Why when I put that hand into PPT vs top 3% it says it's 33.2%? Don't think your calc is right - 3% is 8112 hands, AA is 6961 combos so the majority of 3% is AA combos. This hand vs AA is 33%.

I didn't do any calcs - I just asked PPT whether AKQ9ds existed in top 4%, and then whether it existed within the top 3%.

It's interesting that a hand within the top 4% would only have 50% equity vs a top 14% range, and I can't account for that, but I don't think that's how they're calculated.

yeh that is odd - wasn't aware of the " : " feature. Not sure what is going on there.

MarkD mentioned this in the part of the reason this particular hand (AK no pair) performs poorly as a 4bet.


AKQ9ds gets crush by 14%:AA by about 33% to 67%
AKQ9ds gets crush by 14%:KK by about 42% to 57%

and

AKQ9ds breaks about even versus 14%:QQ by about 48% to 52%

and

AKQ9ds wins versus 14%!AA!KK!QQ by about 55% to 45%

For a grand total of about

AKQ9ds versus 14% about 50% to 50% equity




Use ':' (read as "and") to get the intersection of two ranges. For instance, in Omaha, "AhQhKs9s:4%" means "AhQhKs9s AND in the top 4% of hands.

The default is not 6-max. To get 6-max wazz needed to do

AhQhKs9s:4%6h which would have come up empty like his AhQhKs9s:3% did

then when he did AhQhKs9s:5%6h it would have been correct. Or instead of guess and check, do the direct method I showed

tools > range explorer > (input hand) > rankings

Hi, this post is getting some attention and I took the time to have a look at the spot in our app FlopHero, where it's easy to visualize the preflop ranges for each player.

First, the setup. This hand is in GG PLO25 with 100bb effective stacks, the rake at this level is somewhat similar to the Rush&Cash games which we currently support, 3bb/100.

Your opponent's 3bet is correct, his hand is a good 3bet bluff and is not strong enough to coldcall with so many players behind and the high rake.

The problem arises with your 4bet, as other pointed out your hand is not good enough to 4bet and the only combos the solver uses with AK as their top 2 cards is the good medium rundowns, but the EV is negative for them.


Let me breakdown what's the 4betting range and frequencies of an UTG open raiser in our solver. As the rake paid is getting higher, the more combos into the 4bet and less in the call to the 3bet the solver chooses, but we see that is always somewhat between 18 to 22% of 4bet.

If UTG opens around a 15-17% (or 40k to 46k combos), then we have that roughly between 8.000 and 9.000 combos should be in the 4bet.

The problem is that any combos with AA are always in the raise first in, but also always in the 4bet range, which comprises exactly 6.960 combos (AAAA is a fold), no matter what rake structure we are in. So that's between 77% to 87% of AAxx in the total 4betting range of an UTG player.

The rest of the 4bet range is usually the best double suited hands that contains an Ace, blocking the 5bet range of our opponent. You were right on that, but you should use cards with less dominated rundowns like AJxx and ATxx


You can check yourself for free here:
https://app.flophero.com/omaha/strat...s=&boardCards=

So if this is a top 4% hand why when I put in this hand vs 4% it's way behind? Trying to understand if that's an error or what's going on

There might be more to it than this, but one way to think about it is that the equity distribution of hands versus other hands is not smooth, where the ranking of hands is linear. That could account for this discrepancy.

The guy who made PPT also has text files of hand rankings available. Just import them into a spreadsheet, makes this question very easy to answer.

I'm not sure I understand correctly, but I'll answer what I think you are asking. First off the default for PPT isn't 6-max but we will go with the default instead of having to put 6h on the end of everything.

So wazz ran it AhQhKs9s:3% and it came up empty meaning this isn't a 3% hand. He then ran it AhQhKs9s:4% and it showed it is a top 4% hand. This means this hand is in the top 4% percent, but is near the bottom because it isn't a top 1%, 2% or 3% hand (which make up top 75% of all 4%). So if you then run AhQhKs9s versus 4% it will be way behind other top 4% hands that are also top 1%, 2% or 3% hands like all AAxx hands or even the most likely best non-AAxx hand KKQQ$ds.

Doesn't the above show that it's a top 4% combo (10-handed) and a top 5% combo (6-handed)? new to PPT

Hah that seems so obvious in retrospect. It's got bad equity against a 4% range because the average hand in a 4% range is top 2%.

Yes that's exactly what it shows.

Ahh that's a good point - didn't think of it that way.