Get a good book for free, for example PLO THEORY, it is timeless book which ll give you good core concepts of PLO. Alongside invest in Jnandez plotrainer for example which has good training mode and spend daily at least 20min. Also watch some videos and find a study group. Exchanging ideas and talking hands with other humans stimulates also your brain. Play small stakes, dont table select in the beginning. So summing up:
-get a book
-get a some solver
-get a study group or partner to talk
-watch videos
-play, play, play
-rinse and repeat

Most in these forums hate 'play chips' but I say for anyone trying to get the feel for a game it's OK to start there. Keep one of the free Odds/Equity Apps near by and run the hands through just to see how bad the opponents use their chips. You could go to penny online stakes as well, but lots of V on there don't care about chips any more than the group you'll find on play chip tables. I've not played play chip in a long time, but I found once you get into the 'high' stakes play chip tables you actually do run into some pretty tough opponents.

The more you play the more you will recognize spots that make sense to use aggression. Those spots really don't change from play to even $5/5 PLO .. just the value of the chips. GL

PLO 9 Live $1/2

Hero has about $275, my image is pretty loose but usually has the nuts in most show downs.

Hero UTG AA74ccdd I pot it to $15
UTG+2, mp1, mp2, and bb all call.

Flop: 356xxx, checks to me, I pot it $80. Only UTG+2 calls.

Turn: 4x I jam. UTG+2 calls. We run it twice. He boats up and quads on second board. He has 55xx.
Is just unlucky?
I been building up stacks and then losing to **** like this. Am I just terrible Omaha player?

Not terrible. Pretty standard high variance PLO scenario.

Middle set waiting for Turn to GII is mistake if RIT is common, especially multi-way IMO.

I assume you would take this spot every time? I would.. there are so many other spots to feel bad about this isn't even on radar. GL

Why do experts tell us to bet the range instead of the holding?

Example. We raise PF with a good hand. The flop is low. The solver-derived advice is to check our entire range. Why do we check even if we nailed the board? Isn't villain going to think we are bluffing high cards and may raise, allowing a 3! ? Or are we going for a check-raise?

If the solver is checking full range, it is saying that it's impossible to adequately balance a betting range in this spot. Solver hates being oop and wants to control the pot in many spots.

If you nailed the flop solver is probably going to recommend a xr yes, solver xr's way more than most people do.

Remember that the solver is always maximizing the EV of its strategy and the EV of each individual hand within that strategy to come up with the best overall EV for a given situation, granted that his opponent is also playing his range perfectly.

^^^Thanks.

We are routinely admonished to play the range, not the individual hand. Do you have a more general explanation for this?

What happens if you play every individual hand as if it was the only poker hand you'll ever play?

Your opponents are (probably) stupid, but not that stupid.

As a long-time NLHE player looking to dabble in small stakes PLO for fun, one concept I have no idea how to think about is combinations. For example, was playing a $50 Bovada hand and the following came up:

SB (villian) 3x, BB (hero) calls Td2d7s4s.

Flop is Ts7h7c.

Villian check, Hero bets 1/3rd pot. Villian calls.

Turn 3h.

Villian check, Hero bets 1/3rd pot. Villian calls.

River 5s.

Villian check, Hero bets 2/3rd pot, Villian C/R pot.

In NLHE, I would know villian can only have one combo of TT and thus am generally extremely happy about this spot because losing to that one combo is extremely rare.

In PLO, I have no idea how to consider "combos" in this fashion. I know since we have hundreds of thousands of preflop combos, perhaps this is just something that is not thought about in the same way as NLHE. But I'm kinda curious how PLO players may think about this concept.

I figured it's an easy call, I wasn't folding, but I'm trying to grasp the point where I should be nervous.

I've wondered this also. Curious how plo regs estimate ranges like this. I'm sure it's imprecise because of the vast number of combos, but their must be some better way that they categorize hands in their minds.

I wasn't clear. The solver maximizes the overall strategy EV, and each individual hand within that strategy, but that does not mean it is playing each hand as if it was the only poker hand you'll ever play (to quote amok).

For instance when a solver says we should check our entire range does it believe that is the best way to play each hand in that range? Yes, but that is conditional on maximizing the strategy EV. If your range consisted of just that one hand and you would never play another hand again it very well may decide that leading is the best strategy. If you change the range composition given to a solver the strategy will change.

I think it's helpful to understand how the algorithm actually works.

It starts by taking random action for a hand in a given scenario, working through the tree, and calculating the strategy EV of that decision. Then it looks at the alternative actions and calculates the strategy EV of those actions. These are the counterfactuals in counterfactual regret minimization (CFR). It then adjusts the weight for each action based on these strategy EV's and will lean towards the action with the highest strategy EV. At each point the opponent is doing the exact same thing.

In simple terms, the computer is trying to maximally exploit the opponent, who is then trying to counter-exploit. Eventually, things converge close to a GTO solution where neither player is being exploited.

Now, in the context of what I wrote above, you can begin to see why the solver is saying to check the range. Simply put it tried leading your hand and couldn't balance it properly so the opponent was able to exploit that lead bet by overfolding the flop to leads. The computer tried to add more leads and ended up getting exploited in a different way (raises / calls) and eventually the computer settled on maximum strategy EV of checking the entire range and to balance this by check raising a lot (approximately 10-15% of range depending on boards) and calling a lot. Since it is calling a lot it needs to have pretty strong hands in this calling range as well or else the turn strategy gets imbalanced.

It gets pretty complex, but this is what is meant when we say "bet your range".

The one thing you need to read and hopefully understand .. If you change the range composition given to a solver the strategy will change. (See above)


Within each hand of Poker the Players are telling a story based on how each chapter evolves. The plot and/or narrative is influenced by history against this opponent and the assumptions Hero implements for the hand dynamic in general using table dynamic factors.

If you are known for playing all 3 parts of the deck (my term, A-9, T-6, 6-A) AND your opponent is actually aware of this fact, then you can more convincingly tell your story via a bet on most Boards. However if you are only known for playing A-9, then how convincing is a bet on a low Board (AND how likely are you to fold if played back at)?

Solvers use the data (ranges) given to it for each spot. But as soon as you put a different Player into that seat you probably need to adjust the data.


PLO is about Betting for Value and Betting to Deny Equity, sometimes both at the same time. The more combos you 'could' have in a spot will allow you to bet more often, but you also have to consider that an opponent may also call you more often knowing this fact as well.

Solvers are set up to maximize EV over all your hands, but they also 'simply' tell you how often an action makes sense for your given range to your opponent with their given range. GL