---

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

So I hoped there will be more than 1 PLO series in the new season but ok at least its with Vanessa which is pretty cool...

But I am really disappointed that first episode is roughly just the same as in 2x6. I mean all people are talking about PL Omaha is the upcoming game and DC only have one series about it and this one starts with old stuff???

DC only have one series about it and this one starts with old stuff???

But you got 2 episodes at one go. Ignore this one and jump straight to the episode 2 which is all new stuff. Pretend you never saw episode 1 and make believe episode 2 is actually episode 1.

Yeah saw this... Would be easier if they have repostet 2x6 and put in the last 10 Minutes of this one into Part 2...

Anyway my fault and at least I get my weekly stuff from Vanessa... ;o) Still I would like to have 2 series of PLO in 1 season...

So forget my first comment...

Love the new intro to this series.
Pacwoman with pink ribbon is gold.

Still explaining the gap in the runs wrong. The runs with LOW gaps make more nuts, not other way around.

Still explaining the gap in the runs wrong. The runs with LOW gaps make more nuts, not other way around.

Strange. This is mostly old material from 2x6 episode 1 and my notes from that episode say "
gaps lower >>> gaps higher in the run. ie 8764 >>> 8654.

I'm pretty confused about the gaps in runs thing too. What Vanessa is saying in the commentary seems to be contradicting what the slide is saying. And as she admitted, she was kinda confusing herself with it by the end.

Maybe she could post a clarifying message to clear it up?

is 8764 better than 8654? How about 8754 when the gap is in the middle?, is that in between or better or worse than the other two?

Looking forward to the rest of the series, this bit just confused me.

Hey guys,

As Vanessa said in another thread, this is material that was already recorded prior to the WSOP. We re-packaged this first episode because it included a little bit more about preflop in the last couple of minutes, but also because we really wanted anyone who was new to DC and hadn't seen Episode 1 of 2x6 to easily be able to find this material which is really important and meshed well with the rest of the series, which definitely rocks. I'll try to get her to post about the difference between the value in runs but there may be some info I can mine up from the old thread, because IIRC this was discussed in the 2x6 EP1 thread as well.

thanks,
Rob

Love the new intro to this series.
Pacwoman with pink ribbon is gold.

+ 1 i loved this

Still explaining the gap in the runs wrong. The runs with LOW gaps make more nuts, not other way around.

no doubt. my heads still spinning from the gap explanation. All in all great vid and congrats on the much deserved bracelet Vanessa!

Still explaining the gap in the runs wrong. The runs with LOW gaps make more nuts, not other way around.

I dont think there is a difference in possible Nut-Str8s in both combinations:

8764 can make NutStr8: 235, 345, 356, 357, 456, 457, 458, 569, 579, 589, 69T so 11 NutStr8s
8764 can make Non-NutStr8: 567, 568, 578, 79T, 89T, 9TJ so 6 Non-NutStr8s

8654 can make NutStr8: A23, 234, 235, 236, 347, 357, 367, 457, 467, 478, 579 so 11 NutStr8s
8654 can make Non-NutStr8: 567, 578, 678, 679, 789, 79T so 6 Non-NutStr8s

The difference is in the possibile scenarios where You can make big NutDRAWS or made hands with redraws!!!

8764 can make a 17-card-Str8draw with 11 Nutouts on a 56x Flop or a 16-card-Nutdraw on a 953 flop. There are more flops You can hit pretty hard with Str8 + redraws (like 235 or 356), Str8draw plus 2 Pair (like 456) or similar.

8654 can only flop 237 for a 13-card-Nutdraw or maybe 743 for a Str8 plus Redraws. But there are less possibilities to hit the flop big than with 8764.

So if I have seen Episode 1 of 2x6 (twice) watching this will be a waste of time?

Awesome video, already helped me to plug some preflop leaks.

Yeah I'm totally confused by the wrap bit of the video.

On the slide it says:

High gap in run = more nut draws

Low gap in run = more non nut draws

Whereas I always thought if I had to have a gap in a run I would want it at the low end since if i was against another made str8 or an identical 2 card draw theres a chance im freerolling toward a better str8.

Is this wrong?

So if I have seen Episode 1 of 2x6 (twice) watching this will be a waste of time?

Yes, it's the same material (I think it has 10min extra about preflop at the end). It's included in this series so that anyone who is watching series-by-series and not just downloading every PLO video will be sure to see the materials as it joins together with the rest of the lessons included in the series (which is different than 2x6).

Rob

Yeah I'm totally confused by the wrap bit of the video.

On the slide it says:

High gap in run = more nut draws

Low gap in run = more non nut draws

Whereas I always thought if I had to have a gap in a run I would want it at the low end since if i was against another made str8 or an identical 2 card draw theres a chance im freerolling toward a better str8.

Is this wrong?

Yes, you want the gap at the low end, as this will give you more nut draws.

