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

Am I the only one not getting any sound with this?

Am I the only one not getting any sound with this?

no sound for me either

i'm deaf

No sound for me either

No sound in the flash version, and the mp4 didn't play in quicktime player on mac os x. Vlc played it ok but clearly something went wrong here.

Downloaded WMV and played great. Awesome video. Can't find info like this elsewhere I don't think. Looking forward to some hands.

no sound

God bless you vanessa and whitelime, this was so awesomo !

just great.

vanessa could explain poker to a puerto rican (maybe).

Sweet. Good intro vid for a noob like me. Thank you Vanessa.

It looks like the Flash version got corrupted guys. Dunno how unfortunately but I'm reproducing it right now, which will take about another 20 minute to produce and probably 30-35 to upload. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Rob

Sound seems fixed now guys.

Rob

Vanessa, of course you hit your backdoor flush in semi fake HH. He has 3456 or 4456 and your super dog. Your so lucky.

PS: All in love. Just wanted to make my first post a dig at your cash game luckbox

Edit: Ohh yeah sweet video

I lllllove the duck vs donkey story xD

is it advised to become a good NL player before trying to learn PLO? i currently play 50NL

69anything!

One question about when you say the gap in the run:
You say when the gap in the run is higher, you make more nuts. But isn't the gap in 8764 lower than in 8654. Like, isn't 5 lower than 7? Maybe I am misunderstanding your notation, so I just wanna make sure for the next videos what you mean by that.

Thanks for the great video.

69anything!

One question about when you say the gap in the run:
You say when the gap in the run is higher, you make more nuts. But isn't the gap in 8764 lower than in 8654. Like, isn't 5 lower than 7? Maybe I am misunderstanding your notation, so I just wanna make sure for the next videos what you mean by that.

Thanks for the great video.

Enjoyed the video, but was also confused by this. Also will this series be tailored to 6max or fullring?

I was curious about the 6 max or full ring, too.

However, the concepts in this video would apply to both as it was more about general pre flop hand strength analysis.

I don't think your logic about the higher gap being much less valuable than the lower gap in wrap hands is correct. Check it out:

4568: 23x flop-13 outs to nuts, 74x flop-13 outs to nuts, 57x flop-10 outs to nuts 67x flop-6 outs to nuts, 78 flop-3 outs to nuts

4678: 35x flop-13 outs to nuts, 45x flop-13 outs to nuts, 57x flop-10 outs to nuts, 65x flop-10 outs to nuts, 9Tx-3 outs to nuts

So as you can see, the two hands are virtually identical, with only 4 nut outs of difference between the two in all the different combination of wraps combined. I really don't see why you would treat these two hands much differently or any differently at all preflop. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Awesome video, Vanessa. I've always wanted to find a good introduction to PLO somewhere and voila!

One stated goal of the series is to be able to beat $100 PLO tables, but what does that mean in terms of winrate? I have been told that PLO plays twice as big as NLH meaning that 7 or 8 poker tracker bets per 100 hands is the goal, is this correct?

(4 choose 3) is the same as (4 choose 4-3) = (4 choose 1) = 4 =/= 6 no?

I don't think your logic about the higher gap being much less valuable than the lower gap in wrap hands is correct. Check it out:

4568: 23x flop-13 outs to nuts, 74x flop-13 outs to nuts, 57x flop-10 outs to nuts 67x flop-6 outs to nuts, 78 flop-3 outs to nuts

4678: 35x flop-13 outs to nuts, 45x flop-13 outs to nuts, 57x flop-10 outs to nuts, 65x flop-10 outs to nuts, 9Tx-3 outs to nuts

So as you can see, the two hands are virtually identical, with only 4 nut outs of difference between the two in all the different combination of wraps combined. I really don't see why you would treat these two hands much differently or any differently at all preflop. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

yeah i meant to post a correction, so thank you. it does wind up making a difference when you are playing, but I know my math was quite incorrect in the slide. i just had a major brain fart.

but notice - there is also the question of when you do make the nuts on the turn, will it remain the nuts by the river - i think you'll notice that on your nut flops for the first hand, there are more cards that can peel off on the river that will put higher straights out there. (double check because first off this isn't my strong point and i'm pretty tired right now) once again, this winds up being a factor (mostly in multiway pots rather than heads up pots, which is something we don't get into too much during this series but i discuss a great deal in my other PLO series which will air either in season 3 or 4) but not too terribly important most of the time.

I was curious about the 6 max or full ring, too.

However, the concepts in this video would apply to both as it was more about general pre flop hand strength analysis.

exactly - this analysis i did was to get you thinking about the kinds of things you want to be thinking about when going about your game. in terms of a chart of hands to play, it's kind of tough - but after you put in some hours and watch this series, hopefully you'll have a good idea of what a reasonable starting range is for 6max at least.

69anything!

