Poker Stars $0.10/$0.25 Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 6 players - View hand 3058923
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

CO: $12.03
BTN: $60.93
SB: $13.88
Hero: $38.50
UTG: $28.53
MP: $63.77

Dealt to Hero: A9A76 - I am BB.

Pre Flop: ($0.35)
UTG raises to $0.85, MP calls $0.85, 2 folds, SB calls $0.75, Hero calls $0.60

Flop: ($3.40) 6 9 7 (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, MP checks

Turn: ($3.40) 3 (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets $1.63, MP folds, SB folds, BB calls $1.63

River: ($6.66) 4 (2 players)
Hero bets $6.38, UTG folds

Should I be betting the flop, calling the turn, and how do I size properly on the river (did I do that part right)? If not betting flop, check call or check raise, which is better?

When I called turn I kinda put him on 45xxx, so I figured if I get a 4 or 5 i might make the best low and i have a fair few outs for high as well, plus it was cheap to call. As it happened I got both, which was nice. So I was checkfolding if I didn't make my hand.

I'm trying to play a low variance style right now, hence the flat call pre, though I don't know if it's right to get a lot of chips in pre with aaxxx and bad side cards. Do I really want to open up my stack with this hand by 3 betting pre?

BTW there's no hand converter for this game so I used handconverter.com and changed the HH header to Omaha Hi/Lo Pot Limit and that worked, but it doesn't add in the Hero and hole cards so you have to do that manually, just in case anyone was interested.

I would play every street the same way you did.

TL;DR - do what you did except pot flop (check/call turn) and full pot river

This is a Polker hand - more than one play is OK here. All that matters are your reasons for making the plays

Pre the call is fine because we aren't playing AA in 5-card. It looks like 1 or both the other aces are held by raisers and callers

The flop I would pot. It is 4-handed so picture in your head the equities being displayed if all 4 went all-in here. Next think about what you don't want players to hold (58, 8T, sets with LDs) and what you do want players to hold (all other draws basically)

If we pot or 3/4 pot flop we will get partial or full information on what the others hold. You maybe don't want to pot out of fear of straights but we have redraws for the nuts which would give the straights 0% redraw equity

Pot flop and 3 of spades on turn is a worry because we don't want to call pot bets or make bets against made hands (LDs) that we can't outdraw. If we pot flop we check/call up to a pot bet on turn (or whatever multi-way pot odds we need to make NF or NFH, 2NFH)

If we miss the river it's an easy fold

If we pot flop and make the nuts on turn or river we should pot again and collect $$$$ from the 1-3 players with NLDs, 2FDs, straights

We get more $$$$ from the times we pot flop and get 50% of the pot on river than we lose from potting flop and being forced to fold on turn or river

The worst thing that can happen on the flop isn't that bad. So if the other 3 have the straights and draws and pot, re-pot, we should be fine 3 or 4-way to get all-in. The minimum equity from our NFD justifies that with no scare pair cards (we have 9D so all diamonds good). It's better for us to get aggressive on the flop rather than the turn and check/call with our pot odds on missed turns (like this hand)

You played it pretty much like it was supposed to be played. I'm not raising oop with one suited ace and middle connectors, but I am calling depending on the table dynamics and if most pots are going multi-way pre.

Flop I'm not leading but I'm pretty passive. You can definitely make an argument for potting flop but remember, we are oop with essentially no lo draw. I'm x/c flop. X/c turn given we have three pair with nfd. And it's obvious utg has at least a2 because he bet multi-way ott when the lo got there, so it all depends on if you can blow him off his hand. He's probably not betting turn with 2nd nfd. Hand seems fine. Up to you to decide if to lead river.

I'd never lead a flop with this texture, but if I did, I don't think this is a particularly good hand to lead with, simply due to hand strength (not strong enough to bet-getin imo).

Why not when it's clearly + EV to bet-getin?

