Joey Joe Joe Jr

Around the 31min mark, you X/C twice with AJcc and donk jam the river.

The reasoning is strictly exploitative hand vs range thinking: you expect to win more by donk jamming because population wouldn't barrel AK often enough, but would call your donk jam.

Do you try to think about what your potential bluffs are and how your full range would look like? Or do you keep it simple and just go "leading seems best for my hand, so that's what I'm doing"?

I often limit myself for whatever reason: I wouldn't lead if I couldn't come up with a bluff. So not only I'm I not taking an exploit I fully agree with, I also complicate my thought process while playing way more than you seem to do.

The goal in poker is of course to make as much money as possible (and go for the exploits). It's not to try to be as balanced as possible.

(And if you put this hand in Pio, seems like a river lead is happening and you'd bluff some non-2P AX, like A5 (or KX if you have that). So it's not even "just an exploit". )

Do you have any wise words regarding all of this, Tyler? Thank you!

Keeping it real, good video!

Holiday season videos from Sauce remind me of that one time many many years ago he made a (couple of) Leggopoker video(s), openlimped the SB and I thought he was trolling. Times sure have changed. I'm getting old.

Great video, 100% Elite level

Really enjoyed the video. Maybe 2 tables is better, but this one tabling worked pretty well imo.
I liked the little extra comments on playing QT on 864 A as BTN vs a fishy BB.

A couple of questions on the 99 hand as CO vs BTN in 3B pot on 842ss around the 32 min mark.

You go for a realllly small sizing that's pretty unconventional. Why do you pick this sizing, when most other players go a tiny bit bigger?

Do you just think villain makes more mistakes vs the smaller x/r compared to a slightly bigger one?
I haven't done the nodelocked sims for this spot, but I would guess that IF this sizing is kind of an exploit, you can end up basically playing almost your whole continuing range for it. Is that your plan?

Or is it more along the lines off "sizing doesn't have a big impact on EV here, so I will pick the funky option that throw people off" ?

Thanks!

Hi Ben, I liked this in depth video. Indeed seems like a standard spot, but you definitely made it a Pio video worth watching. Some good food for thought and makes us look for other areas where we could find a small exploitative edge. Differentiated from other "solver" content out there, so kudos and thanks.

Could you give us your thoughts on the following:

• On one hand, we would simplify our strategy in a heartbeat by just playing the small size for negligible EV difference. (0.5% pot?)

• On the other hand, as another commenter calculated, the exploit vs a BB that overcalls vs the big size on the flop, also only gains us just 0.5% pot share.

So while calling too many TX on the flop seems like a leak we can exploit (and that's exciting!), I was kind of disappointed by the lack of EV gain. Makes me feel like "why bother?".

Only when the sim is run in big blinds, right?

I get that 27 pot / 500 stacks tries to mimic the 500z environment, but it's a little bit confusing for me, as the BB/100 comparison between different strategies becomes just a fraction harder to make.

Interesting hands, liked the video. Particularly interested in the value bet or bluff VS turning equity into money by betting or checking discussion during the last hand.

Classic (10 years ago) thinking is always bet as value or as bluff. Solvers show this is clearly BS on earlier streets.

As IP PFR: flop cbet small & merged, turn gets more polarized, and river is definitely value of bluff.

As OOP PFR: turn & river are less polarized compared to the IP scenario. These more "merged" turn bets I see happening mostly BvB SRP, in 3B p OOP, and in your 4B p example with 66.
These are the ones I struggle most finding in game, or even after the facts wrapping my head around.

Could be the topic of a whole video by itself, hint hint ;)

I'm excited about your videos, but this one left me ... unsatisfied. Can't totally pinpoint why, maybe not enough new info for me personally

Just a lil' imo. Looking forward to the next one.

Dear Francesco, from the moment your first couple of videos were released, I immediately thought to myself "this guy knows what's up and is Elite material".
Always looking forward to your new videos, but occasionally, one is a bit more of a "miss", for me personally.

Like this one.

While good work theoretically, in the midstakes games I play, I face basically no flop donk bets ever. Check/call flop, lead turn, has also lost it's popularity.

