I was watching his stream which he put on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZfXuYJZ0xg&t=710s

And frankly it looked like me on tilt. He moved all in with queens preflop and said if the guy has aces then he'll just have to hit a queen (it was a button raise, but still). In the worst hand I can remember, he has a jack high flush draw and an inside straight draw and decides to go with it. In another hand the opponent bets pot on the flop, he just has a pair of tens and says he's calling for his two pair draw although he suspects the guy has aces.

Is this really the way to play omaha? I mean I'm sure if I streamed myself playing at my current best there would be one or two questionable plays just due to the speed of online, but it seems he makes a lot of mistakes, at least in this session.

What do you guys think?

yeah ive seen him make a couple sketchy plays. despite this, i really trust his play based on all the solver work hes done, how long hes been consistently winning, how many people like his courses. ive been watching his content occasionally since several yrs ago when he was still posting on RIO, and hes definitely earned my trust over this time. i watched some of that video too bcz i like this 100k challenge, i think he must have been tilted af

He must be a winning player over time, but yeah, I was mostly wondering about that session, it looked pretty bad.

he's a massive whale, why do u think he needs to make money producing ****ty content that he outsources to noobs who can't beat PLO $10

A little sarcasm? I would think it wouldn't hurt to have an extra stream of income as a poker player, successful or not.

From what I saw it looks doubtful that he could beat microstakes PLO though.

lol this thread again

Hand you linked looks standard and ones you described sound standard as well most likely.

Obviously a guy who has shown his results and lived off online poker cash games for many years is beating the games.

What you call questionable, others would call standard.

At 3:35 JNandez is sitting with about 570 and is covered by both villains. A guy in the hijack raises it up to 16, JNandez picks up QQ98 doublesuited and makes it $60- not sure what he'd do if hijack puts him all in, but perhaps he figures to have the best hand here. Then the big blind raises it up to 200 hijack calls, JNandez calls. Flop comes 452 with two diamonds and he says "Even if both players go all in we are never ever folding" Really? He has a weak diamond draw and a crappy overpair. Naturally the BB has Kings with An ace high diamond draw and he's crushed.

A 6:24 he has AJ105 double suited, calls a 75 preflop raise with 500 in his stack. Okay. Flop comes 397 with two diamonds so he has a Jack high flush draw and the inside straight draw. Original raiser pots it to 227 and JNandez says "there's zero chance we are going to fold this" and moves all in. He manages to win this one being up against a crappy straight draw with low diamonds and a wrap with no flush draw.

Maybe I'm on a terrible run, but when I move in on a big bet like this I'm usually up against top two minimum and often with a better diamond redraw. I could get with the AJ105 hand if he was the preflop raiser, got that flop and decided to pot it and represent aces and he still has decent outs even if called. The way it played doesn't make sense to me.

Very standard.What stake do you play,how many hands you played lifetime?
AQQ against wide ranges and j fd+ sd+bdfd spr less than 2 seems ok.
If you have pair of T plus side cards and you know you re against aa spr 0.7 it would be massive mistake to fold.

OP you have a lot to learn about PLO before you can comment on anyone elses play.

Ironically, if you watch more of his youtube videos you can start on your path to understanding the game of PLO.

If his opponent had AA29 rainbow which are pretty bad aces, he only had 32% equity. If we assume super favorable KK27 rainbow for his opponent (which I think is about the best he can hope for) then he's still a 4% dog.

I play lower stakes and wouldn't want to challenge him heads up for rolls or anything, I'm just saying I saw a lot of plays that looked questionable or like flips at best.

Here's another one from his day one challenge video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uT5XNEcQ70

At 3:17 He has Ac8dKdJh ($124 in the pot) 440 effective.
Flop is QcJc3d

Opponent bets pot, and he says "Well, we aren't going to fold..." Outs are backdoor diamonds to the second nut flush a 10 for the straight and maybe another Jack for trips. I really don't see the call here. The only significant thing he has is the blocker to the nut flush, but is he hoping for a club to fall and then maybe he can bluff the guy out of a bloated pot???

You understand that there is $600 in the pot on the flop, and we have $370 left, right? Everyone should be shoving any pair.

It's like if someone offers you $1 to pick a random number between 1-100, and you get $105 back if you win. You lose 99% of the time, but it's still a good bet.

"naturally" is cognitive dissonance. Part of villains ranges are better pairs and better flush draws, but that isn't their entire range.

"He manages to win this one" ... but if villain somehow had KKdd it'd be another "naturally, he lost". Also those AJT cards matter, as pair draws, against parts of villains range.

Lol.

