You still have some equity with your two pair... equity against the hands that would fold to a bet :P.

I think checking behind is the strongest option as that player has such calling station stats. The fact they lead flop then c/c turn means to me they don't intend on folding.

It feels like those players would call with 2pair+ which is why you make money through value owning rather than bluffing. So your bet on the river is pretty bad; almost all hands you beat fold and most likely all hands that beat you call.

In the future though I recommend removing the results for better feedback so it will be more genuine and unbiased :).

As played I would check the river.  However I think that this hand is good enough to raise the flop with.  Never too happy with bottom two but we block some sets, have an OESD and two BDFD so think that it's a good spot to start and over play and turn this hand into a bluff.

I think that you have a hand for showdown, the 9 only completes a gutshot, so a bluff isn't very credible. And if villain is putting you in a missed FD he's gonna call.

Thanks guys! I think now it's a clear check OTR. I think the 9 is a good card to bet but I should be, as IJustCameForTheFreeCookies said, value owning them.

Also, I think the call on the flop is fine as I wouldn't be overly happy getting it in here, although that might be standard at higher stakes, I feel I don't need to gamble too much at these stakes and basically peddle, not sure if that makes me mega passive or not :/ lol

thanks for the feedback.

Yeah, I think this is a bad bluff. Not because it's not credible (perfectly consistent w/ 89 imo), but because this is 4PLO and people don't fold. You don't beat these games bluffing, you beat them value-betting everyone to death. Heck, you even have some limited showdown value w/ two pair here so bluffing just isn't the play imo. Against players who are thinking more clearly, I would be more receptive to this bluff (I actually kinda like it against some people).

Along with closely examining each street, I think it's important to step back and consider your game plan. Against a loose-passive station, you want to do a lot of value betting and not much bluffing. So while in theory this is a reasonable runout and hand to bluff, against this guy I don't think we want to be bluffing much.

From the theory perspective, there are all sorts of questions to ask when considering when to bluff... "Am I near the bottom of my range? Do I have relevant blockers? How many value combos do I have?" etc. etc. But against fish there is one question that is a whole lot more important: "Will he fold?"

The turn bet is effectively a value/protection bet with decent equity against a player that will fold some, call some with worse, and (presumably) never c/r without the nuts.

That's fine, but trying to make him fold two-pair-or-better on the river is not productive at nano stakes. The good thing about loose-passive players is that you get a lot of "freeroll" spots on the turn when you have a decent combination of showdown value + outs. And you can bet that, planning to check down rivers unimproved and having pretty easy valuebet/check decisions when you improve and get checked to.

Because loose-passive players don't punish you for sticking your neck out and betting hands that can't take much heat. You can exploit that by betting more for protection/thin value. 

However, if you have doubt about your showdown value being good and you have few outs, bet less (check more turns and hope for a free showdown). The logic behind that is that you should tend to avoid building big pots with marginal hands, unless you have a good reason and plan. Without those things, you often just build a bigger pot for your opponent to win, one way or the other.

For example, you have probably been in spots where you bet turn with something like a dry QQ overpair on a somewhat coordinated board, Villain calls, the river comes hideous, you both check, and he wins with KK, or some mediocre two pair combination. And you feel silly and think "I should have kept bluffing". Or he wins with the 2nd nuts or the slowplayed nuts, and you feel silly and think "I should have shut down on the turn with my bad hand and saved that bet".

Maybe you should and maybe you shouldn't, but the problem began when you bet the turn with a weak hand and without a clear idea of why you were betting. So try to avoid those "compromise bets" on the turn with weak hands where you invest a little, but not enough to achieve what you want. Play a smaller pot or put pressure on Villain in a much bigger pot.

Unsurprisingly, at the nano and micro stakes, you'll do just fine by playing lots of small pots when you have little, and you get customers following you to the turn. When you keep betting, it should mostly be for fat value, an obviously very good bluffspot (nutblocker bluffs, say), or to exploit a weak player's specific leaks.

Wow guys I can't thank you enough for your responces! Feels like a light bulb has just turned on in my head :D Solid advice. Lets see if I can implement this into my game.

Follow my thread for my random thoughts and progress updates :) http://www.runitonce.com/plo/my-beginning-4plo-any-advice-guidan/

biglove x