I posted this hand in the small stakes forum and the replies are split between cbetting and checking this draw.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...ender-1704306/


Reasons not to bet suggestions from other thread

standard would be to check it back and take the free card, same with actual wraps on the FD board

If you bet this then I don't understand what you could possibly having in your checking range. We're merge betting so hard that any reasonable calling range is going to have us beat and then when you check your checking range is going to be about 0% equity so we get to force you to fold just about every time you check-back.

The only way to fix that problem then is going to be checking the top of your range back which is a huge waste of value or checking back a lot of your middling range that doesn't push equity and loves the positional advantage. Take your pick which you prefer.

From my work in solvers it's also a check-back with a OESD + FD almost all the time as well. You only start betting when you have the good side of a wrap and a good FD. Or any wrap+top pair type hands on R board, or OESD+FD+pair.

A bet in position with our hand and board is looking for a fold, as we aren't pushing any equity, in this specific case we're actually behind. We also don't block any of villians continuing range and we're giving up our positional strength by reducing the SPR all for no gain. A bet in this spot is basically very bad in this position without extreme reads on villian like he is way over-folding. It's a bluff, not a value bet, and a bad one at that.


Reasons to bet suggestions from other thread

As PFR we're completely uncapped and can rep KK

We have zero showdown value now, and can get a ton of better hands (like random one pairs) to fold

We have decent equity if called

Can easily fold to a check raise

Betting flop also allows you to take down pot on river if flush draw doesn't come in

most opponents are gonna bet turn if we check flop. I dunno what the argument for needing a balanced range on this board with this one is as it's not hard to check a decent range that can at least peel a turn.

Obv if we get c/r'd we just dump it whatever we don't care. The biggest problem is simply no matter what our opponent has he's got a better hand right now but that doesn't mean he's gonna call a flop bet with most of them

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK with the above examples, my question is should we be betting if we know our hand is "most likely behind in equity" as we don't even have a pair atm, but we do have many good reasons to bet and take the pot down or even make another big bet ott and otr after all draws miss and get the opponent to fold, or bluff at us when our draw completes.



Just to add betting this would get a lot of hands to simply fold so the ev we make there probably makes up for the ev we throw away when we are c/r and need to fold, but then again we probably are going to lose a lot of EV when we barell off and get called.

Do we want to invest more money into the pot when we are likely behind? or pot control with weaker but nut straight hands. This is not just for plo or this hand in particular but every other game and why I thought I ask in the theory forum. thx

I am not an omhah expert so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think the side cards and back door draws and their relationship to the board matter a lot here and how future streets should be played if you get called.

It's beneficial you have a back door diamond draw if you think you can continue to barrel and get called if you whiff.

It is unfortunate as well you're only playing with 6 clean outs and no flush blockers.

You also don't block any 1 pair hands that might continue where as something like JdTD5S6S or QDTD5S6S would potentially block more Kx and have a better back door potential.

Long story short I think the combination of lower equity and lower back door potential and the lack of at least some blocking effects to Kx make this an easy check back.

Opponent tendencies and position of the caller could change things.

NL solvers have shown that more equity = higher frequency betting. For example if we take a board like 2 4 T the most common held belief is that you want to check back A 6 because it plays well on turns and elect to bet with A 6 instead. Solvers have shown that that line of thinking is flawed and the correct way to play is to push the betting with the higher equity hand.

This also holds true for draws. When studying I see straight and flush draws with undercards being checked back significantly more than their overcard counterparts. I imagine in PLO this effect is even more pronounced than in NL.

yeah this is the thing.. i think if we check villain is very like betting the turn and we are then calling hopping to hit on the river which doesn't seem that EV of a play either. Are we better to bet and dictate and if we get raised fold but haha then folding this hand seems bad too given our equity

yeah that's weird because you would think a Acxc would bet with the nut flush draw instead of checking this flop hmm. When i do play a bit of NLHE i do find players repping the nut flush with their ace blocker and just call as their play on the flop doesn't make sense if they really did have a NFD.


I don't know why no limit players would think that way because i would have thought any flush in NLHE is basically the nuts while betting and getting raised with low flush draws in plo is a nightmare because its very standard to raise with the nut flush draw, say with a gutter, or a pair etc, so when we do get raised we are probably getting raised by a better flush hence why they check weaker flushes in plo.. but its weird as i said they do this in NLHE.


So my original question is probably.. if we think think our hand has roughly around 30% equity vs villains better ranges and we have no showdown value are we better of betting then calling? Also should add we take down a heap of pots when we cbet this flop and villain completely missed and just folds.

Why are we just calling on the turn without considering all factors? Our equity drops significantly on the turn and you also got a free look at the turn card which is some EV.

Why is our equity great vs a c/r? It's 6 clean outs which we may share with the opponent who could also be free rolling us? I know some of those things are rare, but it's just weird to think this hand has a ton of equity even vs a loose continuing range.

yeah i get what you are saying.

I should have added in the op the hand is for heads up theory.

Ah. That makes a little more sense then. I don't know if I can even fathom the ranges of huhu Omaha haha.