---

Poker Video: Omaha/Omaha 8 by BigBadBabar (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 00:08:08

table 3: IMO "3x"=="potting it" in this case.

Time Link to 00:06:03

About the discussion that follows: if you bomb your high equity and bet less with nut-nut, how do you balance the pot sized bets?

Time Link to 00:19:21

I can't help disliking the fact that you get nearly 2 buy-ins in the center with middle set here, SPR > 15... you're not exactly crushing kqt9ss and villain is much more likely to have KK than 66 when he limps in so you're not even money against the sets imo. If villain has any clue at all (not that his stats necessarily indicate that), he's not 3-betting the flop with 66 (or QT9, either).
But it all comes down to how you weigh his ranges, it's equally easy to construct a range where the raise-shove is ok.

Time Link to 01:01:10

About the discussion that follows: unless you're taking card removal into account here, the SB UO PFR stat doesn't care whether there was 1 or 8 players who folded before you. (If you were looking at SB PFR total it would be a different story .) Card removal will actually increase the number in 10-max a bit, as when it gets folded to SB, the deck will now be slightly more rich in Aces than in a similar situation but shorter table.

The opportunities to SB UO PFR will drop in a higher table though, so the sample size for the stat will be lower so it will be less reliable than in shorter games.

About the discussion that follows: if you bomb your high equity and bet less with nut-nut, how do you balance the pot sized bets?

You are going to want to balance both a little, but a good portion of that balance will be based on player type as well. Certain players you will be potting your nut-nut a greater %. And honestly most players will not pick up on first how you balance your most basic range/bet size and then in relation to players or player types it would take so many hands to even formulate an accurate assessment. Then those who you find have, they are adjusted to with a real balanced range. In the last five years I've maybe come across a dozen players capable so it's not a real problem.

I can't help disliking the fact that you get nearly 2 buy-ins in the center with middle set here, SPR > 15... you're not exactly crushing kqt9ss and villain is much more likely to have KK than 66 when he limps in so you're not even money against the sets imo. If villain has any clue at all (not that his stats necessarily indicate that), he's not 3-betting the flop with 66 (or QT9, either).
But it all comes down to how you weigh his ranges, it's equally easy to construct a range where the raise-shove is ok.

Yeah this is about as marginal as it comes, although it can become fairly player dependent as you move up.

About the discussion that follows: unless you're taking card removal into account here, the SB UO PFR stat doesn't care whether there was 1 or 8 players who folded before you. (If you were looking at SB PFR total it would be a different story .) Card removal will actually increase the number in 10-max a bit, as when it gets folded to SB, the deck will now be slightly more rich in Aces than in a similar situation but shorter table.

The opportunities to SB UO PFR will drop in a higher table though, so the sample size for the stat will be lower so it will be less reliable than in shorter games.

While the you're right that the SB UO PFR doesn't care how many players folded behind you, in a short- handed game you have to fight for pots with much greater frequency than you will at a 6m/9m table otherwise you will get eaten up. You are essentially forced to play in marginal and and likely -EV spots as any remotely competent villain is doing the same. The shorter you are the necessary strength of made hands decreases.

While the you're right that the SB UO PFR doesn't care how many players folded behind you, in a short- handed game you have to fight for pots with much greater frequency than you will at a 6m/9m table otherwise you will get eaten up.

I really don't see why I'd want to play in a -EV spot based on how many players were originally sitting at the table. If it's folded to me on the SB, I'm facing a villain with random cards and I have a range of hands that is +EV in that spot, regardless of the table size (HUHU obv different because of the positions).

My VPIP and PFR frequencies (in general, and per position) do go up in a shorter game as there are less people who entered the pot before me but that shouldn't affect my per position PFR UO hand selection imo.

Short handed if you have the luxury of getting cards while in the SB, fantastic. Otherwise you will get eaten up by the blinds, be giving up equity way too frequently and allow villains to play vs you accordingly because you'll be an open book.

At 6max/FR you gain the advantage back via positional play so marginal to -EV open spots(IE, SB/UTG) aren't as significant to pass up.

