Full Tilt - $0.25 PL Hi FAST (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BB: 42.28 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 12.50, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 8)
UTG: 100.4 BB (VPIP: 19.67, PFR: 10.95, 3Bet Preflop: 3.73, Hands: 1,108)
MP: 163.36 BB (VPIP: 22.30, PFR: 16.38, 3Bet Preflop: 8.00, Hands: 293)
CO: 157.96 BB (VPIP: 15.00, PFR: 5.00, 3Bet Preflop: 5.56, Hands: 41)
BTN: 107.24 BB (VPIP: 17.04, PFR: 11.11, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 138)
Hero (SB): 132.56 BB

Hero posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has A A T K

fold, fold, CO raises to 3.4 BB, fold, Hero raises to 11.2 BB, fold, CO calls 7.8 BB

Flop: (23.4 BB, 2 players) J 2 9
Hero bets 16 BB, CO raises to 71.4 BB, Hero raises to 121.36 BB and is all-in, CO calls 49.96 BB

He is 15/5/6

yuk

In general taking this line 130 deep is exploitable, you have GS but that also means you block his wraps, and that is less significant at 100bb than at 130bbs.

I wouldn't 3b this full pot preflop, then you feel priced in by your GS after getting standard c-bet raised up. But it's whatevs and I'm always ssaying the same thing.

Looks good. Folding would be a crime against humanity.

I don't know how you can say it's a crime. it's trivial. And I really avoid getting myself into these spots. AA ont he SB is not licence to shove in OP + GS for 130bbs indiscriminately (hence'crime' to do otherwise). Shove is like meh, so is fold. I really expect to be against a set, or 2 pair way more often than having my 55%. 100bb then it's a crime.130bb is a huge difference in SPR.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

2,935,600 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J29

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AsAcKsTs	54.08%	1,547,514	80,237
QT**:25%!aa**	45.92%	1,307,849	80,237

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

2,152,500 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J29

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AsAcKsTs	21.55%	462,281	3,050
22	78.45%	1,687,169	3,050

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

6,056,520 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J29

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AsAcKsTs	34.79%	2,101,054	11,989
92	65.21%	3,943,477	11,989

It'd be a better idea to run your equity against an overall range instead of just a few selected hands.

Nope. it is too difficult to factor aggression/tendencies. Full ranges is what levels people into thinking things are auto shoves.

This is the full range, it's just shown in 3 simulations instead of 1. the worst 2 pair, the worst set, and the medium of semi bluffish hands. Which in reality we will have much lower equity against due to his overt interest weighting things.

Depending on villain, our equity will be somewhere between the 3 ranges. A full range gives a mean average but it's not useful (unless you start using '@' but i ain't got time for that).

Then run multiple sims, look at your equity against a variety of ranges.

Yeah, but even if you knew villain's strategy perfectly, you'd have no idea where without running full-range sims.

Also, I almost forgot:

Okay, how is this relevant or connected in any way to the EV of the SB's options?

Do you just try to throw out "elegant" or "clever" verbal arguments, without double-checking them quantitatively, and hope that reality backs them up? PLO is a very technical game. Words alone are fundamentally hopeless.

errrr, that's what I did? Poker players should be accustomed to adjusting reference points depending on 'tempo'. There is no other texture available so 3 sims is enough to split the situations. I could break down the first range alot but no, it's my guess of medium. I don't have time at tables to run extremely complicated calculations that are not weighted. The more complex you make it the more you just skew your vision.

No, I just don't have time to include everything and when I do take time to explain it doesn't seem to matter tbh. Have you missed where I said about Gs... 130bb... bla bla? At 100BB OP + GS is enough to stack off at 100bb if villain is not ******ed. At 130 bbs, it isn't. That is 30% depth increase, you need a little more, ok the deuce is dangling ont he flop, but still... My point too you was that your enthusiasm to shove almost depicts it as mandatory. When it is trivial and a spot that if I keep getting myself into I'm going busto in. I 3b pot out the SB with AA and shove it in with GS for 130bbs. Not good in the long run, but you can gamble this line for some image gains.

