SPR is low enough to lead both sets and semi-bluffs in that case

Note:I haven't read past this post but have just watched the hand.

Vannessa gives good, sound reasoning for leading and expands on it a lot more than you have mentioned.

I definitely prefer leading over check/raising here. People aren't cbet/folding this type of board very often 4ways. They're aware it's draw-heavy and they're aware they'll get called or raised quite often. Therefore their cbetting range becomes stronger which means if they're betting they'll often be bet/shoving. Meaning you'll never get it in really profitably as there are few hands you have a significant equity edge over with ~0 current showdown value.

However, if you lead, they'll peel with all sorts of hands you dominate (but would otherwise check back). This way you gain the initiative, you can profitably barrel tons of turns and you'll almost surely stack any flush if you do hit. Whereas if you check, they'll check back their QJ97dd hands and you'll only get two streets of value if you hit, which is exponentially worse than three for obvious reasons.

I did edit this post somewhat to just include the video and time-frame rather than try and quote her reasoning, as i was conscious of paraphrasing and mis-quoting too much to emphasize my point. it is the reason my OP is pretty threadbare, as i wanted some unbiased opinions before giving too much detail, or indeed my thoughts.

Jay - i agree with both you and Vanessa when stacks are deeper, or indeed shallower. With less than say 60bb eff then this becomes a trivial bet/shove as villains will commit with plenty of dominated hands. Conversely, when we are deeper we can fire 3 shells here whether we hit or miss. My main issue with Vanessa's advice is she advocates leading and (i believe in another part of the video/series, i'm gonna listen to the video while i browse and try and quote a time frame to reference) potting. In the video it's 4 way and the pot is $14 otf. So we pot and get a caller. Pot is now $42 and we pot again, villain calls. River pot is $126 and we have just over $40 left. I mean we are basically oaking it and hoping he folds a wrap and a pair. Also how often will someone commit stacks when we pot from the sb?

I think this is the perfect flop to demonstrate how to keep ur red line up. C/R smallish and dunt make it seem like you are committed, if flatted, obv jam any non diamond turn. If villain goes all in snap it off.

tried to find this while reviewing, just had P1 audio on in the background but didn't trip over it, therefore apologies if this isn't what VS recommends.

I understand why you prefer leading, but I think eliminating position for the turn is much more valuable than initiative. Imo, position outranks initiative any day in PLO, as opposed to NLHE where 3betting from the blinds is a much more solid play, etc.

Like you said, they will peel with all sorts of hands which we have dominated, but it's also very easy for us to make a mistake. If we both miss on the turn, there's a good chance our second barrel will be called as well, leaving us with ~60BB to manage oop on the river.

As I already mentioned, it's not a catastrophe if the flop checks through. One villain may hit his/her naked Q-hi FD, which he would have folded to our lead.

When considering the optimal line, villains' tendencies/fishiness is also a very important factor.

*Grunch*

I c/c flop and re-evaluate. I'm not averse to c/c flop, donk any turn, but I'm less sure about what to do if raised. It depends on the turn card, LDO. I think if we hit a 5/Ace, it's a donk/push because of how our line looks.

I think you should generally fold the bare nfd if you get raised after donking, but it's so board texture and villain dependant that it's really hard to say. It also depends if the pot is limped, single raised or 3bet.

As a rule I think that the bare nfd OOP is nothing to be hugely excited about, since we rarely get action once we hit and are usually behind when there's significant action. 9 nut outs max is a bit meh.

I agree with you all that c/r is optimum here for the following reasons:

1) It maximises fold equity and we're never that bad.
2) If we bet and get raised we're likely in a bad spot.
3) If we bet and get called we're barreling 70% (?) of turns pretty bad.

My question is what if our dangler had hit a pair - improves the hand vastly imo - we still check/raising?

what if it goes check/raise/jam?

The problem with trying for a check/raise here is the possibility of giving villain a free card to beat you. I prefer the lead myself. It looks like you're leading with a set and will get called with draws you dominate. And if the flush/gutter comes in you'll be much more likely to get action with a weak-lead/probe then shovel.

but we want free cards when drawing oop

+1

not to mention that our A-hi is probably beat already

vs passive villains, I like leading. vs aggressive villains, c/r. check calling with no pair, no showdown value is the worst play imo.

This emphasizes my point about trying to win w/o showdown with a c/r - beat what? we have ace high - pretty much all other holdings have us *beat* considering the board.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 893

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Ts Ad Qd 5c	60.22%	356,666	9,294
95%	39.78%	234,040	9,294

But do you realise that the same thing (and other positive side effects) can be accomplished by betting?

Your post illustrates why it would be foolish to c/c, but it doesn't provide us with anything regarding bet vs c/r.

I played this spot a few days back, and i think it kind of illustrates the problem playing the NFD OOP, and why i don't usually like leading. Here i chose to lead, as i have an overpair which obviously increases our equity against villains range. I think we can either lead or c/r here, how the hand rolled out tho i felt in hindsight a c/r eliminates tough river spots.

In this spot i had no reads on villain, he was playing 50/24, with aggression of 1.9%. His fold to river bet is 55%, which is obviously on the low side.

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
PL Omaha $1(BB) Replayer
SB ($106)
Hero ($118)
UTG ($103)
CO ($142)
BTN ($124)

Dealt to Hero A Q Q 4

UTG raises to $3, CO calls $3, fold, fold, Hero calls $2

FLOP ($9.50) 5 3 J

Hero bets $7, UTG calls $7, CO folds

TURN ($23.50) 5 3 J T

Hero bets $17, UTG calls $17

RIVER ($57.50) 5 3 J T 7

Hero??

As I already emphasized, leading leads to peeling, which in turn leads to a ton of awkward turns with awkward SPR. We're nowhere near committed, except to barreling blanks. Some villains peel in these spots with 2 pair and might even continue flatting the turn leaving us in the dark.

Leading becomes a viable option if we know villains to be ABC-type nits, giving us decent FE on the flop and making it much easier to define their ranges for the turn.

I think c/r or lead both become viable when we have a pair (as the hand above illustrates) to go with our draw. For me the spot is not nearly so marginal when we have a pair; it's 100% a stack-off and how we get there is usually down to how i perceive villain, and what's the best way to get the money in the middle.

I completely agree that leading makes the hand more difficult to play on that particular board runout Elrazor. However, a wise man once told me that the most +EV line is not necessarily the line which presents you with the easiest decisions.

yeah i told you that when i was running good tho

+10000000000000000

having an overpair and gutter as well as the nfd is way different than just the bare nfd, we have showdown value on the river, and a very strong hand on the flop. I think I'd definitely c/r in that spot.

And you will balance this C/R range how exactly? A C/R range is way tougher to balance than a leading range.