Just to be clear on the flop if we are up against A 2 5 8 and A 2 8 T we still have 55% high equity in a 3-way spot and we only get scooped around 1 in 7 hands. Screams to me be aggressive make money

The simple math works very well too - if we bet pot on flop and call/check pot on turn ($13) we will statistically make multiples of what we invest if we pot or re-pot on river with the nuts ($30), vs the times we have to fold or miss the nuts. Remember we are 50% + for high pot multi-way vs any hands so we lose 13*0.45 which is less than our winnings of 30*0.55, and we are expected to win!

I understand why it's scary to bet into made hands or multiple strong LDs but it's not so scary when we realise the true value of our hand vs what the opponents hold

As can be concluded from my last post, I don't think it's clearly +EV to bet-getin. Are you asking why I don't have a leading range? Because I think it's unneccessary.

You are forgetting sets for example. 55% high equity in a board with two low cards is not that much either.

There is nothing scary in poker for me.

Mathematically it is clearly + EV

You think leading is an unnecessary part of poker? They should probably just ban that move like they tried to do with check/raise 20 years ago

I didn't forget about sets but with a set do you really want to get in here? Not unless you also have a straight and/or a strong LD/FD

We have top 2 pair which makes top 2 sets less likely so let's say instead of A258 and A28T we give opponents A266 and A58T/A28T. Our high equity drops by about 2% to 53%

Don't forget this is 3-handed not HU!


Other than leading out with the best hand apparently

We are going to bet they are going to chase. We lead to make sure they pay to chase down our equity. If you are not leading I assume you never check/raise here so you just want to check/call and give the table a free shot at outdrawing us. Seems like we are leaving $$$$ at the table

Do the math like I said we make more $$$$ with aggressive line on flop

Go ahead and present even a hint of proof.
Straw man much? I said
Why do you keep misleading people by talking about high equity? Start talking about equity.
Don't forget there are 4 players on the flop.

There is nothing scary with leading. I just don't think it's a necessary part of good strategy at this spot.

You do the math and show it.

Do you care to produce the math to back this up or is it just, "in the beginning amok said it was unnecessary"?


I believe we have 0% low equity if we go to showdown in a multi-way pot here, so considering only our high equity is rational. There is this game called PLO ....

The more players in the pot the more + EV it is for us. I picked 3 players to be conservative

I suppose sweeping statements with zero evidence are good learning tools

I did some basic math - calculate the PnL from potting flop and folding river vs PnL for potting flop and potting river again. I think you will find based on mathematical expectation the aggressive line is the most profitable (as opposed to passive)

I am not attempting to teach you amok. From the amount of posts you have my guess is you think of yourself as the teacher. I am answering the question of someone who said they didn't know what to do. My method is better than yours on this occasion

It doesn't involve math per se, it involves understanding ranges and what happens if you start leading your best made hands. You are the one who said "Mathematically it is clearly + EV", and I again ask you to provide even a hint of evidence. I am willing to accept it if you prove it.

This game is not PLO. If you want to make proper analysis it doesn't make sense to start talking about "high equity" on a LLH-board texture, as it is extremely misleading. Why not just talk about equity?

No you didn't. You said "Don't forget this is 3-handed not HU!" which means you thought there are 3 players on the flop. "Picking 3 players to be conservative" is nonsensical. We all make mistakes, no worries.

You will learn if you think about things. I am pushing you into the right direction, but you need to do the work yourself.

Show it? I have no idea what you think you have done, but from what you describe it doesn't sound very convincing to be honest.

Good, because that would be like son telling daddy where babies come from.
I am not here to teach, I just enjoy rational analysis. Unfortunately you are not even close to doing that with me.

Best made hand? There's a ton of lows who want to get there, preferably for cheap and then freeroll you. You pretty much even say it yourself with the LLH board texture.

The turn card will most likely either put a non-diamond lo out there and make things really difficult for us, or it'll add a high non-diamond unpaired board card which will inhibit most/all of the low draws (where most of our value is coming from) and/or put even more straight / higher 2 pair potential out there...also bad for us.

Even if you're just betting on implied odds and such to come though in the end, it's really not looking very good in that respect tbh.