Preflop equities run too close in this game so during shorthanded play you HAVE to push any advantage you can as positional advantage is far too limited. You have to take advantage of the initiative even if it means with hands outside of the optimal range. Example, QT34ss in FR is pretty common fold in SB. SH it's a pretty standard open as the BB is going to be(and should be) defending much wider.

table 3: IMO "3x"=="potting it" in this case.

potting would be more than 60 cents i think

I can't help disliking the fact that you get nearly 2 buy-ins in the center with middle set here, SPR > 15... you're not exactly crushing kqt9ss and villain is much more likely to have KK than 66 when he limps in so you're not even money against the sets imo. If villain has any clue at all (not that his stats necessarily indicate that), he's not 3-betting the flop with 66 (or QT9, either).
But it all comes down to how you weigh his ranges, it's equally easy to construct a range where the raise-shove is ok.

i wasn't ecstatic about it either. villain limps basically always preflop so we can't really say anything about his range based on that.

potting would be more than 60 cents i think

You post 5 and he 10 (cents), no other money in the pot.
You make it 20. If he wants to raise pot, he can first "call" (he pays up the 10) and then raise the amount in the pot (there's 20 from both of you 20 so 40 more). So he's put in 10 (blind) + 10 ("call" your raise) + 40 (the pot at this time) -> 60 total when potting it.

OR:
your "raise to" when potting it is 3x the previous bet + any money previously in the pot (excluding money you already put there on this betting round).

So your 20 is the "previous bet", he ignores the money he put in this round (preflop), there's no other money in the pot-> 3*20 + 0 = 60

This "3x the previous bet" thing is a bit tough to get right first but it's great especially live, much easier to count than "hmmm I first call his bet and then the pot is this big and then I can put in this much more but I can't string-bet so I wish to announce the amount first....". Say there's 10 in the pot from preflop, on the flop someone opens to 8, you can insta-(3*8 +10) it to 34. Or you can go "ok to pot I first call so it's 10+8+8=26 in the pot, then my call it's 8 more so 26+8 = 34. "

Maybe we should take this outside (of the video thread, that is ).

I'll start by simplifying things a bit. Say there's a game going on where all the players have 7 BB, blinds are posted like in flop games so 1/2. Players are dealt 1-4 four cards each (so this can be HE, Omaha or 1 card poker, doesn't matter.)
When it's folded to SB, it's easy to generate (with a computer) an optimal range A which is his open push range. BB will have another optimal range, his calling range B. Shortstackers (and SNG players) are extremely familiar with these.

Since these are optimal ranges, neither one can change their range to make things more +EV for him. If SB starts pushing 100% and BB sticks to range B, BB starts to gain. Of if SB sticks to range A and BB starts to fold either too much or too little, SB starts to gain.

Specifically, if BB starts to either call or fold too much, SB will be making more money just by sticking to his original strategy A. So there's no reason for BB to deviate from his original stragegy B (it was optimal to begin with).

How ever, if BB does deviate (say, by folding nearly 100%, or calling 100%), SB can gain even more by adjusting. But he'll better be sure he knows what he's doing, as he's now moving from a sure-win-strategy A to a could-end-up-losing-strategy-if-adjusting-incorrectly A2.

My view is that none of the above changes (other than the percentages themselves, of course, and I'm disregarding card removal) if we move from HUHU 1-card-push-poker to 6max FLHE to FR PLO8 with 100bb stacks. When folded to SB, there's going to be an optimal range A that's going to be profitable (compared to folding) for him in that position with the effective stack sizes and a similar optimal defence range B for BB. If SB deviates from his range, BB gains immediately (once again, compared to SB sticking to his range A).

Now if you say that the BB's of this world do (incorrectly, imo) "adjust" to a shorter game by defending more (not in general, but against a certain position), sticking to your SB strategy A will make you more money immediately. Adjusting to BB's "adjustment" (it's actually a deviation from optimal, not an adjustment) has the potential of making even more money, but the adjustment has to be to the right direction.

The following is not based on theory: my feeling is that especially in a big bet game, when BB starts to defend more than optimal B, and you're out of position, it's not the correct adjustment to start stealing more.

i wasn't ecstatic about it either. villain limps basically always preflop so we can't really say anything about his range based on that.

I meant like
-he's more likely to enter the pot with KK compared to 66, i.e when he's dealt KKJ4r, he's playing it but might be just good enough to fold 66J4r
-he's passive, so he's not openraising any KK or 66, they're both in his limping range
-> when he limps in from the button, I'm giving him more combos of KK.

Note that if the flop was AJ6, he would probably show up with more 66 than AA in this spot (he does have a raising range, and is very likely to raise any AA he has OTB, but he limped). In this case I'd be very happy getting it in against him (but not the original PFR, ie. SB).