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

weeeeeeeeeee great vid

11:40 - that turn decision is pretty interesting to me. I'm trying to play around with PPT to analyse this spot but i'm finding it hard to judge our implied odds. Vs. QQxx we have 22% equity, vs QTxx we have 32%, 27% against AAxx. We are getting offered immediate pot odds here of 32% and with implied odds this seems like an easy call to me. You say we are likely going to face a 3rd barrel on the river, it is set up for an all-in shove for around 90% pot on river.

An A and 9 gives us the nuts (non diamond), a K and 6 a very strong hand, that's 12 outs (approx 27% of rivers) we can call a ship on the river and expect to win a large % of the time, along with that now and then he checks and gives up with some missed draw and our KK bare are good, or the board pairs a 6 or 5 and the rivers goes check-check and we take it down.

This is a vastly simplified situation (like i say i'm new to analysing plo spots) but it seems like a call to me, could you clarify a little how you would calculate this spot?

Time Link to 00:04:35

Are you folding most hands containing two non-A wheel cards? What about A234 type hands?

Time Link to 00:11:26

I guess that the main problem with just calling here is that you do not have a strong value-calling range and he can barrel off his draws on the river? Because there are so many draws out you would be shipping in any set/value hand almost always.

Do you think calling with a set and then calling any bet on any river card could show a profit if he is aggressive enough? If you don't think so then, you could probably call with the KJ here expecting a free showdown when he misses his draws, and you could even bluff diamonds any maybe some straight draws if checked to.

Time Link to 00:17:45

This hand is far worse than the AJ32 double suited because your 2nd flush is really low/junky. You say it's a much better hand to 3-bet with though - is the AK *that* much better than an AJ?

Time Link to 00:17:57

This (AK)(62) hand is far worse than the (A3)(J2) hand from earlier because your 2nd flush is really low/junky. You say (A2)(K6) would be a decent hand to 3-bet with though - is the AK *that* much better than an AJ?

min 2:15, second hand.
board is A65, we have T864.
u say we have a double gutshot. but actually we dont, right? isnt this an easy fold or would you still call it even with the gutshot and pair outs only?

u say we have a double gutshot. but actually we dont, right?

Man i'm glad it's not just me, i sat staring at that board for 2 minutes looking for that second gutter!

Time Link to 00:30:47

I think this is a spot where you can safely pot the turn for value and to build a pot where stacks can go in on the river. I can't really think of a good reason to bet smaller unless you want to establish a check-raise dynamic on the river and you think he might be bluffing missed draws/thin value range when checked to.

Time Link to 00:34:53

3-betting this hand may be a small mistake (compared to flat-calling) as you don't really have enough high-card value to be doing this on a raw equity argument. I typically look for 3 broadway hands or really high connectedness. If you want to include "low-cards" in your range for balance you are much better off 3-betting very connected hands that can hit low flops really hard like 8765ds and 8764ds.


Hands like this one usually pick up just enough to allow you to hang on and pay him off when he wants the pot to grow large on a low board. OOP, this is not good.

For reference, PPT ranks these (Ax)Qx hands in the top20% of hands (most are double-suited):

(AK)(QJ)
(AK)(QT)
(AK)(Q9)
(AK)QJ
(AK)(Q5)
(AK)(Q3)
(AK)(Q4)
(AK)(Q8)
(AK)QT
(AK)(Q2)
(AK)(Q6)
(AK)(Q7)
(AT)(QJ)
(AJ)(QT)
(A9)(QT)
(AT)(Q9)
(AT)(Q8)
(A8)(QT)
(AJ)(Q9)
(A9)(QJ)
(AJ)QT
(AT)QJ
(AJ)(Q8)
(A8)(QJ)
(A8)(Q9)
(A9)(Q8)
(A5)(QJ)
(AJ)(Q4)
(AT)(Q7)
(AJ)(Q5)
(A5)(QT)
(A4)(QJ)
(A3)(QJ)
(A7)(QT)
(A9)QT
(A4)(QT)

0:42 - here you are facing a turn bet with top set QQxx on Q843 all hearts. You are facing a $44 bet in to a $61.50 pot. you say on on the vid you are getting 45-46% on the call. You are actually getting like 31% immediate pot odds. You have the best hand a lot, you have 12 outs to improve (~24% of the time) + decent implied odds, again seems a cal lto me.

