I disagree so strongly. Villains' ranges aren't strong enough to pot, which means our betting range both misses value (fewer calls from worse) and has inefficient bluffs (we're risking way more than we need to).

Flop bet is bigger than I would bet due to a few factors: our broadway-heavy range, rainbow texture (no FD semibluffs for you, no FD calls for villains), multiway flop (in short: you have less equity), and our blockers to JT and 88. We just shouldn't get a ton of action, so we should size down. I probably bet $2.

that makes a lot of sense to me and i will definitly implement this next time.

I generally only pot blank turns (which this isn't quite; spade draw is new), and usually only heads-up.

i think this reasoning contradicts what you said in the first paragraph (bc you said you size down, when theres no FD semibluffs and no FD calls). So i fail to understand your reasoning for only potting blank turns. could you try to make me understand your thought process?

Muehlenzwick Flop decisions and turn decisions are very different to me in PLO.

It's hard to price someone out of a flop call if they have decent equity, but we want to keep our bluffs cheap to deny equity efficiently and we want to value bet thinner to make +EV bets as frequently as possible (which, in concert, also helps us deny equity often, which is a huge win in PLO given the robustness of folks' equity OTF compared to NLHE, even when they think they have air... I also think that most low stakes PLO players are actually super exploitably conservative postflop after being absurdly loose-passive preflop).

That's my flop betting philosophy in a nutshell.

OTT, conversely we can absolutely price out draws. If we pot a blank turn, the blankness of the turn means that nobody can have extremely robust draw equity (especially if villain's range is capped, which is typical in this situation).

Therefore, we can easily deny equity versus draws that have ~1-32% equity with our PSB, or we punish (and profit from) villains making -EV calls at this point, when they have hands like that.

And just to reiterate: a blank turn depends in part on the texture of the flop. And the likelihood of me betting depends in part on my perception of villain's range and where I feel I'm at in my own range (plus what I do/do not block). To put it another way: some blanks are more blank than others. (But I'm still only checking, half-potting, or potting OTT. It just simplifies my mental game tree in a really helpful way.)

But to give a much shorter answer: I'll pot OTT when the board hasn't changed because there's only one more card to come and I can maximize both equity denial and value.

Also: keep in mind that when we keep villain's flop continue range weaker with a smaller bet size (which is also part of my postflop strategy), they have more turn folds OTT when we want them to fold (and we win their flop call!)... which is honestly most of the time: a big insight I gathered from Janda's NLHE4AP book is that denying equity is rarely a bad outcome.

Think about it: if we have 80% equity OTT and villain has 20% equity, I'd much rather get $1 for every dollar in the pot versus 80c for every dollar in the pot. And if we pot the turn versus a 20% hand, villain just has almost no choice but to fold (even if the cards are face-up!) and we pick up a pretty big win.

Deny that equity!

And just to put this in context: on a less blank turn (say, two flush draws and a straight draw are on board), villain's equity will tend to be more robust. So we really don't want to risk as much (as we win less often), and we don't want to inflate the pot too much when we're much more likely to get to the river and the river card is going to determine the winner far more often due to the draws on board.

I hope all of that makes some sense? It's probably something I should challenge myself to write up in a more systematic/thorough way, though I can tell you that this general approach is paying enormous dividends in a limited but reasonable sample.

It's hard to price someone out of a flop call if they have decent
equity, but we want to keep our bluffs cheap to deny equity
efficiently and we want to value bet thinner to make +EV bets as
frequently as possible (which, in concert, also helps us deny equity
often, which is a huge win in PLO given the robustness of folks'
equity OTF compared to NLHE, even when they think they have air... I
also think that most low stakes PLO players are actually super
exploitably conservative postflop after being absurdly loose-passive
preflop).

I found this being a big leak in my game. Last week I checked out my databse and found that I'm only cbetting ip flops at 30%. terrible, I often tend to check back to "realize" equity but this also realizes opponents equity at the same time otf. The rest turn to river ip&oop is fine but must also be altered when I want to increase my flop cbetting% ip. in position better primarily focus on denying equity, cause information advantage and texture shifts are on your side.

And just to put this in context: on a less blank turn (say, two flush
draws and a straight draw are on board), villain's equity will tend to
be more robust. So we really don't want to risk as much (as we win
less often), and we don't want to inflate the pot too much when we're
much more likely to get to the river and the river card is going to
determine the winner far more often due to the draws on board.

especially oop? It display lots of thoughts I had in recent time. I already read, understood and applied the concepts introduced by Janda (in holdem amongst a lot more stuff) and had lots of similar ideas. Great. I love it.