Ok since neither of you will put in a little effort, lets talk about equity then -

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

85,246 trials (Randomized)

board: 697

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ad9dAc7s6h	42.66%	17,530	54,726	700	0	178
10%	26.24%	4,210	8,600	1,544	21,400	23,734
15%	21.65%	3,731	9,570	1,698	12,858	22,673
25%	9.46%	2,819	9,604	1,659	2,008	2,212

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

215,550 trials (Randomized)

board: 697

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ad9dAc7s6h	41.81%	42,490	136,243	2,070	7	681
10%	30.12%	12,474	20,223	3,950	83,029	39,703
25%	15.57%	8,372	25,052	4,697	19,276	28,331
30%	12.49%	8,035	26,463	4,744	10,998	14,536

That is not the idea. Nothing forces us to put lots of money in on bad turns if it gets checked around.

I do not understand what you mean. I say nothing like that.

Yes, there are bad turns for our hand, that is a very common thing in poker. However that doesn't mean that you should always protect your hand in these spots by leading.
I don't understand what this sentence means.

It's a good start with the equities, heading for the right direction.

-----

Some things that seem unclear to people:

If you want to find out if the hand is good enough to bet-getin, you have to give villains hands that they might be raising with.

If a hand is not good enough to bet-getin, it might still be good enough to c/r, depending on what kind of hands are they (pf raiser in particular) betting on this board texture.

If pf raiser is cbetting a lot, leading goes down in value so much that you should never be doing that especially if you are in a multiway pot and act just before pf raiser (I thought especially this one was clear to nearly everyone).

You can solve any situation in poker mathematically, ever heard of Libratus?
GTO math is pretty difficult. You need to understand poker AND math so it's no surprise to me you don't even want to attempt it. You want me to justify myself when I'm obviously correct while refusing to acknowledge your mistake or proof any of your own thoughts

Umm you have rejected it twice already but just for you, 3rd time's a charm

Thanks for your efforts man, I appreciate it even if amok doesn't. If we played your numbers we would bet get-in on the flop with a big smile

As Amok the All-knowing, or is it Amok the Amazing, has requested some equities against hands our opponents hold:

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

406 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 679

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ad9dac7s6h	39.08%	81	235	4	0	0
As2c8sThKs	35.88%	34	121	4	0	270
ah2h6c6s7c	24.92%	21	45	4	0	270
2s2d3h3c5c	0.12%	0	1	0	0	0

No matter what way you cut it - and I give opponents the worst hands for us to face with made sets, straight and LDs - it is clearly + EV to bet get-in


Sorry thought this was strategy and people knew what high and low equities were. It might be misleading to talk about high only equity if you don't understand how it translates to a poker hand. Talking about high only equity in this hand gives direct odds of hitting our outs. Perhaps you don't think it's important to note we have 53-55% chance of making the best high hand even against the made straight AND set. It's the most relevant part of the hand

Did you read my post or just jump straight to criticise mode? I took 3-handed as a reasonable approximation. If we show pot strength on flop it is likely we will lose 1 of the 3 opponents, therefore we are 3-handed. If you wish me to prove this mathematically before you will believe ........

Well said. Honestly you should know this special spot in this hand by now but you can always learn


I showed it 2 different ways but you didn't want to spend the time to think about what was shown.

When a mommy and daddy love each other very much .........

Enjoy your free lesson. One more for you. You are not a genius and do not know everything. It stinks you took the intellectual snobbery line on me when you were clearly wrong. Worse is I'm sure people listen to you more than me so you taught the most vulnerable in the community a bad approach. We all make errors, maybe next time use different language when confronting somebody and you won't look like such a fool when you are proven wrong

It is difficult, and you are nowhere close to providing something resembling a GTO-strategy, you must understand that. Yes, since you claim "it's mathematically clearly +ev", I don't think I'm out of line asking for some proof.
If there was an attempt to prove something in your previous posts, it was so vague that I admit I didn't get it.

I did reply to lotuspod that he is on the right track (at least he bothered to run some equities), so stop making stuff up.