Are you folding most hands containing two non-A wheel cards? What about A234 type hands?

Yea, they are really just gross OOP. If we hit a piece its rarely the nuts, and most often if we get any significant action we'll not be a big equity favorite.

I guess that the main problem with just calling here is that you do not have a strong value-calling range and he can barrel off his draws on the river? Because there are so many draws out you would be shipping in any set/value hand almost always.

Do you think calling with a set and then calling any bet on any river card could show a profit if he is aggressive enough? If you don't think so then, you could probably call with the KJ here expecting a free showdown when he misses his draws, and you could even bluff diamonds any maybe some straight draws if checked to.

I kinda like the idea of calling with a set here if I know he's aggro and will fire the 3rd barrel often. It rubs my natural PLO tendencies towards protection in big pots the wrong way, but it may well be a more valuable line. One problem is that if he has a worse made hand and some draw comes in, he probably c/f's. So with top set I probably prefer to just stick it in, but with bottom set slowplaying is a more viable line.

This (AK)(62) hand is far worse than the (A3)(J2) hand from earlier because your 2nd flush is really low/junky. You say (A2)(K6) would be a decent hand to 3-bet with though - is the AK *that* much better than an AJ?

Yea I think the AK is significantly better than the AJ, if we're doublesuited to both.
1) King high flushes HU are almost effectively the nuts, jack high flushes are often bluffcatchers.
2) A situation might arise where I get it in with one pair of aces (like, TP+FD+Gutter). If my opponent has a similar hand, that king kicker is a strong feature!
3) Top pair of kings > top pair of jacks

min 2:15, second hand.
board is A65, we have T864.
u say we have a double gutshot. but actually we dont, right? isnt this an easy fold or would you still call it even with the gutshot and pair outs only?

ups yea I was a little scatterbrained there it seems. I probably would still call though, we've got a number of cards that improve us and a number of cards that are good to bluff with, and we've got the almighty position.

I think this is a spot where you can safely pot the turn for value and to build a pot where stacks can go in on the river. I can't really think of a good reason to bet smaller unless you want to establish a check-raise dynamic on the river and you think he might be bluffing missed draws/thin value range when checked to.

If he flats my $70 on the turn, he'll have $180 behind in a pot of $230. That'll work just fine for a river ship. My concern about potting is that it gives away the strength of my hand too much with a decent amount behind, and so he'll play perfectly with most of his draws. I hate potting postflop pretty much anytime unless there's very little left behind. If I could feasibly be bluffing, then I want to size it in a more balanced way.

3-betting this hand may be a small mistake (compared to flat-calling) as you don't really have enough high-card value to be doing this on a raw equity argument. I typically look for 3 broadway hands or really high connectedness. If you want to include "low-cards" in your range for balance you are much better off 3-betting very connected hands that can hit low flops really hard like 8765ds and 8764ds.


Hands like this one usually pick up just enough to allow you to hang on and pay him off when he wants the pot to grow large on a low board. OOP, this is not good.

Perhaps so, but he was playing close to 100% from the SB and not folding to 3bets. So his range for calling 3bets is basically 100%. In retrospect I should have been 3betting a lot more, simply because he wouldn't be able to continue postflop often enough and he'd be liable to hit a smaller piece of the flop than I did.

If he flats my $70 on the turn, he'll have $180 behind in a pot of $230. That'll work just fine for a river ship. My concern about potting is that it gives away the strength of my hand too much with a decent amount behind, and so he'll play perfectly with most of his draws. I hate potting postflop pretty much anytime unless there's very little left behind. If I could feasibly be bluffing, then I want to size it in a more balanced way.

Do you not think that you will be checking back a majority of your medium strength hands here? This is a spot where all the hands you bet are pretty much pure value, draws that can & will bet/call or pure bluffs isn't it? Mostly because we expect him to mostly check/raise or check/fold in this spot. We aren't going to be betting weak two-pair with no redraw here are we?

