop bet which I think is marginal but I'm probably too tight here.

The 4 is a pretty bad card for you since it ruins your chances at a low while bringing in a possible low draw for the other player.

Once your opponent bets again he is telling you he has at least a 5 or maybe TT-KK. If he was still trying to bluff maybe he had a flush draw on the flop and now has a flush draw and a low draw, not a hand likely to fold to a check raise.

What are you trying to fold out with your check raise? You hold the Ac which blocks a lot of what he could have been bluffing with and you don't want him to fold an inferior club draw. Maybe he has a high pair TT-KK. Unless this guy gets out of line a lot I think the best play was to fold the flop.

Crap I thought this was a hi/low hand

I think the 4♠ is a decent card to c/r bluff on. Improves villain very rarely and you pick two extra outs vs overpairs.

Whether you should raise or call NFD on a non-paired board depends quite a lot. Position, depth, board texture and so on.

I might just x/r the flop - you have a range advantage here, and of course can make the best hand. It just sucks if he checks back the turn and bluff catches you on the most obvious draw - I also don't like x/r the turn as you block his natural bluffs so he has a stronger range.

This is a bit of a kamakazee bluff imo. Best to think of where our bluffs come from and this turn isn't one of them. If your plan was to x/r any turn and "rep" a flopped boat that's very ambitious as well. We need to really zone in more on removal in plo vs holdem. Tbh solver not folding but given it's micro stakes and high rake as well as ip multiway understabbing in general out right folding to 1/2 pot isn't insane here imo. We still have 2 streets to play oop vs a more honest range again with high rake.

If we chose to x/r bluff here we really want to unblock villain's snap folds as well as heavy bluff range (Acc/678 type combos).

The part of villain's range you're targetting as well often checks back on flop and would rather try to realize eq vs go for eq denial

Since you say 2 streets to play oop, I assume you talk about flop. c/f to half pot is insanity. Why do you think his range is honest and what exactly do you mean by it (i.e. starting from where is it honest)? Of course I haven't played these stakes in ages but I'd think villain is betting a lot of mediocre hands he isn't supposed to.

I don't hate the bluff and it will probably work because regs overfold vs turn check raises (don't make these bluffs vs fish imo).
The problem with x/ring a FD is that we block villain's bluffs and also can't confidently value bet rivers when we hit. I think a hand with a pair blocker and a pocket pair works better because it can spike a clean FH that can easily shove river for value, something like TT98

The more I learn about PLO, the more confused I become.

Before, I thought we bluff with FDs because we often have equity when called. But in this situation, we shouldn't bluff with FDs because we block villain's bluffs?

No it isn't. Check folding the nfd multiway oop2 is far from insanity my friend. Actually played w/ multiway a bit and solver is folding this spot at a high freq w/ nfd on 8442tone.

Mutliway stabs are always far more honest. We have an additional player to get through so bluffs will be less successful. Due to this reason, as you'll see in solver, we're outright binning a ton of nut draws that will be difficult to realize equity with. And that's the case in point with this hand. Even if we make our flush on the turn, we're still not loving life vs a 2nd barrel and once villain hs barreled river further narrowing his and our range our flush is almost never good.

When I say we still have 2 streets to play oop I mean turn and river.

At micro stakes sure the population is betting far more mergey, even multiway, but they're still being "honest" in their eyes. Players are just not finding enough bluffs at this level imo hu, let alone 3+ ways.

Not trying to be harsh but this type of "strategy" will destroy your winrate moving up.

I don't understand everything that you say. Please be more clear. What is "8442tone" and how is that related to this hand? What I am saying is that I would continue on the flop with the actual flop cards with Hero's actual hand against the actual bet size (half pot). By continue I mean doing a different action than folding.

At micro stakes the population is indeed far more mergey, even multiway. Is that a reason to just dump mediocre hands immediately? In my mind, no. I don't think solver strategy will show you the way. Solver will not bet every overpair or A9 here like the villain will. True, CO opened and BTN bet the flop which I didn't notice before. I wouldn't fold the flop and I think turn is a fair bluff against a weak player who bets his overpairs to see where he is at.

That means you are learning that you understand nothing, which is an excellent place to start from.

I don't fully agree that we block villain's bluffs. I wouldn't bluff most nfds IP, because to me it's a mediocre hand on this board and I think mediocre hands IP should mainly check.

844xxy (844 two tone). Can't find a 955 board so we find the closest one to emulate the scenario (which is 844 in this case). Related because similar strategy applies.

I understand you think continuing is mandatory but what I'm telling you is this is far from the case 3 ways and especially oop. Not sure how much clearer I can be.

I also understand solver and trainers need to be taken with large grain of salt given population input (ranges in play) will differ as well as check and bet frequencies postflop. That being said we shouldn't blindly toss it out. Honestly I don't even think solver is needed here. To me this is more of flop fold than call and bluff on turn w/ hero's removal is getting close to punts ville.

Ok, thank you for the response.

I mean, yes we often bluff FDs by cbetting and then value betting if we make the flush. This is the typical case
My point here is that after we x/r turn on a paired board and he calls, we narrow down villain's range to the point where it becomes questionable whether we still have a value bet when we hit. And if it's not a value bet anymore, then we should consider bluffing a hand with some better draw or blockers.
I am still learning PLO myself too though and mainly 5c

ask yourself how good you feel about getting it allin with an ace high flush on a 5594K runnout.

Interesting spot .. A bit speculative PF being out of position. While you do cover the whole deck (A-2) with potential the only nut draw you have is clubs with most of your straights not being the nuts.

I don't really like c/r on the Flop, but I do like it on the Turn AP once CO folds out. A c/r on a paired Board mutli-way usually doesn't go very well that often. Not so sure you need to raise so much, but I don't mind the play every once in a while.

The mindset that c/r a paired Board with nut flush draw is 'better' is interesting since you do block a holding a V might want to call with against trips, but might fold out others since it's not the nuts. In this exact spot I would be mindful of your position, which might lend itself to more trip combos .. which in turn leads to more successful semi-bluffs. The higher the rank of trips the more likely a PF raiser may have them.

Without the paired Board you also need to be mindful of your range and Hero range when going for a c/r. In a lot of Players Pools the V are very weak Board readers, so even though you 'see' the Board a c/r just doesn't work on Calling Stations. GL

I agree with your second remark but not with the first one. If villain has a five there is a good chance he has something around it like maybe a 4. Therefore I c/f

Should he have a lot of hands that contain 54 considering this pre action? I don't think so. Maybe he does have them more than he should though.