Is that kind of nonsense really necessary?

I didn't really ask for you to make up random hands and run equities against them. It's hard to discuss with you as you have no idea how to back up your claim. And let me remind you that your claim was "it's mathematically clearly +ev".

What you should be doing is comparing the ev of checking and ev of betting and understanding the implications of having a betting range. Also, like I previously pointed out, I find people over cbet such boards so I admit that checking your whole range might not be the "GTO-play", but an exploit (maybe in the future, a PLO8-solver says you need to lead 0,8% of your hands in this spot)... Since in practice we are extremely far from a GTO-approach in PLO8, I don't think you should be leaning much towards attempting to "play GTO", since you don't even have any idea what it is.

Let's go back to the start. Where all this started was me saying What do you think happens if you check this hand? Someone with a hand like that is likely to bet, right? And if you read my last post (I'm not sure if you read them at all) you'd realize I have no problems check-raising this hand.

For me it's totally irrelevant. Relevant is our equity against their getin-ranges. If you feel it's necessary to think about high and low equities, go ahead, but understand that it's unnecessary. Equity is equity.

OK, I just don't understand why 3-handed is a reasonable approximation of a poker situation with 4 players. It's was (and still is) confusing to me.

There is nothing special in this spot for me. I'm happy if you find it special.

I admit that I don't understand anything of what you think you have shown.

Why the tone? Again, let me underline that you haven't proven a thing yet and I'm amazed if you feel you have. Note that this doesn't imply that I encourage you to keep trying.

I think it's good that people listen to someone who has been around for 13 years rather than someone who registered 2 months ago, be it a trolling account or not. I understand that this doesn't mean that I'm always right and you are always wrong.

**i'm not getting involved in the discussion about how to best play Hero's hand on the flop.**



using 'high equity' in a split pot game is misleading or at least confusing.

'equity' which is short for average pot equity is not synonymous with winning percentage.

equity is one's expected share of the pot at showdown. it uses winning percentages in its calculation, such that we can see/calculate winning percentages in equity simulations, however, when we 'see' 53% as the winning percentage for high, that is a hand can be expected to have the best high hand at showdown 53% of the time, in a split pot game, its average pot equity can be 53% or it can be 26.5% or some figure in between. That is because knowing how often it can be expected to be the best high hand at showdown doesn't indicate how much of the pot it wins.


i'm curious what PnL is.

this is where i saw it used
with regard to ranges.

given card removal effects of hero's hand and the flop,

the range: (a28T*,a38T*,a48T*,a58T*,238T*,248T*,258T*348T*,35 8T*,458T*)
which is the nut straight on the flop whith a better low draw then hero's is ~5.1% of possible hands

the range: (a58**,258**,358**,458**)
which is the under-straight with a better low draw than hero's is ~10.1% of possible hands

combine the 2 ranges and the frequqncy a player will have that range when playing a PPT percentile range is as follows: ~10.1% of PPT's top 15%, ~10.65% of PPT's top 20%, ~10.55% of PPT's top 30%, ~13.2% of PPT's top 45%, ~15.3% of PPT's top 55%, ~15.4% of PPT's top 85%.

so whatever the opponents ranges are they are much more likely to be holding other hands and not hands that flop a straight with a better low draw.

a 3rd range which has been introduced
the range: (66,77,99): (a2,a3,a4,a5,23,24,25,34,35,45)
which is a flopped set with a better low draw then hero's is ~1.07% of possible hands

the frequency a player will have that range when playing a PPT percentile range is as follows: ~0.6% of PPT's top 15%, ~0.7% of PPT's top 20%, ~0.9% of PPT's top 30%, ~1.1% of PPT's top 45%, ~1.25% of PPT's top 55%, ~1.35% of PPT's top 85%.

again, the range is so small that the whatever the opponents ranges are they are very much more likely to be holding other hands and not hands that flop a set with a better low draw.


