Since u asked so nice, I will give you my analysis.

Preflop:
I think this is a superstandard 3bet
Both for vacum play (think its slightly +EV at average)
(Very proftiable vs some villains, ~breakeven vs others)
But "a-must" for balance/range

Flop:
I believe we have a couple of options here:
I probably check about 30-40% and bet 60-70% with this hand on this board.

1. Check-call
We can take the check-call line for a couple of reasons.
- Good for balance (check wraps on this dry board)
- Get aggro villains to barrel off when we hit our wrap
(since they dont expect us to check JTxx)
- We actually rep a medium-strength made hand when we check
so I dont think a standard TAG reg vil go crazy when we check.
and 3-barrel us without equity
(because villain will not expect us to c-f)
- we can actually show agression on many turn cards than dont improve
us and expect the villain to give us alot of credit


2. Bet-call
Bet-call (not getting it in, buy calling his raise) is probably my standard
line in this spot on this dry board with this hand. I will obv. balance it
and to the same with [KKxx,QQxx and KQxx] atleast in theory

3. Check-raise
I think check-raising is the worst opinion
unless we have a villain that bet ~100% of his range
after we check on this board.

As played:
We have three options:

1) Getting it in now

board: 4dKcQs
Hand Equity Wins Ties
TcJh8c9d 38.88% 2,978,018 324,330
KKxx,QQxx,KQxx,44xx,QTJx,QJTx,ATJ9 61.12% 4,773,832 324,330

I gave villain a standard TAG range in my eyes. We have ~39% vs this range.
Breakevenpercentage (How much equity we need vs his range to get it in with +EV):

HERO : $614 - 40 - 57 == $517
VILLAIN: $614 - 40 - == $574
POT : == $141

BE:
(Bet / (Pot+Bet+Bet)) = ((574 / (141+574+574)) == 0.44...%

We need >= 44% equity vs. his range to get it in +EV, we only have 39%.
So getting this in on the flop with zero fold equity is clearly -EV.

But if we have some fold equity, then getting it in is ok. The more FE the better to get it in.
I would estimate that villain needs to be bluffraising >= 5% for us to 4-bet get it in profitable here.
Without doing the math to back it up.


2) Fold
Folding is better than stacking off right now. The EV of folding is obviously $0.

3) Call
By just calling his raise we have another three outcomes on the turn.

1) The turns brings a blank:
Probability: 0.42

28 % eq vs range when the turn blanks
potsize = $388
eff stacksizes = $422

BE:
(BET / (Pot+Bet+Bet)) = (422 / 388+422+422)) == 0.34%

So we need > 34% eq vs his range to stack off on a blank turn
which we dont have (we have 28% eq) So we need to check-fold the turn unless villain
gives us better prize (bet less than pot).

$EV:
0.42 * -95 = $-39.9

$EV = $-39.9 per flop call when the turn blanks


2) The turns pairs the board:
Probability: 0.14 (I remove two outs because of hand removal from villains hand)

$EV:
0.14 * -95 == -13.3

$EV = $-13.3 per flop call when the turn pairs

3) The turns gives us a straight:
Probability: 0.28

73% eq vs range when we turn a straight
(I also assume that villain is never folding when we hit our straight, and we get it in on the turn)
$1034 in the pot (im not counting the $EV of the dead money already in the pot
because we are going to compare the different descision AFTER we already have cbet)

$EV of blank river
0.73 * $1034 = $754

$EV of river pairing
0.27 * $1034 = -$279

Gives us the total $EV of turning the straight:
$754 - $279 = $475

EV = $475 per flop call when we turn the straight

$EV:
0.28 * $475 == 133

$EV = $133 per flop call

SUMMING THIS TOGHETER:
-39.9+-13.3+133 = Total $EV of calling = $79.8 per flop call (look at EDIT)

Conclusion as played:

Calling > folding > stacking off


EDIT: I have not taken the fact that we may be chopping it up some % of the time (For example when villain and hero both have a straight. And I should have also taken into consideration that some % of the time villain is folding top two OTT when we hit)
So the $EV per flop call is a bit less, I would probably estimate it to be around $40-50 range per flop call

really nice analysis, TY Mr. Odd_Oddsen

+1

It's not difficult to see now why he is a great PLO cash player. I'll just have to get him back in tournaments where I think I have a little more chance against him!

Thanks for taking the time to do all of that analysis.

@odd_oddsen
i know how much work such an breakdown is....
but unfortunately you have quite some errors in it.

the major one is in the bet/call part:

assuming that "villain is never folding when we hit our straight, and we get it in on the turn" is just not realistic.
a str8 makes us a 78.2% fav vs his range.
he`d lay down his KQ,QJT,KQT for sure (if he isn`t splitting)...
he might lay down sets aswell...
and if we check our str8...he might check back.

what is villain supposed to think????that we didn`t lay down our aces to his rr otf and on a 9 ott we turn our hand in a bluff????

b/c is not an option vs a player that is described as solid.

well,when we can`t b/c...lets see what our cbet is worth:
(for simplification we solely look up villain folds or rr)

http://propokertools.com/simulations...0%25&s=generic

http://propokertools.com/simulations...0%25&s=generic

that means,we take the pot down 3.8/15.07....
equals roughly 75%=+$81
we fold 25%=-$57

summed up b/f generates $47

we`ve to compare this number to our rough flop equity=$34

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 4kq

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
ts8sjh9d	41.93%	239,417	24,296
30%	58.07%	336,287	24,296

b/f is $13 better..but imo we will make this up easily by playing poker.

