I would agree if we knew we had unlimited hands and unlimited bankroll.

But how often have we seen a bad player run good, win a fortune, and then wisely rack up before donating it back?

Rake structure is the same for PLO200 and PLO50. 5% up to 1bb (when 3 handed).

I'm not saying torch equity to get deep. But it is certainly +EV to take neutral equity spots that help us get deep vs maniacs... even if they do leave 5 hands later.

Bad advice here. Take every spot that makes money. Also what is your “bankroll for the session” and why is it so small?

Ah ok, that would make it a fine open

Not necessarily bad advice. There is the utility of the bankroll. And then there is the kelly criterion

If you can’t afford to lose 20 all ins in a row then drop down to where you are properly rolled.

Its not about affording losses. Its about deploying the capital in an optimal way.

If you have a 10bb/100 win rate it may be the case that its best not to risk 100bb to win 1bb in EV. A 10bb/100 winrate is pretty crushing - there would be no need to take high variance spots

That is only true if you're outside kelly, which is known to be highly aggressive with its bankroll strat. If you're fully rolled you should definitely take a 1bb/100 edge even if it comes with high variance. Because you don't get to that 10bb/100 edge by passing up the small ones - it's an accumulation of small edges.

I'll agree with you if you include mental bandwidth in capitol. If you want to crush playing 4+ tables, you have to pass up some slightly +EV spots. Or as the saying goes: 'Don't step over a dollar to pick up a dime.'

Ok, lots of good stuff in this thread so far.

I had a lot on my mind when the hand went down, but, as you all know, you have limited time, so paramount on my mind was "Do I have at least 25% equity here?" I thought the answer was yes, so I called with the idea that I could potentially continue on "good" turns and give up on bad ones. Not sure what I would have done on a "bad" turn in practice, but we will get into that a bit below as there really is no bad turn.

First off we have two pots here. In the main we need 24% equity (72.14 / 300) to continue. Then we have a side pot for 75.32 if we shove. Let's start with the main pot.

We are going to give player 2 a pre-flop range of 5%-40% without any AA or KK combos. The idea here is that he would likely raise the top 5% of hands or any hand that had an AA or KK in it so we can safely remove these combos. Then, we will give up all straight draws with 8 outs or more (987,9852,9842,874,974,875,975,54), a set (TT,33,66), two pair (T6,T3,36), or a pair + gutshot (52,74,42,75,97,87,98): (T,6,3).

For player 3, we are essentially going to give the same range but we are starting with the top 30% of hands including the pairs and we are also going to say he continues with an overpair on this flop.

Board - Ts 6c 3h
PLAYER_1 Js 9s Tc 4c
PLAYER_2 (5%-40%!(AA,KK)): ((987,9852,9842,874,974,875,975,54), (TT,33,66), (T6,T3,36), (52,74,42,75,97,87,98): (T,6,3))
PLAYER_3 30%: ((987,9852,9842,874,974,875,975,54), (TT,33,66), (T6,T3,36), JJ+, (52,74,42,75,97,87,98): (T,6,3))


PLAYER_1 - 25.27%
PLAYER_2 - 41.29%
PLAYER_3 - 33.44%

EV_main = 0.2527(300) - 72.14 = +3.67

Now, for the side pot we are only against PLAYER_2 and we have an equity of 44.79%.

EV_side = 0.4479*(75.32) - 37.66 = -3.92

EV_total = -0.25

I've included all of the necessary details to make this reproducible, and maybe we can swing this a bit more towards a call if I'm missing somethign in my range constructions. I feel like my assumptions are fairly accurate though.

Ultimately, this appears to be a very close fold, but it's extremely close. As someone in this thread said, it's much easier to be really wrong and fold than to be really wrong and call.

I found this hand to be extremely interesting because on the surface we have such a shitty hand for Omaha that it should probably be a clear fold, but things are never so clear.

I have more I'd like to say, but I'm off to swim with my kids. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes as I wrote this up in a bit of a rush so I don't get into too much trouble from my wife.

Even though in that previous sim the EV was slightly negative I actually think shoving here is the right play still. There is some sensitivity to the inputs to the sim. If I change player to from 5%-40% range to 5%-50% range then the equity against 3 players goes up to 25.72% and the HU equity goes up to 45.58% and although both of these are tiny marginal improvements the EV goes from -0.25 to +1.69.

And, what if player 2 goes a bit bonkers with naked gutshots 1/7th of the time (can't mix weighted and unweighted ranges so I just included the 98 combos from all possible gutshot combos)? Well, our EV goes up to +4.66.

So, our range of EV's in this situation can be from slightly negative to very positive, from the work that I've done. Happy to see others work though.

The actual hands that the villians had here? 5 7 4 5 and A J J 7. Against these hands the EV is +5.70.

See how close the spot is that you have to keep tinkering with the inputs to make it +EV?

This is what I'm referring to when "why risk 100bbs to win 1". Because sometimes you're not even sure if its even +EV.

Playing a hand that ends up putting in 100bbs when u dont even know if its +EV or not is not the way to get a 10bb/100 winrate. And no, you dont normally have a 10bb/100 winrate but I image in this line up you do.

Hero's "bonkers!" equity is probably much higher on average.

Note in the example used, villain blocked 2 js which are great cards for hero. Villain can show up with lower equity hands and punts.

I think the overall direction of your sims are right Mark, but the actual ev of Hero's call is a bit higher with more range tweaking. Not really worth the time/ effort to run it myself though since I think the thread has all ready done a good job proving that call is mathematically sound.

To give an analogy from limit poker - you are supposed to call one big bet on the river a lot, even when you suspect you are beat, because the odds are too good and folding the best hand is so costly.

Making a hero fold in this spot seems very similar. (Meaning these 2 specific opponents, not always).

Folding is very high risk and big pots like this can determine whether Hero's session is winning or losing. I would much rather call and maybe decide later after a hand review thats its maybe a 5 BB mistake then fold and discover its a 25+ BB mistake.

Just my 2 cents; Hand is dogshit on this board once there’s 2 jams in front and getting it in is just straight punting.

Anyone can probably add enough crap to the donks ranges to eke out required break even equity, but I think at best thats probably what getting it in here equates too.

Someone at the start of the thread mentioned limping this hand vs these kind of muppets, I like that a lot.

stacks 100% matter, youre having a laugh.

So half the replies in here are making ICM arguments for why this is a fold huh...