I guess I'll take a crack at this...

These questions are kind of general...

#1
Whoever can defend profitably will do so.
The blinds have a better price preflop so they have to make less money postflop to break even.

#2
Since money doesn't go in pre that often your actual hot/cold equity preflop doesn't mean that much. So you aren't really value betting or bluffing so much as setting yourself up to make money postflop.

#3
Are you asking for a complete preflop strategy from every position?

#4
The required frequency is wider for defending against 3bets and from the blinds is wider than NLHE for the reasons you listed.

Seems like I wasn't that helpful.

Roughly you can define valuebet as a bet that you want your opponent(s) to call, and bluff as a bet you want your opponent(s) to fold. Preflop usually the only spot where we really bluff is when we open from BTN (and maybe from CO) in any-four-cards situation (tight blinds etc.) and we actually have really garbage hand.

Great thought provoking q's!

First off I am quite New to PLOand these are just my thoughts on the theory, hopefully we can start a conversation here.

#2 I actually disagree with kyyberi... We bluff lots preflop.
Humor me as the following are Holdem examples,but they apply to PLO.
The gap concept states we need a stronger hand to call an open than to open. Therefore, we should be opening as a bluff a % of the time as we will get stronger hands to fold; a concept often shown in BTNv blinds. When we open QT we are merging our bluffs and values. Sometimes we will get K2 to fold as well as JT to call - are we Bluffing or value betting?
Another example of pre flop bluffing is opening a hand like KQo and getting 3b. This hand is a great candidate to 4b as a bluff b/c it blocks a lot of Vs value hands and also might get TT/AX to fold.

Often in PLO I get in a spot where I have a hand like AQT4chhs. I would prefer to 3b someone vs call and play a multiway pot w a face up hand. This is often a bluff, even though eq are pretty close in PLO. The same could be applied to 3b w a med rundown as we are never value betting, but rather winning now or setting up a big pot post.

#3 I have a short answer: the blinds should defend more liberally here as they are getting a great price. As far as with what freq we should be 3b/flat/fold, I think it is very dependent on the other players tendencies. From a GTO stance, I think we should be 3b a polarized range of premiums and hands with great blockers. A depolarized range will do well as a call here as we will derive lots of value vs hands that we can outflop and also we often will be closing the action OFF so we can realize our equity.

Well if you think 3betting ip AQT4ss is a bluff, then there are bluffs in PLO. :)
It's just strange that normally bluff is a bet that you don't want your opponent to call and at the same time you know that folding equity preflop is minimal in PLO.

In Holdem it's a lot easier as you can put the starting hands into a strict order. So to construct a polarized range you pick the strong and weak ones, to make it easier to play if opponent doesn't fold and to widen your range.

Now let's assume that you have an opponent who never folds to a 3bet. Would you still 3bet with polarized range in Holdem?

And in PLO it gets even more trickier as there are hands that are strong in HU pots but not in multiwaypots. So we use 3bet to isolate opponents with hands that work better in HU pots to prevent the pot getting multiway.

#1 : Preflop 6handed (NLHE & PLO) :

UTG Opens. Who has to defend here?
-So far what i understood over my theory experience, only SB and BB has to defend here, the reason is because only they put the blind
money in pot.

Wrong. The average cost of the blind 1,5bb/6hands is split among all 6 players every dealt hand because everybody will sit in the blinds the same amount of the time (if you play more than a couple of hands). Due to the favourable odds, the blind is incentivised to defend more often than it would be the case if his forced-in money would be ante and he would not get a price-reduction to see the flop.

• If SB and BB have to collectivelly defend "X" here, then SB has to defend 33.33% of "X" and BB has to defend 66.66% of X here, the reason
  is because SB share of blind money put into pot is 0.5bb from 1.5bb
  (33%) and BB is 1bb from 1.5bb.
  -Note:This wasnt that hard to figure out, just a little bit of logic . Still i wrote it here to confirm from other players.