0:42 - here you are facing a turn bet with top set QQxx on Q843 all hearts. You are facing a $44 bet in to a $61.50 pot. you say on on the vid you are getting 45-46% on the call. You are actually getting like 31% immediate pot odds. You have the best hand a lot, you have 12 outs to improve (~24% of the time) + decent implied odds, again seems a cal lto me.

10 outs and meh implied odds imo.

10 outs and meh implied odds imo.

What about the chances that he is bluffing and will give up on the river? Cuts down on your implied odds, but improves your immediate odds (since your equity when ahead is very very high).

What about the chances that he is bluffing and will give up on the river? Cuts down on your implied odds, but improves your immediate odds (since your equity when ahead is very very high).

well, if he were likely to give up with all his bluffs, I agree that it gives calling a much stronger case. But my estimation at this point is that he's a strong enough player to recognize that my turn calling range is simply weak in this position; I expect him to barrel very often on the river.

The only times he won't barrel are when he has a better made hand, either because a bad card comes or because a blank comes. I might be able to bluff him on a bad card, but if he is bluffcatching a decent amount thats an expensive proposition. If its a blank, he's obv checking to bluffcatch, so I don't gain anything either way.

well, if he were likely to give up with all his bluffs, I agree that it gives calling a much stronger case. But my estimation at this point is that he's a strong enough player to recognize that my turn calling range is simply weak in this position; I expect him to barrel very often on the river.

The only times he won't barrel are when he has a better made hand, either because a bad card comes or because a blank comes. I might be able to bluff him on a bad card, but if he is bluffcatching a decent amount thats an expensive proposition. If its a blank, he's obv checking to bluffcatch, so I don't gain anything either way.

But if we expect him to barrel the river a lot, that means we have good implied odds? Would you expect him to checkfold a A or K flush if the board pairs on the riv?

Whoops. My last long response

well, if he were likely to give up with all his bluffs, I agree that it gives calling a much stronger case. But my estimation at this point is that he's a strong enough player to recognize that my turn calling range is simply weak in this position; I expect him to barrel very often on the river.

The only times he won't barrel are when he has a better made hand, either because a bad card comes or because a blank comes. I might be able to bluff him on a bad card, but if he is bluffcatching a decent amount thats an expensive proposition. If its a blank, he's obv checking to bluffcatch, so I don't gain anything either way.

was in reference to the KKJ6 hand. Not sure why I got mixed up there.

What about the chances that he is bluffing and will give up on the river? Cuts down on your implied odds, but improves your immediate odds (since your equity when ahead is very very high).

In the QQ hand on the Q flop:

Yes if he's bluffing here he's probably going to give up on the river. That is a strong argument towards calling. Do I think he's bluffing here a lot? Unsure. Probably a fair bit though.

yooo dj, its the blunt. I did have kq that one hand when you had the wrap and straight flush draw on the kq8qx board. it was good playing you btw.

yooo dj, its the blunt. I did have kq that one hand when you had the wrap and straight flush draw on the kq8qx board. it was good playing you btw.

ship the free high five! gg

Time Link to 00:01:22

To me it seems like he wouldn't expect you to bluff here hardly ever and makes calling better than raising. I guess you would be though since you could fold out a lot of his 3bing range.

Whats your thoughts of giving villain credit for his c-bet %? It seems to me that u fold a lot of weak top pair - gut-shot + second pair (generally marginals holding but still hands I would consinder float to his see turn action) I mean do u just give him credit for running good or what?

To me it seems like he wouldn't expect you to bluff here hardly ever and makes calling better than raising. I guess you would be though since you could fold out a lot of his 3bing range.

Yea I think its a pretty good spot to raise small with air, since he'll fold out the weaker end of his 3betting range. Now if I learn that his cbetting frequency is pretty low in 3bet pots, then bluffing is bad because he's not betfolding here often, but this early in the match I think I def have to assume he's cbetting a high %.

In favor of calling is that it strengthens my calling range somewhat (he wouldn't expect me to flat with trips here ever) and that my particular hand doesn't really have too many bad turn cards.

