Questions are obviously welcome.
Basicly i would say you have to make conscious choices all the time.
Also what helps is to take breaks. Because your mentality changes all the time.
Getting in new places does good things for your mind too.

I consider this problem not as an grindproblem. It seems to me more like an depression that says: You dont wanna do this.
Maybe question to even play then.

Guess taking long breaks in this cases is good.

ok so witch one would you play at?

personal preference. i can only recommend stars since i play here exclusevily, but if you like other software better, play at the other one.

also, lots of players recommend having various accounts open instead of one main account. i never liked that, but, for example, it is very easy to switch funds from stars to tilt

1.
I read everywhere this souce dude(maybe the best omaha player) uses simulations to get an idea about ranges of opponents? What is meant with those simstuff like pokertoolcalculator?? They just soundet like it is something unike and special ..

2.
How would we create an exploitative/gto balanced strategy?
For example: We want to be balanced?
How would we apply this strategy? When would we use it and how offten.
Please example. The same for exploitative strat.

3.
Could someone tell me why Evs are so close but hands have an different pleyability. It seems like you will tend to hit flops often with some hands but with others not.

What is the mathematical backround of it? How could this even be possible?

2/for small stakes balance is not as important as you might think it is.
Having a value bet/bluff range is obviously important to both get paid and be able to steal pots but I mean you don't have to uncap your range by flatting boards you should be raising alot for value and protection as villains won't be aware of that anyway.
The more you go up in stake the more balanced you have to be not to be exploitable.

3/ Once again. Equities may be close but you won't realise your equity often enough with hands with poor playability...

Ex: You hold the mighty Q784offsuit and defend from SB. YAAAY
SPR=10 and the flop come 793 2tone.
You have equity there against a lot of hands but doing anything than folding when facing action is spewy.

Hej thx.
Will get ito that laters after i got more inf.

Some new:
1.
Quant. behind omaha plo/08?
Any good book with game theory and math.

2.
How would/could we win vs a nit hu - vs nits 6max?
Are they longterm profitable?

3.
What makes the difference in a battle between good regs?
Where is the edge or we just seeing variance. Is there proof for latter?

This thread gives me a headache.

i'm tellin u guys, he's trolling he whole community. if not his memory is the worst i've ever seen. no offence tho

hmm, i am really sorry for comm across as a troll.

Right know my gameplan is as following:
Playing every day 4-5 h -- 8 table or 4 zoom or a mixture of both.
Reading twoplustwo and a bit strategy(digest, plo scratch, nutblockers maybe)

Everything else seem to not matter till plo200.

a. To do list to beat mid stakes?

b. What is range merging?

c. What is balancing in omaha?

d. What is the difference between range merging and balancing?
Where are the concepts explained?

e. What are the most important concepts of omaha?

f. Where is the line between basic and advanced in theoretical and conceptional/application?

this has to be the greatest troll attempt ever

Benni doesn't know much about advanced PLO but wants us to help him write a book about the subject . What's wrong with that?

Not really.

I am just interessted in the theory behind all of this.
I am allways reading/hearing balancing, range, merging ranges, gto, exploitative strategy but they arent really explaining everything clearly in those coachingvids.

Know i am asking those questions to understand everything properly.
Also i dont mind if some of you guys find some stuff entertaining. Thats also ok for me and i am fine with it.

But please no spam, no flame. Everything else is welcome.

They are very good questions, but you would indeed have to write a book to answer them. We do take **** for granted semantically. Everyone's book would look different. This is why i don't watch videos, they will infect my own language with their 'authority'.

a. To do list to beat mid stakes?
1. get comfortable with range merging and balancing
2. run good

b. What is range merging?
it's like morphing two HT into an archon in sc2. but while the HT are the same before your morph them, the ranges you merge are different (usually raising and calling merging into a raising range, but sometimes people like to morph them into a folding range if they have a read)

c. What is balancing in omaha?
making sure that you have enough raises to go with your folds. the raises weigh more so you should fold more often than you raise pre-flop, for example

d. What is the difference between range merging and balancing?
Where are the concepts explained?
range merging is just a tool of balancing - you can balance a 4bet range with w/e you want, and if you decide that u don't want to be calling a 3bet OOP, then you're just merging your calling range into your raising range and your folding range (if you deem you have a folding to 3bet range, most good midstakes pros don't fold to 3bets tho)

e. What are the most important concepts of omaha?
3 good ones are position is important, equities run closer than in NL, and the rake is high at microstakes

f. Where is the line between basic and advanced in theoretical and conceptional/application?
basic is level 1, like what's in my hand and what's on the board
advanced is like "oh this player's location is *****, he's probably insane and i'm gonna start triple range merging and own his soul"

Genuine lol

Range merging is a load of ****

i still only have a really vague idea wtf range merging is. usually the same concept can be described in different, much less complicated words, different in various spots.

I have fond memories of Leatherass9's motivational videos (that have alas been removed for an unknown reason; perhaps he wrote smth similar in the book too) where he said an important thing: only 5% of people really want to become champions; the other 95% don't work remotely enough to get to the top but don't mind this either - they don't have to sacrifice as much wellbeing as champions do on their way up.