Anyway did I derail myself? By having the GS we reduce the 'tempo' of the semi bluff drawish range. Whereas in lower SPR with auto stack off, the GS actually helps us more because it has less relationship with his straights.Having 2 straight blcokers means he has 'worst set/2 pair or better' more often than a weight you would see in a full PPT range which you desire (making me word that fully ugh) (No it doesn't PPT weights things with cominatorics perfectly - no it doesn't balbalba)

I know it's a bit kanye west of me, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

btw checking flop makes showing down/realizing ur equity a lot cheaper

"QT**:25%!aa**", "22", and "92" can hardly be called "ranges".

I just meant that having the nut gutter is almost an order of magnitude more helpful than having two blockers to draws can be hurtful (you can verify this with sims), so "you have GS but that also means you block his wraps" is a misleading line of reasoning, embedded with false assumptions. You're framing it as if blocking wraps is a significant downside to having a gutter -- when it doesn't come close to being one.

I knew this was coming, GS = 4 for you and the two blockers is two( multiply by about 1.3) for HIM. I know the GS is heavier, I didn't say it wasn't, I was just adding a further consideration which talks me into not wanting to be in these spots.



The first one is a pretty comprehensive range, sure I can adjust it, the worst thing to do would be just suddenly whack in there another large amount of combinations.22 is jsut short for 'set' and 92 is jsut short for 2 pair, I look at my worst equity and I know because of simple poker math that I'm doing a little worse. Or am I missing something? Like PPT is so advanced I can just throw lots of stuff in there and it will yield something weighted accurately?


Why don't you post a 'comprehensive' range, Starting at 55% and subtracting based ont he other two ranges I'd say we haveeeeee, 39% - but this can be as low as 31% if villian is not raising less than 6 outs (or better), (can I stop wriitng that yet) (tighter than us here)

Here's the nittiest range I can post with a straight face. It's also kind of weird, omitting many 9xxx/Jxxx combos that should take precedence over some of the hands included, to AAKT's detriment.

I think AAKT should have >40%.

Just for ****s and giggles

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

10,834,660 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J29

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AsAcKsTs	37.73%	4,040,680	95,276
QT**:25%!aa**,22,92	62.27%	6,698,704	95,276

i suppose you just have to look at it differently. I don't know why but I've never appreciated looking at this because it does not give me reference points that can be taken away and applied int he future. In the moment I don't have the capacity to factor against 3 things, or rather it's less optimal to do so. The next hand will be a re-arrangement but I have this 'average' number of three loosely related 'co ordinates'

You spend all that time putting in these different combos,,,, and the simulation is different by like -.39% , and ironically you think that is too low.

And did you just print screen and edit in paint? You can copy paste PPT sims

It's the process that matters. Sometimes the inferior methods will be off by 0-1%. Sometimes the inferior methods will be off by 5-10%. I don't like that gamble.

I did several sims and they took, in sum, ~5 minutes to construct and run. "All that time" is a mischaracterization.

imgur toolbar. It looks better, at least to me.

You don't learn by knowing the equity through that process. I think you have to be very very intelligent to do so. It's better for hind sight - if you are incapable of making the adjustments yourself - but the process of making these adjustments yourself and testing them vs the comprehensive is probably a measure of how much you've learned. So that's why i posted it in 3 simulations, it gives more information. Maybe I shoudl have put the combined one as courtesy but that is not useful. It's hard to gauge how much one part of the range's effects on equity needs increased if Villain A has it more than the blank ghost meta villian B that PPT simulations represente.

I just imagined a guy who 1 tables, and when he has a spot he actually goes to PPT and super types in fast a large range. I guess you can do that with time bank. Or the 40bbs short stacker typing in HUD stats on PPT to determine if he should pot 3b preflop or not.

I love you both

best discussion in ssplo for some time