you have some nice arguments for this:

1. Check-call
We can take the check-call line for a couple of reasons.
- Good for balance (check wraps on this dry board)
- Get aggro villains to barrel off when we hit our wrap
(since they dont expect us to check JTxx)
- We actually rep a medium-strength made hand when we check
so I dont think a standard TAG reg vil go crazy when we check.
and 3-barrel us without equity
(because villain will not expect us to c-f)
- we can actually show agression on many turn cards than dont improve
us and expect the villain to give us alot of credit

On topic: very nice analysis Odd. I'd like to add that imo it boils down to villain's bluffing frequency. If people pretty much never bluff here, their ranges are indeed very strong, meaning that if we bet/call flop our chances of getting paid when we hit the turn are substantial, yet not to be overestimated. I don't think I agree with your assumption that we invariably get all the gold when we hit the turn. I mean, what does our hand look like when we bet/call this flop and put lots of money in on straight turns? How are we balancing our range, how are we repping bluffs, semibluffs, blockers? And is villain really betting sets or two pairs on straight turns when checked to?

If people have a substantial bluffing frequency in this spot, we are making mistakes when we bet/call flop by letting them realize their equity, by missing out on fold equity we could acquire by shoving, and by folding unimproved on the turn.

Odd wrote:

Are we really getting bluffraised here less than 5%? Is the board too wet/dynamic (whatever the term is for the opposite of lockdown) for people to consider bluffraising? If we're thinking about folding a full wrap here, it's gotta be worth it for villain to consider it. However, if that's the consensus, then I agree bet/call is optimal, and I'm gonna tone down on my "But they can be bluffing!" attitude of Spewmonkiness and Payoffwizardry.

One more addition - if we're gonna assume people don't bluff here, the only reason we can call the flop raise is because of the smallish size. If villain's range here is {value}, we can't peel a pot sized flop raise with a PSB behind on the turn.

please just call.

lol pot odds.

Hi!

Thanks for input.

My analysis was strictly from the point where we did cbet and faced a raise, the cbet is obv +EV given EQ and FE. But my analysis was just to find out wich action (call,fold,raisegettitin) is most +EV after facing a raise otf from this villain). So using the the money we are risking vs. reward at the flop cbet is irrelevant since op asked whats the next action after facing a raise. And yes my analysis have some flaws but it should give us an ok indicator.

If you look at my "EDIT" I totally agree with you that villain is probably folding some hands (two pair hands) if we shove infront when we hit our straight ott. Tho I dont expect villain to fold a set (which he should if he know our strategy/game plan) beacuse the pot is $388 ott and we have $422 effective behind. So we should probably figure out how often villain has two pair vs. set in this spot an go from there. And calculate equity for the turned straight when villain folds two pair hands and sum it when he have sets.

I still think calling the raise otf is the play here.

And one more solid argument for not bet-folding this flop is that if we are bet-folding a full wrap here, we are going to get exploited by good regs who is going to cr-bluff us alot when we cbet-fold so much

what u think about donking non-pairing turn?

Its almost the same issue as 4betting the flop... If villain has a 95%+ value range and a less than 5% bluff raising range on the flop, we dont have enough equity for bet-calling on the turn, we have 28% vs range and we need ~35%+(pot is $388 and effective stacks $422). But if villain is bluffraising this board on the flop at a to high frequency we can actually donkbet turns profitable with 28% equity because of the FE.

But when we turn a flushdraw we actually can bet-call the turn vs a 95% valuerange+.

The difficult part of this hand is the flop decision and how to balance our b3b, b/c, cc and cr and cf ranges. Not going to discuss that (or the merits of checking this hand ), but assuming we play what I think is a fairly standard strat here (something like cb > 60% freq) our hand is very easy to play.

So given a standard cbet frequency, villain can value raise a wide range of hands- call it something like KJT+, AJT+, Q4 + gutter + (though he won't raise all of these combos with 100% frequency). Since the board is semidry and we have a fairly deep SPR, villain is going to have something of a polarized range here which can still force us to fold many hands we likely cbet "for value". I'm just describing one plausible strategy + counterstrategy for us and villain here- but what I'm saying (contra odds oddsen) is that 1) bluffraising < 5% here would be a large mistake by villain, and 2) A villain who bluffraises <5% is I think a fairly implausible strategy in actual games at mid/high stakes.

So the real numbers we need to be using when doing an analysis of this hand are a set of strategies for villain with bluff frequencies ranging from 0-N% of flop range. Against strategies which bluff 0%, our play is to flat the flop raise, and jam a straightening or BDFD bringing card and cf the rest of the deck- as described by oddsen (though he made the mistake of assuming villain b/c straightening turns always which is very implausible imo). Once villain's bluff frequency becomes approximately >= to 5%, a flop jam becomes breakeven- I'm guessing there might be a range of flop frequencies from 5-10% bluff where jam and call have similar EVs. Then there is some bluff frequency, I'd guess maybe 10-35%, where jamming is clearly the play. Finally, if we make the plausible assumption that villain often continues with his bluffs on cards which give us the straight as well as board pairing cards, when his bluff freq becomes > around 40% the play is to flat flop, jam out any blank turn, and then CR any straightening or board pairing turn.

In this case we have no idea of his true bluff frequency, and so given we only need 5% bluffs to make our jam neutral, and a near optimal strat from villain given flop assumptions contains some bluff raises, our play is obviously to jam.

the master has spoken.
/end thread

very interesting.
how would our play change if the stacks were 350bb effective?