Bruh you got issues. Chill

Key word being if. You have no reason to believe he has Aces other than the fact he 3b - but he's doing so with a wide range and we have a blocker to AA so way more likely is that he doesn't have AA (which happened to be the case)

Watched both videos and nothing seemed egregiously bad. There were a lot of aggressive 3bets, 4bets, and 4bet calls though, where emulating at micros is probably wrong since opponent raising ranges are stronger. Mostly you're just watching the variance of a double-suited happy player committing themselves.

Yes, for the most part I play lower stakes than him, so I think this is part of why I'm not getting his play. People don't bluff (much) at 100 or even 200 buy in Omaha. When they raise you big it's almost always aces and sometimes people going too far with kings.

I did look at the hand with the Jack high flush again, I think in that particular case it was my own biases that got into it, because so many times recently I've run into someone with the higher flush draw. I did the math and he's actually a good favorite against Aces or Kings there, I didn't even notice the backdoor flush when I first commented on it, and I guess a few running straights probably add to that as well.

I don't care about today videos
I care about past experience and videos
Who stands behind all these solver simulations?
I question all that just because of scamming information from Nando side.
I trust Doug's article and 2+2 massive thread recent hype.
What do you think about all that? Should we trust all the PLO strategy Nando produced in the past? Is that reliable? Has it helped any of you in pushing your game forward and beating microstakes?

No insult in the post, mostly wondering and fishing for the info/experience from your side, guys.

He is a piece in the PLO poker knowledge. There is not a lot of PLO knowledge out there, so he is of value to players who move to or play at low and mid limits. The books will carry one over to that starting point and he can add more to it.

At the time before the solvers, he was breaking even at the limits above the 500z. His 500z winrate before rakeback was 3-4 bb/100 (some guy there won 10bb/100 last year and it is often hard to see him as nothing but an aggro). He was playing a tighter style at that time. He didn't consider that he was at the highest level. Since then the solvers have changed the game more or less. He has played more high limits since then and has shown a 300k win for some year later.

His adjustment for micro/low limits was not as good as it could have been but overall he won there (he didn't at party PLO50 in 10k hands but lost but that's still variance. Below that, he won at Microgaming/Prima after a tough start and the games there were relatively tough) but he has made progress in it too since then.

if you break down his dispute with doug polk, IMO it looks like nando made some business mistakes, upswing created an unfair contract for nando (the affiliate link problem), and doug polk was aggressive and disrespectful. my interpretation is that both parties made mistakes. as far as that situation where Jnandez was accused of ripping off some guy and his granadmother who were making scarves for his brand, it looks like theres more to the story and things might not beso simple

ive been watching him for a few yrs, starting when he was on rio, i think he puts a lot of pride into his content. i havent tried the mastermind, though

He has definitely began to 3bet pre much more aggressively in and out of position. In the past, he would flat AQ45ds, however in these recent videos he squeezes a lot more often.

What is unfair about his contract?

The full story about the scarves is in a thread in NVG.

i dont understand the legal stuff very well, but the way nando describes the situation in a video is that the contract was set up so that Joe ingram had an affiliate link deal, where he got a large portion of the new subscriber money by sending them through his affiliate link, then nando got 30% of the remaining money with the affiliate money chopped out of the original 100%. Nando was already getting a fairly low portion of the subscriber money (30%, and he created the whole coarse basically), and then he learned that he was basically getting way less than 30%. simply put, he agreed to make this large coarse for upswing, and they created a complex contract which shafted him HARD

after he terminated his contract with uspwing, giving his 3 month notice and doing everything legally, he was still entitled to the sub-money from this final period. he says it was in the neighborhood of 100K, but doug polk and the upswing founders did some kind of legal maneuver and paid him 1K dollars (screwed him because doug was angry). Doug said to nando on the phone that he was finished in the industry, doug would personally see to it that he was blacklisted by everyone in poker-training.

i love what doug polk has done for poker, and i like this content, but i find some of his actions online to be reprehensible and they reveal a lot about his character. calling out Matt Berkey, Alec Torelli, Ben Tollerene, mercier, nando, and others online. using his platform to harm their reputations in the poker world, over personal beefs he has and relatively small mistakes these people have made

There was a lot of discussion before and from what I remember 30% isn't "fairly low", it's standard. Nando had no business expenses here, all business expenses were paid by Upswing. If expenses are like 25% of sales revenue, then giving 30% of total revenue to Nando sounds about fair. If they gave him 50+% like he wanted, they would be breakeven or even down money, that deal would be absolute **** for Upswing.

And it looks like you're defending this guy:
- Scams knitting mom, upswing makes an article about it
- Throws **** at upswing, most common sentence in the video "I could be making this up"
- Polk shows his books on Youtube (lol) and explains everything
- Challenges Polk to a boxing match like he's some kind of Jake Paul ****** level