# Poker Video: Pot-Limit Omaha by n0whereman (Micro/Small Stakes)

## PLO by Numbers: Episode Four

### PLO by Numbers: Episode Four by n0whereman

N0whereman continues with flop based topics including calculating flop outcomes and probability.

n0whereman takes you through the math behind PLO! In this comprehensive series, you'll start with a brief overview of basic poker math, then move into PLO specific topics including PF ranges, SPR analysis, 3-betting, draws, flop equity analysis and many other topics, including an overview of the tools you can use to perform your own analysis.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 57 minutes long
• Posted about 6 years ago

## Comments for PLO by Numbers: Episode Four

or track by Email or RSS

#### inonno

39 posts
Joined 10/2009

I can't play either the mp4 or the wmv version - is there something wrong with the encoding?

#### n0whereman

3107 posts
Joined 01/2008

I can't play either the mp4 or the wmv version - is there something wrong with the encoding?

I just tried the mp4 and it worked using VLC player.

#### inonno

39 posts
Joined 10/2009

I just tried the mp4 and it worked using VLC player.

Sorry - my problem. Everythings fine.

555 posts
Joined 07/2007

#### rubbishaka80

555 posts
Joined 07/2007

No pair straight board should be KQJ instead of QJT.

#### rubbishaka80

555 posts
Joined 07/2007

For the nuts, QJT should be QJ8.

For 2nd nuts KQJ is missing. On QT8 we don't make a straight.

#### libertines123

58 posts
Joined 01/2010

It doesn't make a big difference but the dead cards are wrong in the PPT example at the end. The 6c is used instead of the 7c.

It decreases the optimised count by only 0.14% because only a small portion of the range had 7s.

http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/count?b=AsJc7s&g=oh&h1=AA**%2CJJ%24N*%24ss%2C77[t-5][t-5]%24ss%2CAJ%24N*%2CA%24B%3Ass%2CA7%24B%24B%2CKsQT*%2C%24B%24B%24N%24N%3Ass%2CA%24N%24N%24N%3As%2CT98[q-6]%3Ass&s=generic

I guess what follows from that is that a lowish pretty disconnected card on the flop does not affect the stacking-off percentages all that much.

#### libertines123

58 posts
Joined 01/2010

Would it be possible to post links to the PPT examples used in future episodes? I find them useful to play around with connected "what-if" scenarios but it always takes me at least 2 attempts to type them in correctly.
Thanks

#### libertines123

58 posts
Joined 01/2010

Please don't take my pendantry for anything other than enjoyment of both working through the examples and getting to grips with PPT. I appreciate it must have taken an age to create the examples and work them out.

Also, I don't suppose getting the exact hand range syntax matters as much as the general principle.

So I think A7 + gutter is better written as A7[K,Q,T][K,Q,T]!ONRR (Ace and 7 plus either a K Q or T where the Q K or T aren't paired).

Second, you do mention it but I missed it the first time so maybe others did to, and it's useful to know if you do go through the trouble of creating long hand ranges: there's no problem with double-counting cards when you combine different ranges as PPT will remove the duplicates.

Finally, I'm not sure what to make of this except for it shows an interesting quirk of PPT ranges. I would expect if we combined the hand range we've derived with the PFR UTG+1 (15%) that the total number of hands would not decrease. Interestingly it reduces by about a third or around 5,000 hands. To me that says PPT thinks a lot of the hands we've included wouldn't have been raised.

http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/count?b=AsJc7s&g=oh&h1=15%25%3A%28AA**%2CJJ%24N*%24ss%2C77[t-5][t-5]%24ss%2CAJ%24N*%2CA%24B%3Ass%2CA7%24B%24B%2CKsQT*%2C%24B%24B%24N%24N%3Ass%2CA%24N%24N%24N%3As%2CT98[q-6]%3Ass%29&s=generic

#### n0whereman

3107 posts
Joined 01/2008

Please don't take my pendantry for anything other than enjoyment of both working through the examples and getting to grips with PPT. I appreciate it must have taken an age to create the examples and work them out.

Also, I don't suppose getting the exact hand range syntax matters as much as the general principle.

So I think A7 + gutter is better written as A7[K,Q,T][K,Q,T]!ONRR (Ace and 7 plus either a K Q or T where the Q K or T aren't paired).

Second, you do mention it but I missed it the first time so maybe others did to, and it's useful to know if you do go through the trouble of creating long hand ranges: there's no problem with double-counting cards when you combine different ranges as PPT will remove the duplicates.

Finally, I'm not sure what to make of this except for it shows an interesting quirk of PPT ranges. I would expect if we combined the hand range we've derived with the PFR UTG+1 (15%) that the total number of hands would not decrease. Interestingly it reduces by about a third or around 5,000 hands. To me that says PPT thinks a lot of the hands we've included wouldn't have been raised.

http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/count?b=AsJc7s&g=oh&h1=15%25%3A%28AA**%2CJJ%24N*%24ss%2C77[t-5][t-5]%24ss%2CAJ%24N*%2CA%24B%3Ass%2CA7%24B%24B%2CKsQT*%2C%24B%24B%24N%24N%3Ass%2CA%24N%24N%24N%3As%2CT98[q-6]%3Ass%29&s=generic

I'm happy to hear you're going through things! Even terse corrections don't bother me - I'd prefer the finished product (video + comments) to be as high-quality as possible.

Regarding your last comment, see video 5 for a quick discussion of this point!

11 posts
Joined 05/2010

This example is trying to find hands where the player is willing to 'stack off'. Of course this is always relative to what size stack he's playing with. Short-stacked, only a few times the size of the pot, might be willing to stack off with a top-pair type of hand. A deeper stack wants a bigger hand to stack off with; I think Jeff Hwang went through some examples in his first book. Could you discuss this in more detail in one of your upcoming videos? Maybe a discussion of how deep-stack vs. short-stack might play particular hand ranges in relation to their stack sizes and in relation to their flop equities?

#### n0whereman

3107 posts
Joined 01/2008

This example is trying to find hands where the player is willing to 'stack off'. Of course this is always relative to what size stack he's playing with. Short-stacked, only a few times the size of the pot, might be willing to stack off with a top-pair type of hand. A deeper stack wants a bigger hand to stack off with; I think Jeff Hwang went through some examples in his first book. Could you discuss this in more detail in one of your upcoming videos? Maybe a discussion of how deep-stack vs. short-stack might play particular hand ranges in relation to their stack sizes and in relation to their flop equities?

This is a bit more strategy-oriented than I was hoping to get in the series, but I can comment a bit here. First, I mention in the example that we're playing with 100bb stacks in a 6m game (at least I think I did, if not that's what I was shooting for). Second, the example isn't necessarily describing all hands that UTG+1 will stack off with - it's mostly hands that he'll put 1+ bets in with. Most people wouldn't stack off with t987 without spades on that board. Anyway, as you're getting to 200/300bbs, you definitely want nut hands and nut draws far more than you want stuff like bare top two. I think to stack off on this flop 300bbs deep you'd want AAxx, AKQJ with nut spades, AQKT with nut spades, and that's probably about it.

HomePoker ForumsPot Limit Omaha → PLO by Numbers : Episode Four