---

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

Bing! Been waiting for this

I love my Saturday mornings - rakeback deposited + solid state vids! What'll I do when the series ends???

It does mean a lot to me in particular to get so much positive feedback on the series guys. Sorry for the delay and I hope Dan and I do not disappoint as the series continues. Thanks for the support on my debut series.

Yea, def has been a really great series and something that has really hit the spot for my plo thought processes.

I kinda wait to see all the talk put into practice (play). I feel its a bit too much talk by coaches who seem to love to talk about small things for hours (wich i guess is ok, but still). When DJ Sensei then dont even wanna show how whole hands are played its annoying.

In replayer; would be great to have the players stats (hem)

Again, its time to play, hopefully live sessions, and refer to concepts that have been discussed in depth.

I kinda wait to see all the talk put into practice (play). I feel its a bit too much talk by coaches who seem to love to talk about small things for hours (wich i guess is ok, but still). When DJ Sensei then dont even wanna show how whole hands are played its annoying.

In replayer; would be great to have the players stats (hem)

Again, its time to play, hopefully live sessions, and refer to concepts that have been discussed in depth.

Completely agree with this. You can only be so theoretical, i hope there will be live sessions, preferably from both people playing.

As of now there are no live sessions planned. The last 2 DC PLO series were purely live sessions so we wanted to give it a bit of a change of pace.

fwiw - I'm finding the theoretical discussion in ppt slides extremely helpful. I've watched quite a few of the live vids, and love them, but putting the actions I've seen in other vids/my own play in this context has been extremely useful. Even the 2x6 and hellomaha vid content is making more sense with this context, so thanks for that, I'm perfectly happy to have the theoretical discussion in this series.

Of course, I'm a noob and pretty slow , so...

FWIW, I actually prefer this structure, of focusing only on the street in question and breaking down the decisions for just that street. I want to see how the hand plays out as much as anyone, but ultimately I think that is a distraction that should be resisted. Kind of like results-oriented thinking ... if the next street confuses or ends up being an exceptional case in the context of the decision making of the previous street, I'd just as soon not see it.

Plus, the attempts at humor (sometimes hilarious, sometimes groan-worthy self parody) and smalltalk keep me from nodding off. Without it, this would be as dry as a Q72 rainbow flop. Besides, burritos are the ultimate food; at most, criticize DJ Sensai for belaboring the obvious.

Now we probably made them both self-conscious ...

FWIW, I actually prefer this structure, of focusing only on the street in question and breaking down the decisions for just that street. I want to see how the hand plays out as much as anyone, but ultimately I think that is a distraction that should be resisted. Kind of like results-oriented thinking ... if the next street confuses or ends up being an exceptional case in the context of the decision making of the previous street, I'd just as soon not see it.

I agree with this. You can think the river is X card on any given example and think on your own what would you do on each card in the deck. If we see through the whole hand we would only see a few examples throughout the video. Nice vid, guys!

Yup, I like the one-street-only discussion for the reasons yall listed. For one, it lets us focus much more on the street at hand, and cover more ground per video (though obviously we ramble on). When we never see the next card, we really have to consider it in the quantum sense as being any of the possible cards, thus letting us focus on making good decisions right now. It also prevents us from getting into any results-oriented thought.

Time Link to 01:02:33

Awesome! Three-pair with redraws is a trouble situation for me on the turn. Very happy to see this example. What if positions were reversed and we are OOP with 3-pair and a redraw? Assume Villain just called if we bet and checked back if we checked previous streets.

One other variation, IP vs. aggro that donks flop and barrels turn. How does that change turn decision process?

Awesome! Three-pair with redraws is a trouble situation for me on the turn. Very happy to see this example. What if positions were reversed and we are OOP with 3-pair and a redraw? Assume Villain just called if we bet and checked back if we checked previous streets.

One other variation, IP vs. aggro that donks flop and barrels turn. How does that change turn decision process?

In either situation, I don't really want to put a raise in. We have a hand that is in decent shape against just about everything, but not in great shape against anything (at least, anything that would play a big pot with us).

So I'd probably call IP against the aggro, planning to call down on a fair number of blankish river cards and fold on obviously bad ones.

The oop situation is a little tougher, but I suppose I'd bet-call. I expect he'll mostly just fold the turn if he didn't aggression the flop, but I don't want to give a free card either.

Time Link to 00:30:44

How about WAWB HU situation, like 2nd nut flush vs. shove?

This question is somewhat inspired by this posted hand.

I'll simplify the situation for this discussion: say we have just the 2nd nut flush with no reasonable redraw, K7K7, on this turn:

I'm OOP. Villain is aggro and has high cbet%. Villain is BTN who open raised PF and I called from the BB. Flop I check/raised and Villain called.

BB = $1, $75 behind for both players in the hand at the turn, $25 in the pot on the turn (SPR = 3)

Turn ($25): 9 8 T 6

I bet $25. Villain shoves. WAWB. It's not a matter of an equity calc here, it's more a matter of putting Villain on a weighted range, or even nuts vs air. What does Mr. Bunny do?

What if stacks were $50 behind?

More generally, at what depth of money, deep or shallow, does this become an easy turn decision, either insta-muck or insta-call respectively?

How about WAWB HU situation, like 2nd nut flush vs. shove?

Yea, those situations can certainly be difficult too.

More generally, at what depth of money, deep or shallow, does this become an easy turn decision, either insta-muck or insta-call respectively?

Hard to say. I think with SPR < 2 you can probably get it in with #2 almost always, but thats not to say that your line should always be pot-call. In fact, very often when I have a second/third nut flush or a non-nut straight I'm trying to keep my opponents range as wide as possible by checking or betting small.

As far as "deep enough for insta-muck", I don't think we should be playing in such a way that we insta-muck #2 on the turn. If thats a line that we're considering, there's almost certainly a better line. Now maybe we're against a fish who'll call 2 streets with any flush and raise only with the nuts, and in that case pot-folding is not a bad plan, but rarely is it so easy.

I kinda understood that DJ sensei and Delcrossb liked the format and fwiw, i dont dislike it either. I guess my main point is that next series PLO shouldnt be another theoretical one. I mean, most of the viewers play Ks of hands pr day in a increasingly aggressive/getitin-willing game. It would be interesting to see the concepts desribed beeing put into action at 200plo on Stars.

I'd second slycebu's opinion. Both live play videos and theoretical ones have their merits; the latter take more time to study properly, I think, but they are very useful for forming solid (pun intended fundamentals.

Time Link to 00:37:38

9764r is still a dog vs. top set:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation
600,000 trials (Randomized)
board: 8 5 3
9h 7d 6s 4c 46.05% (273,700 wins, 5,213 ties)
88** 53.95% (321,087 wins, 5,213 ties)