I've seen many pros, such as Phil Galfond and Vanessa Selbst, advocate having a very low 3b range OOP. Their reasoning is that position is really important and they don't want to bloat a pot OOP unless they have a huge monster.

Examples hands: Effective stacks are at least 100bb; BTN or CO opens; they flat SB or BB with AA83ds, AAJ4ss, KKJTss, and 8TJQss.

To me, this reasoning is counter-intuitive. Being out of position sucks -- but a good way to combat this is to reduce the SPR. This means you're more likely to GII on the flop or turn, meaning you are OOP for fewer streets. Moreover, you also get to jam your PF equity. Seems like win-win to me.

Many players on the buttons are opening 40+% -- seems strange to 3b only ~5% from SB or BB.

I don't know much about PLO. However I think the preflop equities run much closer than in the two card holdem variants. This seems to point to a lower 3 bet frequency.

I would highly agree that we should be 3betting a lot less frequently OOP in PLO compared to NLH. The power of position is more important in PLO because the board changes much more drastically than it does in NLH and therefore the player getting to act second has a significant advantage. On that note, I see players folding OOP way too often in PLO due to the positional disadvantage which i think is a mistake.

My main reasoning is that reducing the SPR is good for the OOP player.

I agree that hand values run closer. But we can still push hands that are stronger to gain a small advantage, while also gaining the big advantage of reducing SPR.

I agree that hand value change dramatically from street to street. Again, this is a good reason to reduce SPR, so that we potentially play fewer streets OOP.

I'm not sure what their reasons are but I would give someone the same advice myself. 3 betting in PLO tends to define your range a lot, sometimes narrows the field (I play live and that's always true), but you miss more flops than you hit.

Most people's 3 betting ranges are heavily weighted towards AAxx hands. Let's take AA83ds as an example. You're only going to hit the flop hard about 15% of the time (a set or a flush), somewhat hit the flop 20% of the time (flush draw plus over pair), and miss about 65% of the time. A good player in position is going to feel fairly comfortable bluffing you if there's no ace on the board and you're going to have a hard time knowing what he has since he has position and can play a wider range. If you just call the 2 bet your hand is more disguised and you're likely to have more players to the flop when you do smash the board. Also you don't want to get a lot of money in when it's questionable if you have an edge. You probably have the strongest hand but position is important enough in PLO to wipe out a lot of card advantage.

You could try to counteract this by adding more non AAxx cards to your range and removing some of the weaker AAxx cards from your range but then you have another problem. What if someone 4 or 5 bet shoves with AAxx? Very few of the hands you'd be adding have good hot cold equity against AAxx. Since you get dealt AAxx about 2.5% of the time in omaha this is not a super rare scenario.

By the way one exception to what I'm saying is if you can get all in or close to all in with any AAxx then it usually makes sense to reraise since having a disguised hand doesn't matter in that scenario.

If I play solid, I 3-bet as much as in NLH. If I play more aggro, I 3-bet more vs a weak range, because the hands are so close and getting the folds and initiative is good, and at least I will have a larger 3-bet range. I don't have to call a 4-bet. The positions are not important to me; they are just seats I am positioned on/in, so I don't have to sit on the floor.