Wrong. The defense frequency is, as it is in any game of poker, determined by pot odds. You risk money (openraise) to win money (blinds). If there was a single first-in raise of pot 3,5bb you have to defend 100%-3/(3,5+1,5+3,5)=64,706...% from the SB and 100%-2/(3,5+1,5+2,5)=71,429...% from the BB. The reason we are far away from defending with that frequency is that the structure of the game (information disadvantage out of position) will lead to payoff-asymetries on the much more expensive postflop streets. In the SB we also have to consider, that BB is closing the preflop betting street and he is capable of repopping by 3-betting or putting us out of position against 2 players by just coming along with very cheap odds. As already mentioned, the numbers stated above would be the correct frequencies if the defense call closes the action with no more postflop actions possible. In practice the required frequencies are distributed new and ranges are shifted towards defending spots, where we will be in positional advantage postflop like 3-betting BU-vs-CO or flat-calling BU-vs-MP.

#2 : Preflop 6handed - Value , Bluff.
-What is really determined as value and what is determined as bluff in preflop?

Wrong. It is not possible to classify hands preflop solely by value or bluff. Especially not at PLO where Equities preflop run close together. Strictly seen the only street where this classification is possible is on the river with the Equity being distributed 100-0 or 0-100.

#3 : Preflop 6handed - Late Position interference.
- If #1 is correct , there is still a problem. What if UTG opens and a position which didnt put blind money in the pot , comes along and
calls?(Not 3bet) What happens then? From opposite view , What are
positions with no money in pot supposed to do between correlation of
raiser and defender? Ultimately, how do you construct ranges for these
positions? 3bet? Cold Call? Based on what?

If this happens, he is basically defending his overall "share on the blinds" from a more favourable position. If he calls, he is making a passive defense, if he 3bets it is a resteal (try to steal vs steal). There are many parameters to decide which hands to put in which range: starting-hand-components, number of players left-to-act and their tendencies, stack-sizes, SPR on the flop, preflop and flop positions... and the most important: flop equity distributions.

#4 : Preflop 6handed - Overdefense? PLO

Equities in PLO run much closer than in NLHE. In a game of optimal
approach, is BB even supposed to defend the required frequency or
should he defend much wider because the pot odds he is given? Equally
this applies even to any position being 3bet.

No. When the sizing is the same, in PLO you theoretically defend the same amount of hands like NLHE. You could even argue for defendin LESS in PLO than in NLHE because in PLO the positional disadvantage is more critical, but the more frequent multiway situations advocate defending more (nut-component) hands with cheaper odds. In both games it is necessary for beginning players to start tighter than what is optimal to avoid losing more money on the much more expensive later streets. If you defend preflop with a set of hands and no plan how to continue with your range in different flop situations this will not reduce your blind losses which is your actual goal when defending. This conclusion exists not only in poker but also in real life: When you start investing money in areas where you have no clue of, like investing in stock values without knowing the company which they belong to, then this is basically gambling.

#1 :

MP, CO and BU must "defend" (read call) if calling has a positive expectation (and a higher EV than reraising any amount). The BB is getting a good price to defend, but also has a positional disadvantage. Because UTG can get called or reraised by MP, CO and/or BU they must be pretty strict about hand selection, which in turn means that the BB (and of course more so the SB who is in a worse position to defend than the BB because they are not closing the action AND have less invested so are getting a worse price) has to select hands which fare better against a strong range. So a hand like 9743 is imo probably better off than something like KT82 since it is less likely to be dominated and therefore has lowered implied odds.

Omaha Hi Simulation ?
600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Equity Wins Ties
KT82 35.13% 207,151 7,299
10% 64.87% 385,550 7,299
Edit · Link · 2+2 · Deuces Cracked · LeggoPoker
Omaha Hi Simulation ?
600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Equity Wins Ties
9743 37.95% 226,607 2,161
10% 62.05% 371,232 2,161