adding the flopped set range to the flopped straight range to become 1 range,

when we consider the combined range and that the 3 opponents each played 100% of dealt hands preflop, then on the flop we can expect
none(0) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~63.1% of the time.
one (1) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~32.4% of the time.
two (2) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~4.35% of the time.
three(3) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~0.15% of the time.

or

if we consider the combined range and that UTG played PPT's top 20% preflop, MP played PPT's top 30% preflop and SB played PPT's top 85% then on the flop we can expect
none(0) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~64.9% of the time.
one (1) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~31.3% of the time.
two (2) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~3.7% of the time.
three(3) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~0.1% of the time.

or

if we consider the combined range and that UTG played PPT's top 15% preflop, MP played PPT's top 20% preflop and SB played PPT's top 55% then on the flop we can expect
none(0) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~65% of the time.
one (1) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~31.2% of the time.
two (2) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~3.7% of the time.
three(3) of our opponents to have a hand in this range ~0.1% of the time.



i think we can conclude its pretty unlikely that hero will be facing 2 opponents with flopped better made hands with better low draws than hero, and uncommon but not entirely unlikely to be facing 1.

edit: simulation was used to arrive at the data. specifically PQL

Thank you to ngFTW for his simulation. The sim says it is very unlikely we are up against the full range of hands on this flop (set, LD, high straight). I also agree with what you are saying about equity - amok could learn from you on how to converse and "disagree" with someone without making enemies. If you never think about high equity only then yes giving high equity only in O8 is misleading. That's my bad but I did say at least once that our low equity is 0% so it is only the high equity we are considering. Of course you are right to say high equity of 55% doesn't mean we have 55% average pot equity, we actually have around 40% equity (or greater). As said previous the high equity is the direct odds of us having the best high hand after river (53-55%), assuming we are playing set/straight/NLD combos. I'm sure you guys have been around long enough to know 40% equity in a 4-way hand is huge in O8.

The PnL is Profit and Loss. A very basic PnL calculation might be:


$0.85*4 = $3.40 on flop and we pot flop = $3.40+0.85 = $4.25 investment. Total pot size after flop betting (3 players) = $3.40*4 - rake (ignore for ease) = $13.60. We then miss the turn and use our pot odds to call a pot bet on turn from opponents. Our total investment is now $4.25+13.6 = $17.85 and total pot size is now $13.60*4 = $54.40. We blank river and don't like our hand, so fold, we lost $17.85. This happens 45-47% of the time

OR

We call the pot bet on turn (investment $17.85) and pot again on the river after hitting nuts (if we can check/raise the river or pot opponent check/raise it's obviously much better but we will ignore the golden goose scenarios). Our total investment is now $17.85 + $54.40 = $72.25 and total pot size is $54.40*4 = $217.60. We win that $217.60 53-55% of the time so this play gives us roughly $110 or $37.75 profit if we chop

$110 * 0.55 >> $17.85 * 0.45

OR

If we check flop and check turn and pot river we invest $4.25 to win half of $17 or $8.50, assuming we get 2 flats

The ROI from:
scenario 1 = -100% (total loss = $17.85)
scenario 2 = 52% (total profit $37.75)
scenario 3 = 100% (total profit $4.25)

If you were in math class you might express the expectation of scenario 2 as ($37.75*0.55) - ($17.85*0.45) and scenario 3 as ($4.25*0.55) - (0.85*0.45). My apologies if I got any figures wrong and I hope you follow my assumptions

Given the choice scenario 2 looks good. I don't claim that is complex or even a GTO solution but it's something easily understandable even, I hope, for amok. Yes I know the current stack sizes don't allow for that total pot size but it is possible at these stakes for 3 players to invest $70 in a pot. We should almost always favor the aggressive play especially when we are close to certain to have the best high hand on flop to bet get-in (even vs set and straight).


No it was entirely unnecessary and it wouldn't have happened if you weren't so unbearably condescending towards me. Son teaching father? Asking me for proof without even trying to prove your own line? Trying to bully me with overwhelming intellectual superiority when you are mistaken? Then I give you the proof and come on, if you are any sort of poker player you can fill in the blanks yourself. But still it eludes you and you claim I proved nothing!