So the first thing to determine is whether you want to be the champion of PLO (beat midstakes), whether you have enough passion for the game. If you do, then sit and write down a concrete roadmap as you see it now (we've given you enough food for thought). No one will do it for you better as you're the best connoiseur of yourself. You'll be often refining it later, but the road will consist of baby steps, and you won't lose much if you make one of those microsteps in the wrong direction.

Also, visualise what difference beating midstakes will make to your life and really focus on that vision. If that's your real passion, you'll feel filled up with the mental fuel, and the plan will quickly present itself.

If you don't want to make sacrifices to become a champion, that's fine, you'll still have a living that you'll like. Recall biographies of your idols (someone like Thomas Muller) and what lives they had while emerging to the top. They weren't easy, but there was immense passion and dedication that was driving them towards the goal through all the thorns.

In poker, 5% of players shoot up but have to immerse themselves in work completely, another 15% make a decent living that they're still satisfied with, the rest are recreational. Which group to belong into is your decision.

good post, although I'd cut those numbers down to something like .3% truly trying to excel in their field (thinking about poker and sports mainly), and 2% making some sort of living out of poker, and possibly still be on the high side.

Thx for all the input.
This thread is also here to contain good questions and answers.

Obviously we all live in our brains. In a very subjective world. Even the same words have different meanings. This is the psychology of humans. We assume everyone means what we understand but thats not the case in most of the cases and can have a ton of reasons.
Next thing would be rapport, mirror neurons etc. etc.
Kommunikation at itself is fragil. Online communicaton is way more fragil without the whole
range of body language.
If someone wants to get input just google: radical constructivism.

I wouldnt say watching videos is bad. It gives you one more perspective on things which isnt bad. It is an option. Options are never bad unless you have to much of them and get confused by it.

About coaching and strategy in general.
Todays science have high standards and anyways have their flaws so dont me mistaken. Watching videos helps to gain self confidence/experience the same goes for coaching. It is an byproduct whome helps from my point of view. Yeah believing in it helps to because if you believe it helped you you are really motivated. If you pay 500 euros per h you are motivated focused and take it seriously. Also an psychological aspekt is the commitment you make by doing it. We dont realise how much more time we invest after we invested something in something.

This also counts for dating by the way. x) Not only to our hobby called poker.
As mentioned before. Words are just constructs of our comunity like most of the other thing and has good purposes but its flaws. Its just the best thing humans came out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Everyone understands words different. As long he is not to much out of line. It highly depends on personal history.(education, experiences etc. etc.)

Coaching and Strat. focussed on one subject at the time. Reality itself is hugely complex.
Every situation is unique. An coach or strat article should give you an good model to see reality through and should also match with the environment. Given environments change it isnt the right thing to do.
This would be an reason to put practise over coaching/strategy.

The reality is just to complex to have magical concepts to deal with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Poker itself brings millions of different situations to deal with. Allthough we have limited options every Situation has a ton of Options till river and everything depends on the information we have. Also all the grey areas where we estimate the accuracy of an estimation. Humans are fragil but humans assumptions are way more fragil.

As it seems like. Putting money online and making mistakes will help you more than strategy.
If you arent going upwards you are maybe at your level of incompetence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle


Meaning - Different perspective(coaching) can help but the main problem is deeper.
Its just like sport. Not everyone can become a pro with hard training.

Some hard looks at reality.

Also i found the answer about the holy question:
The future of poker?
As long as it is allowed it will be possible to be profitable. Obviously only for the best 1 %.
It is getting harder but will reach a plateau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics

New Questions:
a.
What do they mean when they say:
Omaha is a very technical game.

ps.
Nothing we did not knew unconsciously like everything else.

Omaha is a more technical game than Hold'em because calculation of the EV against a range is more complex. Hence it's possible to outplay the field by superior calculation of equities and implied odds against possibly poorly determined ranges, while Hold'em requires more precision in spotting tendencies and assigning ranges. There are more types of draws in PLO (NLHE doesn't allow for wraps), hence more types of matchups between hand/draw categories to be remembered and accounted for. (That's if we compare fields of equivalent stakes, like PLO50 and NL100; of course, at the HS, calculations become way preciser in both games).

It depends on the definition of 'true excellence'. The Pareto principle is scalable - within any sufficiently big group of people, 20% of the people earn 80% of the money (4% of them earn 64%, 0.8% - 51.2%, and so on).

Therefore:

God combinatorics programms?
Also i guess pokerjuice is the only alternative(price) to visualise hand ranges?
Maybe creating excel sheets would do the same ..

does that apply for poker though, where 100% of the people don't earn 100% of the money, or even 0%, but are a massive loser as a whole? should we first determine what % of the people are earners at all in the first place?

with the .3% I was trying to guesstimate the percentage of online players (let's say of those who play 50+ hrs a year. I don't think counting every depositor is sensible) with an end goal of reaching what they perceive as the threshold of excellence (probably being at least a 5/10 reg for most), by putting in several years of significant work towards reaching that goal. Many of these probably just end up grinding it out at 1/2.

.3% might by no means be a good guess, was just throwing something out there, as the 5% felt a bit high

How would you guys create an realistic range?
Are there good programms therefore.

Firstly, I'm counting the overall profit of players including their real jobs, i.e. recreationals are still in overall profit. Secondly, poker operator owners are in this pyramid as the fraction of a percent that earns the most money.

By the top 5%, I meant the best regs of a single limit, as opposed to the whole pyramid of limits.