Whats your thoughts of giving villain credit for his c-bet %? It seems to me that u fold a lot of weak top pair - gut-shot + second pair (generally marginals holding but still hands I would consinder float to his see turn action) I mean do u just give him credit for running good or what?

Against a weaker opponent, you can get away with floating a lot OOP with these kind of hands because they'll let you showdown the best hand more often. Against a stronger one, c/c flop with marginal holdings is not going to end up very well for us too often. If we do, its key that we have actual outs that we're happy about (like, our kickers shouldn't make straights or flushes).

You're right though, I might have given his cbets a little too much credit. Its tough to record a live sweat HU video, much of my brainpower was taken up by verbalizing my ideas so I didn't have as much left for complete analysis. In the future I'll probably record sessions and then add audio commentary later.

Hi DJ, nice HU video. After this session, do you think that you folded too many hands in general vs a good aggressive player? (Like QQ on Qxx 3 hearts hands and some similar spots). I personally think you didn't adjust much on calling down range against someone who is capable of 2 barreling or 3 barreling with air. You might want to reduce swing but just wondering if you think there is a better approach to play against an aggressive HU reg?

Against a weaker opponent, you can get away with floating a lot OOP with these kind of hands because they'll let you showdown the best hand more often. Against a stronger one, c/c flop with marginal holdings is not going to end up very well for us too often. If we do, its key that we have actual outs that we're happy about (like, our kickers shouldn't make straights or flushes).

That makes sense. Villain is obviously competent enough to do some real damage on later streets. And this is prolly your adjustment (?) - and after thinking about it, a reasonable one against this guy.

I just feel like against a competent villain it's hard to really adjust by auto-folding those hands. Folding the hands reduces variance without a doubt, but wouldn't it also widen /induce villains bluff-range enough for it to be profitable?

I guess it's a greyzone without sufficient hh.

Time Link to 00:27:32

Aww please bet, his hand is a Q or an overpair so often! QT is raising the turn often and I don't think he has many Q5/4/3 combo's as he seems relatively tight. I think with the flushdraw having missed he can definitely herocall us, and we have the best hand pretty much always so I'd like a bet of maybe 125 here

I'd like the river to be a 2 more than a 4 as 467 or something is now completed, but with the backdoorstraights and flushdraw missing there's plenty for him to be paranoid about.

Time Link to 01:05:41

Blegh I really dislike 4b/folding but I guess it's correct at least after we 4bet.

We have 34% equity which can be upgraded a little as we can fold ace high or really raggity non-K/Q/8 flops for some of the money. There's 90$ in the pot when he raises and we have 241.25$ behind, which means we need 42%, and I think the 8% difference will be too big to make up for deciding which flops to call and which to fold.

If the guy were a big fish I'd advise to gamble here to get deeper stacks, but with this opponent folding seems correct

ED- the 34% is against random aces, maybe he's not 3betting all aces, maybe he is. If he's not our equity is obviously a bit lower as his aces will have more kings, queens and flushdraws to go with them, so if you suspect he 3bets only like half his AA hands then this is not close and a clear fold after we 4bet. Still wonder if I like the 4bet tho, think I'd rather 4b AA and then KQJTlike hands for balance that we can call a 5bet with.

Blegh I really dislike 4b/folding but I guess it's correct at least after we 4bet.

I do too! But I'm confident that its correct.

As for 4betting, I'm pretty happy to do it with this hand. Because he's 3betting such a high %, the vast majority of his 3bet range will be non-AA hands (but if he does have AA, he's basically forced to 5bet and we can correctly fold.) FWIW I think that if we just flat the 3bet and he does have AA, we're not likely to have an advantage postflop. If we play a big pot, theres a very good chance he'll have us beat (like if we both flop a FD and his is bigger). Anyhow, this hand plays really well against his 3betting range of rundown type hands, since we'll have a good idea where we stand postflop and if we both flop a FD we're likely to have his covered.

Yeah I guess that's money you're going to lose anyway if you're not 4betting because it's hard (and incorrect) to get away from an overpair for one bet... I probably like this play but wish we were deeper.