I start by watching a video about Flop Strategy by Leszek Badurowicz
https://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/flop-strategy-part-2/

Leszek is in my opinion excellent PLO video maker and I like his way of thinking through the situations. In this video he is going through the process of planning the flops. I am going to think the situations and trying to see the differences in his thinking and in mine.

I write first how I would play before listening his solutions or reasonings. That way I can find possible differences and try to learn from them.

Flop 1

Me: K895 to 652 ss, we don't have flush draws, IP. I would check behind without stats.
Leszek: Checking back here would be a pretty big mistake, we don't have many turn cards.
Thinking it through

I still think that by checking back villain shall think that we have something and despite the fact that many turn cards won't benefit us, they might actually increase our fold equity.
PPT: We have at flop 47% against BB:s calling range (17%6H!$3B8o)

Flop 2

J976 to T54 xxy, we have J-high flush-draw.
Me: Check it back without stats. Against passive player I would bet if I have CR stat available. I don't want to be check-raised, because it is hard to fold and we often end up being against higher FD.
Leszek: Same. Check-back to avoid Bet-Fold

Flop 3
AA K2 to QK4 ss, we have FD A-blocker (btn vs bb)
Me: Bet, We block villains CR-range and there are too many cards which will reduce our equity vs villains equity. I wan't to make him pay for draw despite the risk of being check-raised.
Leszek: Clear bet (Equity denial). Similar thinking

Flop 4

KTT4 at K75, we have T-high FD
Me: Close between checking and betting. Cannot decide. Would play in mixed strategy.
Leszek: Bet to denial equity. More turn cards will improve villains rather than us. Bet folding would be ok because against CR range we are in very bad shape.
Conclusion: Thinking about balanced check-back range here was over the level of thinking I would usually do if I would have trips with Q-kicker for example.

Flop 5

AQT9 at TT6 rb

Me: Easy bet for value. Can also induce a bluff. Against raise I would call. If I hit 9, I would raise turn, If I hit Q or A I would slowplay and let possible bluffs to continue.
Leszek: Obvious C-bet. Multiple strategies from betting 100% range. If we have check-back range, we should have also trips not to let villain outplay us.

Flop 6

QJT8 oop @ T64 rb with T-high BD flush

Me: Situation I hate. When multitabling, I often automatically bet in protection but end up bloating the pot OOP and giving up. Thinking this more carefully this would be good check-call hand with CR any turn, which gives us a combo-draw. That's how we can strengthen our CR range at turn. C-betting this would be very bad for and would not support to build balanced ranges.
Leszek: Check-Call here is pretty standard. What was interesting that Leszek excluded most rundown's to assume that villain would have 3-betted these. Cannot say if it is true for PLO25 and PLO50 levels though were I play mostly. I would not dare to exclude those.

Flop 7

JJ9Q ss to 25Q ss with BD flush (position)
Me: don't know. Check-back to benefit more from BD flush. But our hand is pretty weak for most turn cards. Bet-fold would most likely be correct play though
Leszek: Very very clear c-bet. We need protection. Cannot check-back because most turn cards are not good.

Flop 8

6542 ds at J66 with FD.
Me: Check back. Against other 6 we cannot bet for value. Against other hands villain has only 2 outs for full house. We don't want to be check-raised. The easiest check-back hand from the video.
Leszek: Check-back. From time to time we can check back
Conclusion: I cannot see any reasons for betting which would outweight benefits from checking. Thinking it more carefully helped to find better strategy.

Flop 9

AT76 ds at 852 with T-high FD. BvB OOP. PSR around 20
Me: Quite unsure. Would c-bet and call raise. BvB have so wide ranges that I think that I could call a raise. That's why I think that I can bet for value and for protection (or more for equity denial). Against raise I think that my T-high flush is sometimes good as villains raise range has also so much other hands than higher FD:s
Leszek: Check-call. We don't want to be bet-folding.
Conclusion: My bet-call strategy might be too spewy and optimistic about my equities against his raising range.

Flop 10

AJ93 ds at 837 ss, no flush-draws OOP.
Me: Check-fold. Too easy to villain to float in BvB. We reduce our losses by check-folding despite our gutshot and pair of threes.
Leszek: Check, but not satisfied. We should be c-betting, but some players might say that this is too draw heavy so we cannot be c-betting. But big blind has so wide range, that he has too much air he must be folding.
Conclusion: If Leszek is right, I have not enough grasp for wide ranges OOP. Without some simulations I would not c-bet that.