One question about when you say the gap in the run:
You say when the gap in the run is higher, you make more nuts. But isn't the gap in 8764 lower than in 8654. Like, isn't 5 lower than 7? Maybe I am misunderstanding your notation, so I just wanna make sure for the next videos what you mean by that.

Thanks for the great video.

yeah, thanks for the correction - that was just me misspeaking. i meant when the gap in the hand is lower, you make the nuts more often (and keep the nuts more often too!)

i think the sound is still not working on the sample for those not logged in, if this matters, sweet vid, ty

Pretty sweet MS Paint action on the example hands.

i think the sound is still not working on the sample for those not logged in, if this matters, sweet vid, ty

Thanks much for pointing that out, I fixed it.

Rob

Great! Now I can hopefully win back the 800$ I donked off in PLO before signing up here

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.

Thanks for the insight. As you point out there really is no practical usage for the information x4 better or x6 better, however as part of a video series aimed at new Omaha players, accuracy of information is paramount.

I agree with your point, knowing it's better is valuable, and knowing why is pure gold, however (as with books) I do expect the information to be correct and accurate as I am paying for the advise.

Just thought that this could be cleared up for new players (and with the new video viewer beta this info could be tagged to the video file directly, which I almost did myself, but wanted to check I was correct before doing so.)

Furthermore the Omaha video notes that KasinoKrime is so generous in providing to members who request it is based on the info in the video (and others) and as such it duplicates this error, further spreading inaccurate information with DeucesCracked as the primary source.

**Fingers crossed** that I am not coming across as a total tool... I am just wanting to check on my math/logic, to help others and improve the site for all users.

Cheers
Omahahaha

Another thing, 4 choose 3 is the same as 4 choose 1, which is 4, not six.

love the introduction.

just one thing: you explained with 2 hand examples why danglers suck so much. you compared T987 with T972 .. I don't think it's a fair comparison if you are only talking about danglers and why they suck, because you not only added a dangler but also a gap. Obviously you will love a lot less flops with T972 than with T987 but it's not only because of the dangler (and that's the point you were trying to get across).

A fair comparison would have been T987 against T982

Time Link to 00:29:56

Well duh! lol.

Time Link to 00:37:46

"6-9 anything" definitely made me laugh out loud... and in general, I find 69 jokes/references annoying, that says something. You are one of the more entertaining coaches on DC. You sound more fluid when you speak, like you are just shooting the breeze as opposed to analyzing the zzzzz'ness of the games.

I think I know how 4 choose 3 is mistakenly being described as 6. 4 choose 2 is 6, which is the number of 2-card hold'em hands you have with 4 cards. This 6 is incorrectly being used to describe something entirely different, the number of ways of choosing 3 cards out of 4 from KQJT. As noted by many others, 4 choose 3 is 4. Hope this clarifies things.

Time Link to 00:21:34

The video started well and seems to contain interesting and important
points but she really mixes things in this slide correcting herself back and forth all the time not really knowing what to say ... should
have prepared this slide a lot better : ( ... apart from that will
continue to watch with great interest

Time Link to 00:31:39

Just getting to see this awesome hand history storyboard sequence is reason enough to learn PLO in itself. I am now fulfilled as a poker player.

By following Vanessa's advice one day I too can build up the bankroll to freeroll against donkeys for piles and piles of "25K" chips.

great video. i think im going to get alot out of this series. thanks

Hello!

In starting watching the video now and I'm not familiar with the term 'rap' or 'wrap', someone can explain it to me?

Hello!

In starting watching the video now and I'm not familiar with the term 'rap' or 'wrap', someone can explain it to me?

A wrap is a "rundown" hand like 8764 or 8654 or T987, etc...

Vanessa said 4 cards to a wrap, such as T987, is much better than 3 cards(with a pair), to a wrap such as T997, but the math shows she is wrong.

I ran the equity through pro poker tools, it shows T997 is a 70/30 favorite over T987. Also, T887 is a 54/46 favorite over T987.

Also, T987 is approx 53/47 vs xxxx whereas T997 and T887 are close to 60/40.

Vanessa said 4 cards to a wrap, such as T987, is much better than 3 cards(with a pair), to a wrap such as T997, but the math shows she is wrong.

I ran the equity through pro poker tools, it shows T997 is a 70/30 favorite over T987. Also, T887 is a 54/46 favorite over T987.

Also, T987 is approx 53/47 vs xxxx whereas T997 and T887 are close to 60/40.

When you find the game that involves going all in preflop every time, then you're right, up against each other, you'd rather have T997 than T987.

My point was that T987 flops much better and plays much better than T997 when you're up against other hands. It flops very nicely and gives you great equity on many flops.

Furthermore, if you run the equities not against xxxx, but against the top 30% of hands, or whatever it is that people are likely to play, then T987 actually does better hot and cold than T997 does. For instance, against AAKK, T987 is 39% whereas T997 is 33%.

Thanks - great to get a comment with the thread so old. I hope you continue your good run for the rest of the year.

Even though this video is like 3 years old, i just wanna say thanks