So this video is just not as practical or actionable as some of your other videos.

Still looking forward to the next video though.

Interesting tangent on the turn bluffs & randomization by equity, but not easy to "solve" I guess.

Bump for question 2 & 3 :)

1) Janda himself has said multiple times in the 2+2 thread discussing his book, that you should probably skip/ not pay too much attention to the preflop chapter in his book. IT's probably a decent sample strategy, but not necessarily the one and only best preflop strat.

2) Snowie preflop advice takes into account the betsizing of the opener and even the stakes (for rake considerations): there are some flats in SB on higher stakes, vs smaller betsizes, but still mostly 3bet or folds.

Snowie often sucks in these river spots and it's ranges are not necessarily GTO. Of all the advice snowie gives, it's doing the worst on the river imo. You can take the concepts discussed ITT to improve your river play compared to snowie's advice.

Thanks for the review Phil :)

Around the 11 min mark on table 4 with my Ad9d J9 nut flush: I didn't really know which sizing to use... I didn't go near pot because I was afraid my range could be too value heavy calling a flop cbet with a player behind and couldn't immediately come up with a ton of hands that had a Ad or Kd blocker to bluff with. Maybe an ok spot to try and bluff without high flush blockers?

18 min mark, Table 4 - You say you should have check raised all in with QQ43ss on A54ssc 8c K. While it's true villain is somewhat capped, don't you think you'd be bluffing too much if you would do it here with no blockers?

12:37, Table 2 - You lead AKQQ on KT3r as BB vs SB & BTN. I realize you wanna use your blockers to win the pot, is a donkbet the best way to do this?

(This might be pretty standard, but I'm kind of new to PLO and coming from NLH, all this donkbetting is confusing sometimes.)

i edited the first post to show results

Pokerjuice:
http://hh.pokerjuice.com/hh/vUAiLDA1gV

On the turn, he has K2+ 62% of the time with your flop call assumptions. If he c/rs K9+ on the flop, he only has 49% K2+ on the turn. Our equity is 26% vs K2+ and 70% versus the other part.

Is there a reasonable way to calculate the EV difference of these lines on Omaha? In NLH you have CREV to run different scenario's with different assumptions, but haven't heard of a similar program for PLO (because the game tree might be too big?)

I edited my post to show results, for some reason I'm showing nicknames now too and can't seem to be able to edit it back to positions...

Nice article to learn how to analyze some spots myself.

Got a small question about the PQL syntax:

You used:

select avg(HvPerceivedRangeEquity(p1,flop,'AA')) from game='omahahi',
p1='9%6h!AA', board='7d5d3c' where
HvPerceivedRangeEquity(p1,flop,'AA') > 0.33

The "HvPerceivedRangeEquity" was confusing me, didn't get what the difference was with HvREquity... And I guess there isn't really one for PLO, since we can rewrite the previous PQL sentences to this:

select avg(HvREquity(p1,flop))
from game='omahahi', p1='9%6h!AA', p2="AA", board='7d5d3c'
where HvREquity(p1,flop) > 0.33

Is this correct? Or is there a bigger reason to use HvPerceivedRangeEquity instead of HvREquity?

Tx for the fast reply

i dont have bet ip vs mis cb 3bet pots in HM2 (any1 know if there is
such a stat and where it is?)

It exists, just scroll down a bit :)

Hey, I have been playing mid-highstakes NL for a couple of years now and just started to dig into omaha. If that's sounds interesting: I'm currently mostly playing around at 200 zoom PLO and can record a session with or without commentary, 2-4 tables, whatever is best for you.

I was scrolling down looking for this question (it's an old video and I knew Ben wouldn't keep answering these comments forever).

I think it's pretty easy for some players to bluff not enough in spots where they can easily find the value hands to jam with, but have to try harder to come up with a balanced amount of bluffs.
(Maybe some players will overadjust by bluffing too much of course.)

It's easy to come up with the correct amount of bluffcombo's in hindsight, and pick a hand to do it with (like some combo's of 65s). But figuring that out in game is not.