Flop 11

KQ84 ds at 743 ss, Q-high FD and K-high BD. IP btn vs both blinds (3-way)
Me: Initial reaction, check. After thinking bet. 56 would bet, because hand is so vulnerable 3-way. Also 3-way CR is less likely, because blinds need to worry for me having 56. So I can combobet for protection (Might get K-FD fold, overcards fold) and to make A-high FD to pay. I cannot separate all outcomes, but by betting I make it lot harder for opponents for realizing their equities. I don't like to bet-fold but I find that the risk for CR is relatively low, because hand is 3-way.
Leszek:
I definitely want to check-back. A lot of good turn cards.
Conclusion: Leszek says that we don't need to worry about protection because we only have pair of fours. But here is the thing I don't like. We don't need to protect our pair of fours, but we need to protect our equity in general

I did quick PPT analyze and it shows that we have around 47% equity. It is that that we protect, not a specific hand in a board, where that holding is not going to remain unchanged. I can see other reasons for checking back (mainly for getting villains to get weaker flushes) but however I consider betting here as a better solution)

Flop 12

AQ6T at KJ7 with FS. Small sidepot, OOP against bigger stack
Me: Check-fold. I don't like to bet against small sidepots. Mistake was in PF. We cut our losses by check-folding or drawing for free.
Leszek: Check-call

Flop 13

KQJ2 rb at Q57 ss OOP cutoff vs Btn.
Me: Bet-fold. I don't like that spot and I don't like to bloat the spots OOP but I don't either like check-calling strategies on dry board. This might be a close or even a spot where I have systematic error by betting flop, and giving up on most turns. I am actually now very curious about hearing recommendations for this hand!
Leszek: This is an important hand. I decided to check-call this and I don't like this decision. This is very clear c-bet for several reasons. We need protection and we can bet-fold. We don't have enough good turn cards to check-call.
Conclusion:
OOP check-calling needs to have lot of cards, which are good for us in the next street. Otherwise we have really hard times to defend our equity. Even if we have PPT-equity, it is hard to realize if there aren't enough turn cards which give us good visibility where we stand. I am actually happy for my own thinking.

Flop 14 (last flop)

AQJJ bvb @ 668 ss, We have A-high FD

Me: Easy check-call at flop, at turn I would check-raise as bluff, because it is hard to justify the calling. We have JJ outs for nuts and board is very dynamic. In order to call turn CR and river lead villain should get nuts by turn / river (or have 66/88 which is rare in bvb). My line is aggressive. But in flop check-call seems to be better regardless of later bluffing plans
Leszek: I really like check-calling. Protection is a little bit important but not most important. By c-betting we can make make villain fold hands that we want him to continue (like naked flush draws)
Conclusion: Easy hand, but the fact that pick close to 0-equity bluffs was a new thing.

Overall conclusions:

I don't like the concept or betting for protection. I think that it simplifies things too much and is a concept from NL more. Showdown value in Omaha is more dynamic and instead of thinking the showdown value at a given street I should think more about equities. I prefer to start to think about betting for realizing or denying equities.

For example where I don't have classical showdown value it means that my opponent has it. But my hand might be excellent candidate for denying my villains ability to realize the equity he has. The line between protection bets and semibluffs is somehow fuzzy and there might be multipurpose bets which do everything at same time.

I also thought the first spot where I might overvalue my middle pair. That might be from NL background that I don't like to bet-fold these so much. But given the equity breakdown I still want to practice that more.

Ideas about the studying method:

I liked the fact that I paused the video in order to think first how I would react before listening the reasoning. I think that this should be a big part for studying process. It is however much more demanding mentally.

I don't know whether it is good to write evertything down like I did. Maybe not. But in the beginning I think that it is better to do more documentation and then think where I can reduce it than vice versa.

Overall review for my thinking process

My flop planning seems to be somehow solid, but with many situations I was thinking that it is a complex one and I dind't have a clear preference. By listening the videos I noticed that there were more subtle details I have no time to think about that would help to make these decisions more accurate. Mainly the part I was missing, was how to plan the balanced strategy at flop in order to avoid exploitation by our villains. However this topic was just very shortly discussed in this video.

