---

Poker Video: Pot-Limit Omaha by fslexcduck (Mid Stakes)

Hey, I was just checking this series out for fun. I liked the first video and learned quite a bit from it. I'm not a PLO player so I may have made a mistake here, but I think some of the info about the high gap versus low gap (e.g. 8764 vs. 8654) is inaccurate. I know there was an error in the video but I think the correction in this thread is still wrong.

Imagine x is a non-relevant card (not necessarily a low card - it's actually easier for x to be a K although you'd really rather have it be a 2 on the T9x flop).

8764
53x: 13 outs (four 2's, three 4's, three 6's, three 7's), 13 outs to the nuts
54x: 13 outs (four 3's, three 6's, three 7's, three 8's), 13 outs to the nuts
65x: 17 outs (four 3's, three 4's, three 7's, three 8's, four 9's), 11 outs to the nuts (the 3's, 4's, 9's)
75x: 17 outs (four 3's, three 4's, three 6's, three 8's, four 9's), 11 outs to the nuts (the 3's, 4's, 9's)
85x: 13 outs (three 4's, three 6's, three 7's, four 9's), 7 outs to the nuts (4's, 9's)
T9x: 13 outs (three6's, three 7's, three 8's, four J's), 3 outs to the nuts (6's)


8654
32x: 13 outs (four A's, three 4's, three 5's, three 6's), 13 outs to the nuts
74x: 13 outs (four 3's, three 5's, three 6's, three 8's), 13 outs to the nuts
75x: 17 outs (four 3's, three 4's, three 6's, three 8's four 9's), 11 outs to the nuts (3's, 4's, 9's)
76x: 17 outs (four 3's, three 4's, three 5's, three 8's, four 9's), 7 outs to the nuts (3's, 4's)
87x: 13 outs (three 4's, three 5's, three 6's, four 9's), 3 outs to the nuts (4's)
97x: 13 outs (three 5's, three 6's, three 8's, four T's), 3 outs to the nuts (5's)


In total each hand has 86 outs. However, 8764 has 58 nut outs (~67% of the outs), while 8654 has only 50 (~58% of the outs). So the difference in hand values is actually much greater than what was posted in this thread. From looking at the above scenarios it's clear that the hand with the higher gap loses value more quickly as the flop cards get higher.

This doesn't take into account other flops that may be favorable. Since I'm not a PLO player I don't know what these are, but I suspect that top two + a straight draw is good. In that case it should be intuitive that the hand with higher cards (i.e. lower gap) will yield stronger combo made hands + draws.

And I think Vanessa's point about not getting re-drawn is very relevant. From looking at the starting cards and flops above I think it's pretty clear that when you hit a draw on the turn your hand will be more likely to hold up when you have 8764.

Thought it was a pretty good introduction and it definitely cleared up some things for me. Thanks.

I loved the slide with the duck and the donkey. The only part that slowed the video down was the 8654 8764 part, but I got what you were trying to say (it wasn't that bad in the video). As far as I know, there's nothing out like this yet for plo so I can't wait to get through this series.

In total each hand has 86 outs. However, 8764 has 58 nut outs (~67% of the outs), while 8654 has only 50 (~58% of the outs).

Yes im confused as well. I used to think that 8764 is better hand than 8654. However this in this video slide says:
"when the gap in the run is high, the hand makes many more nut draws". So unless its a typo, i dont understand how.
Also in other PLO vids (namely Mad Poter series) rbk said that he preffers gap at the upper side over lower. And that he preffers gaps over no gaps.
What the hell???

Thanks PygmyHero, that really cleared it up

also series is gonna rock...

so was it a typo in the video or what?

Awesome.

69anything! sounds like a good sn imo.

What tracking programs support PLO? I notice when I have been testing out the PLO tables HEM doesn't work. Thanks.

Poker Tracker Omaha
DirtBox

1st video i've watched on deucescracked. Excellent primer for low stakes plo.
It has already saved me a ton of money. Thanks.

4 choose 3 is equal to 4, not 6. Minor point.

good vid

4 choose 3 is equal to 4, not 6. Minor point.

Yeah I was thinking about this as well, (Danglers when trying to make a wrap)
I think the maths does make a significant difference, however the main intent of the point being made was how bad Danglers are for the value of your hand.
This point is still valid, but I too believe that its only 4 times better no to have a dangler when trying to make a wrap.
Feel free to comment or correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers

OK I think that I may have misunderstood the intent of the statement, but I am still not 100% sure.

It seems to be that there are not 6 times more combination that a KQJT that can flop a wrap draw (using 3 cards from your hand to have the wrap) compared with say KQJ3 (with a dangler)
EG: KQJ10 (since order does not matter, eg KQJ = JQK)
The 4 choose 3 options are: KQJ, KQ10, KJ10 QJ10
So 4 times more 3 card hand combination which can produce a wrap (compared to KQJ3 hand)

However there may be 6 times more flops which produce a wrap draw for a KQJ10 hand compared to KQJ3 hand. (HOW DO I DETERMINE THIS?)

Further clarification or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

OK I think that I may have misunderstood the intent of the statement, but I am still not 100% sure.

It seems to be that there are not 6 times more combination that a KQJT that can flop a wrap draw (using 3 cards from your hand to have the wrap) compared with say KQJ3 (with a dangler)
EG: KQJ10 (since order does not matter, eg KQJ = JQK)
The 4 choose 3 options are: KQJ, KQ10, KJ10 QJ10
So 4 times more 3 card hand combination which can produce a wrap (compared to KQJ3 hand)

However there may be 6 times more flops which produce a wrap draw for a KQJ10 hand compared to KQJ3 hand. (HOW DO I DETERMINE THIS?)

Further clarification or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

I don't really think you need to expend much energy to figure something like this out. You know that KQJT is awesome and KQJ3 is decent (depending on suits), so the exact numbers shouldn't affect your decisions one way or another. While these combinatorics exercises can certainly be interesting, its better to spend your time focusing on practical issues that will impact your game directly.