And thanks, Entity.

I thought it was a good video, since I hadn't seen 2x6. I was very confused about the wrap part, but I hope she explains it again.

Good start to this series.

Okay, I watched the first episode. It was a minor disappointment, but I'm going to watch at least a couple more so that I'll see more of Vanessa's postflop play, before judging her too harshly. Basically everything Vanessa says in the powerpoint part (which wouldn't play well on my VLC for some reason) was ok, obv. position is important etc. But saying pairs are trash and you should just limp behind for set value, and hands like T998 being bad is just bs. T998 is obv not a great hand, but it's a hand I raise every time in shorthanded games. It does have favorable flops and plays reasonably well. The comparison to some PLO tourney where Josh Arieh called 30% of his stack with A229 was out of line, because PLO tourneys and cash games are so so different. A229 is trash, I wouldn't call with it in cash either, but you shouldn't compare tourney and cash PLO pretty much ever. In tourneys you play shallow stacks, and high card value goes way up compared to deep stack cash.

In the later part of the video, we get to see some of your game and I was not hugely impressed. Right off the bat you call the red pro a fish by raising your flop bet with nfd + gutshot to the nuts. There's nothing wrong with that raise. This time you had top set, but let's face it, how often are you gonna have top set in a 3bet pot on a JTx board? Even against top set his hand has 35%+ equity. His raise has huge fold equity, as what are you going to do with your UI aces or 7865 type middle runs there? Obv you fold and he rakes the pot with A-high. The red pro's (Beevers?) mistake IMO was calling your 3bet preflop, since barring specific reads, his hand plays very poorly against a standard 3bettors range. Even considering that his PF call isn't horrible, even if it's slightly -EV. Once he hits a great flop such as the one he hit, with 12 nuts outs, folding would be obv be terrible, and then it's just a matter of mixing it up between calling and stealing later, and raising right away.

A bit later you get aces OTB, raise and get 3bet from the blinds. You stand a chance of 4bet getting almost 50% of your stack in with above average aces. Why you don't do it there is above me. Now if you had said something about mixing it up with regulars, just calling with aces etc, it might have made some sense, but just flat calling without reasoning is pretty bad. Otherwise it's a 100% standard 4bet.

Hi Just wanna thank Vanessa Selbs for a great series!
Because of this I won the first ever PLO Tournament on the Asian Poker Tour.
To be honest I run so bad at PLO cash games Ive just stopped playin for a while.
Never the less people still dont really know how to play this game including some top NL pros and so there is a ton of value in gettin to grips with the game and this kinda series gives people an edge , especially against NL players.

Thanks again Vanessa!
Hope to see you in person one day!

(favorite quote of Vanessa Selbs "It is what it is!"
Ship it one time!

Omaha Hi Simulation
600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
4678 61.42% 303,996 129,009
4568 38.58% 166,995 129,009

Omaha Hi Simulation
600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
4568 24.47% 57,278 188,166
4578 37.85% 53,460 356,373
4678 37.67% 57,874 345,337

Better have gap low or in middle of the hand than in the high part of the hand.

Omaha Hi Simulation
600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
4568 24.47% 57,278 188,166
4578 37.85% 53,460 356,373
4678 37.67% 57,874 345,337

Better have gap low or in middle of the hand than in the high part of the hand.

This is when you are comparing the two hands against each other allin, where draw domination has a huge role. In order for you to compare 8764 and 8654, you need to compare them vs. a subset of hands preflop, not against each other directly.

Basically run 8764 vs. XXYZ (range) and 8754, but even then, the question isn't answered, because it's not an allin preflop but a question of playability postflop and equity in situations in which you flop a draw, and how nut your draws will be when you flop one.

It's not like hold'em where you can go "AQo > ATs because here, look at AQo vs. ATs HU" -- direct allin equity comparisons are the worst way to comparatively judge values in hands here.

Rob

Great videos overall. I'm the typical NLHE to PLO crossover player and these videos have offered great insight and a solid foundation for playing PLO.

As a newcomer to PLO I assumed it was a glorified version of NLHE but fortunately the material here taught me that they are two very distinctive games. I like the presentation as there is more effort than the typical "speak as they play series". Furthermore fslexcdck seems to be passionate about her subject and it translates in the way the information is conveyed. I recomend this series to anyone.

Just watched the first episode, and its already made me realise why im shipping BI's out to people!

Great stuff

I don´t agree the red pro totally misplayed his hand. I made a simulation and saw that he got almost 41% equity against a set (and maybe better with other hands you can't fold in that spot?). The pot was something like 36$ with effective stack of 380$ and he can probably make you fold the CB with a raise pretty often so it is somewhat close. If my fast calculation is right he need you to fold 1/3 of the times to break even. You may are right but he can´t fold that hand on the flop so I guess you suggest he should have called you in that spot?