Today I am watching a little bit of PLO $25 video from Nick Johnsson

https://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/2-table-1025-6-max-plo-2/

Video is about max-eploits and I am quite curious about the things which are coming. I plan to use 20 minutes for watching and commenting. Let's see how far I can go. It looks that players are anonymous here, so it makes it more interesting. How to exploit anonymous players!

Managed to think only about one hand

First I was really surprised about raising A876, @T67 my thoughts were that this opens excellent raise if somebody decides to limp-reraise Aces. Looks that it doesn't happen very often.

We hit bottom two ,multiway, very interesting and difficult hand to start. I cannot decide whether I bet or check behind if it is checked to me 5-way. Against 89 we have around 5-6 outs maybe, against T6 or T7 we are in bad shape. But if we are ahead, we really need protection, because at turn our hand will be a lot weaker. I would choose bet 0.6 pot and fold if raised by bigger stacks and call if raised by short-stacks.

Nick: Betting really doesn't do anything in this spot

Conclusion: I disagree. If we can thin our field to 1-2 opponents, the turn cards which let us to be still ahead will increase a lot 5-way. Also what is safe in 5-ways is to assume that people don't that much raise us as bluff. If we manage to get out against set or top two now against big stack, we can potentially even save some money. Very difficult hand. I decided to ask about the hand in the videos comment section and this was pretty much the only hand I had time to think this time.

I will contunue another 15 minutes of the same video.

The last part was actually very useful learnigwise, despite the fact that I was only able to go through one hand. Nick responded to my comments and even gave them some merits.

Whenever you find spots in the video it seems to be good idea to comment them under video's commenting section. This will strengthen the learning process a lot.

Lets list few more spots where my play would have been different.

KsQcTc7d 3-bet from button vs cutoff raise after UTG has limped.

I think that the equity disadvantage combined with mediocre playability is not compensated by our position. I haven't really yet listened the comments, so I am curious about the reasoning.

Nick:

Generally this should not be a 3-bet hand and if I am 3-betting this I am generally 3-betting too wide. But this is max exploit. I think that I can get away with this.

I think that it is pretty close whether or not that can be compensated by position and skill edge. Especially because rake will eat 10% from villains calling as a rake. I would only do it if opponent plays fit/fold and does not check-raise.

Hand 2 - Suprising preflop fold

There was a hand at 13 minutes where short-stacked UTG limps and nick folds a hand J887. I wouldn't have folded it, so I decided to take a closer look.

I assume that limpers limp wide here without the top range. But of course limping range could be also many other hands. I think that this is still better spot to get money in than last 3-bet spot, but fold is not a bad play especially given the rake. If we limp, we are getting multiway. If we bet, we are against short-stack, which would stick with any pairs. So we don't benefit that much when we hit really strong and because we have a pair, we don't hit that often than we do with 4 different cards hand.¨

I think that this is close but probably a good fold even though I wouldn't have folded this.

Conclusion:

Maybe I should tighten my range against limpers too.

Hand 3 - Shocked

T864, 3-bet vs short-stack (40 bb) loose opener

Against 50% range we get only 43%. Given the possibility that blinds have excellent hand, this becomes just way too loose to my liking.

Equity edge is too big, fold equity is not high and short stack will not most likely fold if he will catch a piece of the flop. I just cannot see how this lines is +EV especially after the massive rake. Let's hear now the reasoning.

Nick: I think that this was a mistake. The reason was that I saw how wide he opens it. I did hand vs range analyze and decided to ask again within the video comment section. Let's see.

Conclusion from the method:

I really like the way to watch the videos and do the analyze for the situations. I have enough time to think with such an accuracy that I don't have while playing. While multitabling, I have maybe 5-10 seconds for these decisions and now I can spend several minutes with the details.

I hope that the pros won't get angry for me asking too much or questioning their decisions. For me this is just a method to learn via finding differences in the logic and reasonings.

I have detected 2 leaks

1. Tendency to not respect enough raises.
   Especially when I have made hands and there are draws on board. The intuitive urge to call / reraise is much stronger than the A-game skill.
2. I overvalue sets already when hoping to hit them, especially for small pairs
   In reaality when money goes in and I have set, my equity is far from what it is in NL holdem

I think that I need to go through of multiple these situations. The urge to setmine or to call in order to hit will most likely remain. But when I have numbers to back up these decisions, I will most likely have easier folds in these quite clear situations.

I think that I will start systematically study equities in situation where I face a raise / CR.