---

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

Awesome break down.

Wish you and magicninja were more active with PLO videos. Just great stuff.

Thank you.

so in the first hand when you say that raising the turnlead from the fish is an option do you think about a PS-raise that obv commits us? we have only ~24% vs QJ** so do you think its profitable (with the assumption that he will lead such a wide range there that we are a favorite against? )

What was the name of the book by Tom Chambers, that you mentioned ?

Time Link to 00:09:21

Against a better player would you still raise here or only because it's a fish?

What was the name of the book by Tom Chambers, that you mentioned ?

Advanced PLO Theory is the title of the book. For more information, visit www.nutblocker.com or fire an email at plotheory@gmail.com

so in the first hand when you say that raising the turnlead from the fish is an option do you think about a PS-raise that obv commits us? we have only ~24% vs QJ** so do you think its profitable (with the assumption that he will lead such a wide range there that we are a favorite against? )

I think raising pot (or close to it) is best. If he's a fish, then he's going to call too wide in the first place. And if that's the case, then we want to charge him the maximum price to draw against us. Additionally, for the times he calls our raise and then c/f's the river, we would prefer to collect as much dead money as possible.

The main reason for calling was because I was concerned about the BTN showing up with QJ**, and it would really suck to raise right into the nuts in this spot for obvious reasons. At the time, I thought the only hand BTN could raise with was QJ, and if this was the case I think the fish might make a poor call with combo draws, and give us the right price to draw against both of them (again, all of this comes back to what I mentioned in the video; the benefits of having relative position).

Hope this helps. LMK if you need clarification.

Against a better player would you still raise here or only because it's a fish?

I'd probably still raise. The main reason being that we've taken a line that underreps our hand, and with our K blocker it's quite difficult combinatorically to be beat here. Additionally, I'm not convinced that a good player would lead naked KT** here (he could lead KT with additional equity, like spades or a KT with a gutter), but again it's a small piece of his range combinatorically.

If he was extremely nitty I'd probably just call... But even then I think it's very close, mostly because of what I said about how we've played the hand (our hand looks like a missed draw), and if he's a good player/hand reader, he could still b/c QJ or even a bare king sometimes.

Awesome break down.

Wish you and magicninja were more active with PLO videos. Just great stuff.

Thank you.

this ....

In hand 2, I was wondering if you could elaborate on this SPR stuff. I believe you said if the spr >10 on the flop then if the money goes in immediately you need 46% equity for the call to be good.

Where is this theory found?
How is the maths derived?
Is this concept applicable to NLHE as well?

Thanks

In hand 2, I was wondering if you could elaborate on this SPR stuff. I believe you said if the spr >10 on the flop then if the money goes in immediately you need 46% equity for the call to be good.

Where is this theory found?
How is the maths derived?
Is this concept applicable to NLHE as well?

Thanks

It's not really a theory, it's just basic math. Shoot me a PM and I'll happily send you the table that shows the math. fwiw I got the table from Jeff Hwangs 2nd volume (in the SPR section).

And yes, this concept applies to NLHE as well.

In hand 2, I was wondering if you could elaborate on this SPR stuff. I believe you said if the spr >10 on the flop then if the money goes in immediately you need 46% equity for the call to be good.

Where is this theory found?
How is the maths derived?
Is this concept applicable to NLHE as well?

Thanks

Yes this is applicable to any big bet game.

Here's how the theory works.
First up you have pot odds, when someone makes a bet you can find out what % equity you need to call. I'm not going to explain them here as you should know this already.

So if we are looking at the equity we need to get it all in what we can do is assume that our opponent makes an allin bet. We can do this because it doesn't matter how our opponent gets the money in as long as we assume they always get all their money in on that street.

So example: our stack is 100, our opponents stack is 100 and there is 10 in the pot. Our opponent goes all in, hence bets 100.

Our pot odds are 100/(100+110) = 100 / 210 = 47.6%. So if we have greater than 47.6% we make money on a call here.

We'll do one more pots odds approach example before moving on.

You have 10 in the middle and both stacks are 50. Our opponent goes all in.

Our pot odds here are 50/(50+60) = 50 /110 = 45.5%\
So if we have more than 45.5% equity we make money on a call.

Take a moment here and see if you can figure out how to make this work for the spr.

Ok so did you try to figure out the spr equation for yourself???










Give it another try if you didn't









It will definitely be worth your while to attempt to figure it out!





...really it will be , you'll see this come up a lot!

Think shuttle covered it pretty well. Thanks! I tried just posting the table in here but it was kind of a pain in the ass and the formatting made it look very confusing, so if anyone wants the table just shoot me a PM with your email and I'll fire it over right away.

Ok so the crucial points from above:
1. We assume that our opponent goes all in for the purposes of calculating the required equity needed (even if it's a game where going all in is not possible)
2. We can use pot odds to calculate how much equity we need given the assumption above

So now lets do 1 more example: say the pot is 1 and we have 4 chips and our opponent has 4 chips.
Our SPR here is 4.
Now we can figure out the equity needed for a spr of 4 by using pot odds.
Our opponent bets 4 and there's 1 in the pot.
Pot odds for spr of 4:
percentage equity required = 4/(4+5) = 4/9 = 44.4%


See how the 1 in the pot works here?

Ok lets make it more general say there is 1 in the pot and our opponent goes all in for x and we have them covered.
our spr here is x.
Pot odds for spr of x:
percentage equity required = x/(x+(1+x)) = x/(2x+1)

so we can work out from this how much we need with a spr of x using this.

So using our formula here for spr of 6:
x = 6
percentage equity required = x / (2x +1 ) = 6 / (2*6 +1 ) = 6 /13 = 46.2%

You can do this for whatever spr, x, you want!


Hope this helps!