---

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

wow. love the series. it's only my second video with vanessa and I already love the way how she explains certain spots. there are only a few hands in the video but I feel like I learned a TON.

can't wait for the next episode.

Were you sat next to each other or discussing it over skype? Loving her deep thinking. Completely agree about your thinking as I often find myself in the same situation on the 774 board. Will aces still call at 50/1?

Time Link to 00:10:29

Man this is incredible analysis Vanessa -- really helps to see the importance of knowing what your perceived handrange is based on board textures and ratios of what you can have.

If you were deeper -- say 200 or 250BB deep, would you still c/r this flop big with your 865x hands, and would you barrel off if the turn/river came non-K/A?

Rob

Awesome!!!..Vanessa is phenom. at explaining concepts.
Keep em coming....thx

Man this is incredible analysis Vanessa -- really helps to see the importance of knowing what your perceived handrange is based on board textures and ratios of what you can have.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it!

If you were deeper -- say 200 or 250BB deep, would you still c/r this flop big with your 865x hands, and would you barrel off if the turn/river came non-K/A?

Absolutely on the turn! I wouldn't 3 barrel though because once he calls two streets I'm pretty confident he has a 7 or better by that point.

Were you sat next to each other or discussing it over skype?

We're doing it over skype - Steve is in Switzerland and I'm in Connecticut. The internet is pretty awesome!

Completely agree about your thinking as I often find myself in the same situation on the 774 board. Will aces still call at 50/1?

I don't think aces will call at any stakes - many of these concepts and definitely this one apply more or less universally.

Really great video. I think one of the things you touched on when steve had AKJx on the AJ8 two tone board is that in aggro online games playing passive can be very profitable in some spots. I have played with alot of different spots where i used to always Cbet or always c/r in NL and weaking your range by checking or calling is very profitable. Do you feel playing passive in aggro games can some times be more optimal as an overall game plan?

Absolutely on the turn! I wouldn't 3 barrel though because once he calls two streets I'm pretty confident he has a 7 or better by that point.

I wanted to elaborate on this the more that I've been thinking about it. The reason the turn is such a clear bet speaks to a fundamental gap in my logic on the flop that I chose not to address for the interest of time. In the vid, I say that "568 is the only draw you can have to check/raise, so he's got to think you have a 7, so he'll fold aces."

Obviously, if he's folding aces to a flop check/raise, it would be INSANELY profitable to c/r with any 4. Do I think he adjusts to that? Yes and no. Some people fold outright (which tbh is probably correct since so few people bluff in this spot). Some people call the flop to reevaluate, and fold the turn. Most fold AA by the turn though. And that's why having 568 is so nice, because you have decent enough equity against his range to bet/reluctantly call off what little rest (in 100BB situations) on the turn, which is what convinces him that you have to have a "big" hand, and makes 568 such a little part of your range. The flop c/r you can do very wide, but following through for your stack takes a very specific set of hands, the equity of which completely crushes any non-7 hand.

Do you feel playing passive in aggro games can some times be more optimal as an overall game plan?

Absolutely. To be honest, this is more of a recent hold'em phenomenon than a PLO one, but it applies to some extent in both games. People value bet so wide now (especially in NL) and assume you have a draw if you play passive (especially in PLO) that playing passively can be just a perfect strategy in a heads-up pot against an aggressive player. Just know your opponent and don't become too predictable yourself when playing other regs... that's all there is to it.

Time Link to 00:52:57

Here's the calculation I had done here (we won't talk about it in episode 3) :
- 45 % 67** (against that I have 39 % equity)
- 35 % QQ** (21 %)
- 20 % other made hands that I beat + bluffs (95 % on average)

Aggregate equity : 44 % (0.175 + 0.073 + 0.19)

A good demonstration that I'm too feared of big hands when I assign a range

Time Link to 01:05:05

« assuming they never call without KQ, how often do they have to have KQ for this to be a losing shove »

Here's my solution :

POT = 57.5 (60.5-3.0 rake)

Against sampei80 (60.99)
- if he has KQ I lose 60.99
- if he doesn’t I win 57.5
---› EV- shove if he has more than 49 % KQ (57.5 / 118.49)

Against wulpes (25.4)
- if he has KQ I lose 25.4
- if he doesn’t I win 57.5
---› EV- shove if he has more than 69 % KQ (57.5 / 82.9)

Against both of them : approximation using a hypothesis
H : wulpes has 5 % KQ, sampei80 has 45 % KQ
- 50 % : + 57.5
- 45 % : - 60.99
- 5 % : - 25.4
EV push : 0.04 $ (28.75 – 27.44 – 1.27)

Time Link to 00:13:16

even if he is at the top of his range here, we still have 30%

board: 7h7d4c
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
As6h5c8s 30.24% 248 0
8c9c7cts 69.76% 572 0