Random hands huh? I picked the hands according to what is worst for us. If we are inclined to pot the flop I (the math) prove that even in "bad" spots for us it is still + EV to bet get-in.

You asked for equities and I gave you reasonable models. If that's not good enough why don't you show us your 13 year experience and do it for yourself? Or are you incapable? All other models (except when opponents have 99 but we have a 9 so less likely) make our hand more playable and more + EV to be aggressive on flop

Wow if you could bottle that condescension you could sell it

I didn't claim GTO theory it is you sir who claims GTO knowledge with your assertions on how to play the hand in this spot and as a general rule. You have no intention of proving any of that so please stop saying it

See above for some sort of something that is maybe GTO-ish (it's just a repeat of what I already said but fleshed out)


OK high equity is irrelevant. Proof? You are talking absolute nonsense so you have zero proof. High equity and splitting high and low equities is essential for an advanced O8 player to make optimal decisions in all spots. My proof is this hand and every similar hand in O8

This hand is special. It is a very rare occurrence for us to have AA and top 2 pair and the NFD on flop (LLH) so it is a special circumstance. You should take some time to think about the implications of our exact hand and how the equities (high! and total) change if we swap out the 9. We have 0% low equity so it is the low equity that is irrelevant to us sir, not the high equity. Or is there some hidden GTO theory in 0% that eludes me?


If we pot the flop it is infinitely more likely we lose 1 or more players than if we check the flop and guarantee 4 players on the turn. If you don't understand that, well, confusion must be rampant in your life


There's your confusion again. None of my posts have been trolling I am attempting strategy and what I posted in the micro advice thread is gold dust for anyone who didn't realise how the rake works. If you follow my advice (even as mid or high stakes player) you can add whole percents to your ROI by doing nothing other than change table. How many % have you added to the ROI of readers here?

It's irrelevant how long you have been giving bad advice here. I have been playing poker 20 years and met lots of smug guys like you. I owned them all just like I own you, son

I feel like people advocating donking for pot in this spot are being results-oriented (in that no one ended up betting the flop) since I'd be looking to check/raise pot here like 100% of the time.

Clearly donking pot then getting in if possible is good, but c/r should be earning more money in this spot.

Bet get-in and check/raise get-in are equivalent

Which hands pot and fold to our check/raise? If opponents will pot or bet this flop they would likely re-pot our lead pot which would allow us to get-in with 100% certainty. If we check/raise and get called obviously that is not all-in

The equity sims show I'm not being results-orientated. It is clearly better with our hand to create action on the flop rather than on turn/river.

I'm not saying I would always fold the blank turn if I were to pot check/raise on flop but if we check/raise flop the last thing we want is to be flat called by 1 or 2 opponents. The reason why is the turn is odds-on for us to miss and so 3/4 times if we check/raise flop and get called, we will be free-rolling 1 or more hands for all our chips on the turn (pot committed).

I've wasted so much time proving one basic point that I never mentioned fold equity or the obvious fact the low draw will hit something like 70%, assuming we have 2 or 3 opponents with hands similar to those in my sims.

The low draws don't want to lead the flop which is exactly why we should lead. You might say straights and sets will lead and give us the check/raise chance but will they or should they? I wouldn't lead a set there unless I also had A2/3 and FD or blockers.

I don't always lead a 4-way pot with nut straight on a board with flush, re-draw straight and low draws readily available either. If I had the made hand I would take a turn and if my hand was still good then I would bet - this line would "steal" the equity hero (or FD) had on flop and make the pot odds of hero calling on turn less favorable than if there was flop action

He kinda was tbh just not spelling everything out, check and c/r are pretty far into the exploitative end of the spectrum. Betting it is the more GTO-oriented approach, assuming average opponents at those stakes are fairly decent. The actual bet-sizing is the real question, I guess it would also have to depend on the opponents and how that particular table has been playing.

