Hey Porshy,

There really shouldn't be any such thing as a range casualty in a GTO because every hand is trying to maximize it's own EV. This was a peculiar hand though which is why I picked it :)

The idea (or rather, how my non silicon based brain perceives it) is that with such narrow ranges, running into the nut flush draw is a real concern. This particular hand lacks a pair and when we do end up getting called, many of our one pair outs, running two pair outs, and even gutter outs will be tainted. This means that there is potentially a huge drop off in our equity when we shove and get called. In situations where we hold 50%+ equity before betting, but might have less than 30% when we get called, the EV of seeing a free card just has to be higher.

Things aren't all that bad on the turn though, we'll be much better positioned to call off on diamonds when we face a range that has some bluffs in it. We'll also make TP or our straight some times. Even a Qx might be enough to continue.

Hey thanks for answering.
That is interesting to me that there are "no range casaulties".. Its funny same thing Phil said in diferent words recently.
It makes sense.. Its just, what about bet sizings.. We throw ranges into single(or more) bet sizes.. So with nuts we would like to bet full pot, but range considerations, we bet smaller (depends on our value range). So I can see here that when deciding bet sizes, there are some "casaulties" which balances out with "benefits" of other hands and all is intertwined for the sake of balance. We are maximizing the value of the range, not particular hand per se. This thinking might be wrong, depends on the perspective. But if we compromise at bet sizes, aren't we doing the same when selecting actions with our range?
Im just thinking out loud, I'm not trying to force or prove something to be true...

Well after some thinking I can party answer myself :D Not sure the answer is sufficient. We compromise at bet sizings because its hard to be balanced having 3/4/5 different bet sizings (and we might lose more failing at execution). But is this answer sufficient to te original question?

Well there is a big assumption in the post you made so I'd like to encourage you to tease that apart yourself and see if there is anything that you're stating as a fact which may not be one.

Awesome, glad it was helpful. I think that question emphasizes a significant element of playing short in PLO: Having hands that hit the flop at a high frequency are important since stack offs happen far more often. The nut making qualities and the implied odds of a hand like AJ42 just don't cut it when we're only 40bb deep.

Yeah you definitely need to be cautious reading too much into solver outputs when ranges are narrow. I remember studying a 3B pot in NLH on JT9r and trying to decide how much KQ to put in the caller's range. Even small adjustments resulted in wide strategic changes.

I'm not sure whether BTN would fold more QQ85r vs a player that overdefends, but I think your point about AJ42 is spot on.

Hi Mako,

So that spot was actually SPR=1.8 which makes stacking off with bare overpairs a little more problematic. The increased depth will make it harder for OOP to stack off (either by shoving or going x/c, x/c) with hands like bare QQ which is really what we're hoping for when we bet AA. There is also a slightly ahead, way behind component to this hand where we never do that well against hands like 987 and are totally smashed against the 72+ portion of OOP's range. By checking back, we just acknowledge that our hand really isn't that strong on this board and look to "hit our anti-draw" on blanks like 7x/4x/2x and fold on bad turns.