---

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

Time Link to 00:24:41

I believe for the 3-card runs you have to take out the 0-, 1- and 2-gap rundowns like so:

akq- !$0g !$1g !$2g

That would give you 6.47% frequency for 3-card runs.

edit: Unless a 4-card rundown is a 3-card rundown by definition. Which would be fair.

Time Link to 00:14:23

You touched on it, but examples from these common scenarios in later episodes would be cool. The one in particular is the SPR of ~6 in a 3b pot 150BB deep like you said. Doesn't it kind of suck as the PFR who c-bets too? When they reraise I sometimes cry.

Time Link to 00:28:35

Thx for all the extra information about Propokertools. I use it fairly frequently, but haven't used the macros or extra 'wildcard' functions too much. You said this [t-5][t-5][t-5][t-5]$ds type of hand is a hand that people like to 3-bet frequently. I was interested in what the hot-cold EV would be for a hand like this.

Against a random hand (****) it was only 53.95%! In NLHE, Q8o is pretty close, with 53.6%, or Q9o with 55.36%, against 1 random hand. In NLHE, neither of these would be considered 3-betting hands (not based on their showdown equity). In NLHE, hands that close to 50% equity are rarely 3-betting hands (you might as well be 3-betting 72o).

These 'middle rundown' hands ARE very "playable", depending upon how they connect on the flop. However, it just shows how these pretty hands have only slightly better-than-average equity.

Time Link to 01:00:46

This isn't "Call flop and fold"(?), but rather Call Preflop and Fold on the Flop (when you don't have enough equity).

Time Link to 01:05:21

I'm sure you'll be getting into discussions about this on future videos, but the key question here, unanswered, is "How do I determine if I have enough equity, 32%, on THIS flop, to call?"

It's really about counting outs, and I've been surprised at how weak I can be on the flop to get it all-in against an overpair. If I put my opponent exactly on AA** and I only flop a pair of 6s with 9876, then I have 11 outs(!), any 9876 to hit 2 pair or better. 11 outs already puts me at well over 40% equity, without include straight or flush draws I might have. I might hit my 2 pair and lose to an A on the river, but I am still waaaayy behind on the flop (pair of 6s vs As) , but with more than enough equity to get it all-in. (not like AA versus 66 on the flop in NLHE).

Thx for all the extra information about Propokertools. I use it fairly frequently, but haven't used the macros or extra 'wildcard' functions too much. You said this [t-5][t-5][t-5][t-5]$ds type of hand is a hand that people like to 3-bet frequently. I was interested in what the hot-cold EV would be for a hand like this.

Against a random hand (****) it was only 53.95%! In NLHE, Q8o is pretty close, with 53.6%, or Q9o with 55.36%, against 1 random hand. In NLHE, neither of these would be considered 3-betting hands (not based on their showdown equity). In NLHE, hands that close to 50% equity are rarely 3-betting hands (you might as well be 3-betting 72o).

These 'middle rundown' hands ARE very "playable", depending upon how they connect on the flop. However, it just shows how these pretty hands have only slightly better-than-average equity.

Hot and cold equity isn't nearly as important in PLO as it is in NLHE. In general you want to be looking at a combination of hot & cold equity + floppability, which can be simulated using the PPT graphs (look at the relative distribution of equity vs another range of hands).

Rob

Pretty neat.
Was pretty surprised doublesuitedness only adds 2%, thought it would be more along the lines of 3-4%.

One thing about cold4betting, some people are capable of 3betting and folding to a 4b so there is that bonus to 4betting rundowns.
Besides the person with the "initiative" usually has added fold equity on dry, paired or ace high boards.

Also if I'm thinking correctly, you'll need 50% overall equity to breakeven, say you have 33%pre and call a 4b, you'll need 58% postflop or else you will be on the losing end.
33% of 66bb=22bb -> you'll need 78bb more
78bb of 134bb=58% equity needed for overall 50%
And that's just for being breakeven. This gets better if preflop equities are closer obviously, like with ds middle type runs vs AA.

Add in the many flops where we can't continue, wondering how many hands we should call depending on position and tendencies of opponent. Or rather which hands one should 3b. Like you said this should make us even more selective and conscious of our opponent's range, especially when we are only playing 100bb deep.
Say our opponent only 4b aces then middle type runs are obviously fine (straight curve), if he 4b dominating runs then it's obviously not as good, anymore etc etc

I believe for the 3-card runs you have to take out the 0-, 1- and 2-gap rundowns like so:

akq- !$0g !$1g !$2g

That would give you 6.47% frequency for 3-card runs.

edit: Unless a 4-card rundown is a 3-card rundown by definition. Which would be fair.

Nah I think you're probably right. Makes that theoretical dude even tighter!

You touched on it, but examples from these common scenarios in later episodes would be cool. The one in particular is the SPR of ~6 in a 3b pot 150BB deep like you said. Doesn't it kind of suck as the PFR who c-bets too? When they reraise I sometimes cry.

I can try checking out the forums for a good example.

Thx for all the extra information about Propokertools. I use it fairly frequently, but haven't used the macros or extra 'wildcard' functions too much. You said this [t-5][t-5][t-5][t-5]$ds type of hand is a hand that people like to 3-bet frequently. I was interested in what the hot-cold EV would be for a hand like this.

Against a random hand (****) it was only 53.95%! In NLHE, Q8o is pretty close, with 53.6%, or Q9o with 55.36%, against 1 random hand. In NLHE, neither of these would be considered 3-betting hands (not based on their showdown equity). In NLHE, hands that close to 50% equity are rarely 3-betting hands (you might as well be 3-betting 72o).

These 'middle rundown' hands ARE very "playable", depending upon how they connect on the flop. However, it just shows how these pretty hands have only slightly better-than-average equity.

As long as you're saying all of this stuff with the mindset of "it's all neat to see, but I can't think about these hands the way I think about them in NLHE _because_ of the playability/etc factors", I'm cool with it.

This isn't "Call flop and fold"(?), but rather Call Preflop and Fold on the Flop (when you don't have enough equity).

Yeah you're right.

I'm sure you'll be getting into discussions about this on future videos, but the key question here, unanswered, is "How do I determine if I have enough equity, 32%, on THIS flop, to call?"

Yeah we'll revisit this in later eps.

One thing about cold4betting, some people are capable of 3betting and folding to a 4b so there is that bonus to 4betting rundowns.
Besides the person with the "initiative" usually has added fold equity on dry, paired or ace high boards.

Also if I'm thinking correctly, you'll need 50% overall equity to breakeven, say you have 33%pre and call a 4b, you'll need 58% postflop or else you will be on the losing end.
33% of 66bb=22bb -> you'll need 78bb more
78bb of 134bb=58% equity needed for overall 50%
And that's just for being breakeven. This gets better if preflop equities are closer obviously, like with ds middle type runs vs AA.

Yeah I'm fine with all of this, my point is that generally speaking you can do even better by flatting with the rundowns. Other hands might be better for the situation you describe.

Just finished the video with notes. Some good information in there, particularly with regards to the 4-bet calling example. I had read about calculating the area under the graphs in Donkr's PLO From Scratch article (Bugs was the forum member who wrote it), but he didn't delve into the details.

So...I pretty much could make a big exel calculator to do that for me quicker, but I'd just have to punch in lots of numbers like the bounds for each area, change stack sizes if need be and what not? Is that plausible?