If you're bum-hunting a pretty soft table, sure it's perfectly fine and possibly a bit more value overall to go for the c/r. Against more skilled opponents all you're doing is taking a likely bad gamble by assuming your opponents will make a mistake enough of the time to outweigh the times you end up getting freerolled on the low or worse. Fancy play syndrome pretty much.

I'd probably have to go with whatever sizing you've been using for bluffs, if multiple sizings probably opting for a higher/highest one because of all of that low potential when we have (almost) 0.

LOL @ 1 diamond out of 15 cards and 13/15 low cards. Why not deal out some diamonds or a couple more high cards?

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

406 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 679

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ad9dac7s6h	30.99%	47	198	6	0	14
as2c8stdks	42.39%	29	160	6	14	301
ah2d6c6s7c	23.67%	12	30	6	0	301
2s3cqhkdkc	2.96%	12	12	0	0	0

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

406 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 679

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ad9dac7s6h	30.30%	38	198	0	0	30
as2c8stdks	37.38%	14	122	4	25	315
ah2d6c6s7c	23.21%	7	29	0	0	315
tsjcqhkdkc	9.11%	17	53	4	0	0

OK fair point. Our high equity (100% of it if we are playing made straights or sets) comes from diamonds, 9s and 7s. If we remove more diamonds or give opponent 99A23 it makes our hand slightly - EV to bet get-in or check/raise get-in on flop

4 hands (including ours) = 20 cards = 5 diamond expectation. I think you have 5 diamonds in your thing

An important note is our scoop/get scooped ratio or our chances of going busto

In my sim we scoop 81 and get scooped 55 or ratio = 1.47
In your first sim we scoop 47 get scooped 53 = 0.89
In 2nd sim we scoop 38 get scooped 38 = 1.00

1.00 is a flip, above 1 good, below bad

As ngFTW pointed out, the odds of being up against the combos I modelled are pretty slim, so the odds of us being against set/straight/NLD and other FD + a blocker is even more remote

Checking 100% of your hands with pf-raiser next to act on a board like this is something I wouldn't describe as being far in the exploitative end.

Now you are just guessing what GTO for this spot is. I'm pretty sure Hero should have a very low bet frequency here due to pre-flop ranges. I do not know if 0% bet frequency is optimal, but I can believe that it is not. Nobody can prove anything either way though, yet.

If Hero should have a leading spot in this range, I'm not so sure that this is a good hand to lead with, like I already said in my first post.

-------

Thanks to ngFTW for a no-nonsense analysis. I learn things from your posts.

As to no no-nonsense, I don't think there is any reason for me to further respond to varianceisweird, he's either not reading my posts, not comprehending any of my points or straw manning on purpose.

Care to share what you learnt from ngFTW's analysis?

What a hypocrite you are amok. Your line is absurd and your "points" are antithetical to the truth. If you don't understand math or poker or GTO then stop posting in strategy, you are not qualified

You start off wanting to check/call/bet less than pot and then after I prove aggression is correct you switch to saying you want to check/raise on flop! I mean you say several times that the hand is NOT strong enough to bet get-in on the flop, say it is unnecessary then change you line to CHECK/RAISE ON FLOP. Amok the Abysmal just taking shots in the dark and were wrong from start to finish

GTO line is clearly lead bet for a host of reasons, has been proven mathematically in several different ways but I guess I better keep trying until I find math that agrees with you! Seriously you shouldn't be allowed to post about strategy unless you provide a full mathematical proof, like you demand from everyone else. I'm thoroughly disgusted by you and what is worse you sound like an older person and should know better. If I could block you I would because you contribute less than zero

Again, you haven't read what I wrote. Start from the first post. "I'd never lead a flop with this texture". That doesn't mean I don't check-raise. You are the one making stuff up. "You start off wanting to check/call/bet less than pot" came directly from your imagination, I never said anything like that.

You are the one who started talking about GTO. My take on it is that it doesn't yet exist for PLO8. You keep saying things like "GTO line is clearly lead bet for a host of reasons, has been proven mathematically in several different ways" that can't be proven.

I really have no time for this nonsense.