[OFFICIAL] SSPLO Beginners Thread - New to PLO? Try this for quick questions/tips/chat
07-17-2015
, 01:18 PM
07-21-2015
, 12:02 AM
08-23-2015
, 03:33 AM
Simple rules like that tend to be a lot less reliable in PLO. Here are a few examples.
1) When ranges are tight:
a) People have sets a lot more in PLO than in NLHE, so you can end up losing equity to kill cards.
Not the 32% that the "rule of 4" would give. But don't get the wrong idea from this -- against realistic tight stack-off ranges on this board at typical SPRs, this hand should do a bit better, partly because it actually does very well against certain draws (more on that later).
b) Similar to a, draws are more common in PLO, and strong draws will be significant parts of ranges for putting lots of $ into the pot, often killing many of the outs of dominated draws or giving draws with weak showdown value unexpected equity. You're a lot more likely than in NLHE to run into draw-vs.-draw scenarios.
2) When ranges are loose:
a) You can occasionally have quite a surprising amount of backdoor equity.
Here's a random gutter, with what might be a surprising 25% equity against a selection of top pairs. The extra 9% compared to the "rule of 4" comes from the bdfd, the bdsd, and all the backdoor two pair / trips. Backdoor two pair / trips is kind of a hilarious draw in NLHE, but it can account for a non-negligible part (often a couple %) of equities in PLO.
Anyway, what you have to do to learn equities in PLO is run a lot of sims and look at how various hands do against various ranges. For example, the equity of a non-nut draw can vary drastically depending on the proportion of the opposing range made of dominating draws. In NLHE, this isn't a big concern, but it's impossible to ignore in PLO.
The common thread is that it's very often not possible to accurately predict how many outs you have in a simple fashion.
1) When ranges are tight:
a) People have sets a lot more in PLO than in NLHE, so you can end up losing equity to kill cards.
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 820 trials (Exhaustive) |
board: T 8 4 |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jh9sKcAh | 27.32% | 224 | 0 |
| 4c3dKs4h | 72.68% | 596 | 0 |
Not the 32% that the "rule of 4" would give. But don't get the wrong idea from this -- against realistic tight stack-off ranges on this board at typical SPRs, this hand should do a bit better, partly because it actually does very well against certain draws (more on that later).
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 3,070,900 trials (Exhaustive) |
| board: T84 |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jh9sKcAh | 29.97% | 805,500 | 229,579 |
(TT,88,QJ9,J97 T,8,4),44QJ,Q9,J9,J7,97,96,76),T8J9,97)):8%-40% | 70.03% | 2,035,821 | 229,579 |
b) Similar to a, draws are more common in PLO, and strong draws will be significant parts of ranges for putting lots of $ into the pot, often killing many of the outs of dominated draws or giving draws with weak showdown value unexpected equity. You're a lot more likely than in NLHE to run into draw-vs.-draw scenarios.
2) When ranges are loose:
a) You can occasionally have quite a surprising amount of backdoor equity.
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 8,883,880 trials (Exhaustive) |
board: 62K |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3d4d7c8h | 24.68% | 2,171,745 | 40,947 |
| 8%-40%K)!(KK,K6,K2) | 75.32% | 6,671,188 | 40,947 |
Here's a random gutter, with what might be a surprising 25% equity against a selection of top pairs. The extra 9% compared to the "rule of 4" comes from the bdfd, the bdsd, and all the backdoor two pair / trips. Backdoor two pair / trips is kind of a hilarious draw in NLHE, but it can account for a non-negligible part (often a couple %) of equities in PLO.
Anyway, what you have to do to learn equities in PLO is run a lot of sims and look at how various hands do against various ranges. For example, the equity of a non-nut draw can vary drastically depending on the proportion of the opposing range made of dominating draws. In NLHE, this isn't a big concern, but it's impossible to ignore in PLO.
The common thread is that it's very often not possible to accurately predict how many outs you have in a simple fashion.
Last edited by Rei Ayanami; 08-23-2015 at 03:51 AM.
08-23-2015
, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Simple rules like that tend to be a lot less reliable in PLO. Here are a few examples.
1) When ranges are tight:
a) People have sets a lot more in PLO than in NLHE, so you can end up losing equity to kill cards.
Not the 32% that the "rule of 4" would give. But don't get the wrong idea from this -- against realistic tight stack-off ranges on this board at typical SPRs, this hand should do a bit better, partly because it actually does very well against certain draws (more on that later).
b) Similar to a, draws are more common in PLO, and strong draws will be significant parts of ranges for putting lots of $ into the pot, often killing many of the outs of dominated draws or giving draws with weak showdown value unexpected equity. You're a lot more likely than in NLHE to run into draw-vs.-draw scenarios.
2) When ranges are loose:
a) You can occasionally have quite a surprising amount of backdoor equity.
Here's a random gutter, with what might be a surprising 25% equity against a selection of top pairs. The extra 9% compared to the "rule of 4" comes from the bdfd, the bdsd, and all the backdoor two pair / trips. Backdoor two pair / trips is kind of a hilarious draw in NLHE, but it can account for a non-negligible part (often a couple %) of equities in PLO.
Anyway, what you have to do to learn equities in PLO is run a lot of sims and look at how various hands do against various ranges. For example, the equity of a non-nut draw can vary drastically depending on the proportion of the opposing range made of dominating draws. In NLHE, this isn't a big concern, but it's impossible to ignore in PLO.
The common thread is that it's very often not possible to accurately predict how many outs you have in a simple fashion.
1) When ranges are tight:
a) People have sets a lot more in PLO than in NLHE, so you can end up losing equity to kill cards.
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 820 trials (Exhaustive) |
| board: T84 |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jh9sKcAh | 27.32% | 224 | 0 |
| 4c3dKs4h | 72.68% | 596 | 0 |
Not the 32% that the "rule of 4" would give. But don't get the wrong idea from this -- against realistic tight stack-off ranges on this board at typical SPRs, this hand should do a bit better, partly because it actually does very well against certain draws (more on that later).
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 3,070,900 trials (Exhaustive) |
| board: T84 |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jh9sKcAh | 29.97% | 805,500 | 229,579 |
| (TT,88,QJ9,J97T,8,4),44QJ,Q9,J9,J7,97,96,76),T8J9,97)):8%-40% | 70.03% | 2,035,821 | 229,579 |
b) Similar to a, draws are more common in PLO, and strong draws will be significant parts of ranges for putting lots of $ into the pot, often killing many of the outs of dominated draws or giving draws with weak showdown value unexpected equity. You're a lot more likely than in NLHE to run into draw-vs.-draw scenarios.
2) When ranges are loose:
a) You can occasionally have quite a surprising amount of backdoor equity.
| ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation |
| 8,883,880 trials (Exhaustive) |
| board: 62K |
| Hand | Pot equity | Wins | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3d4d7c8h | 24.68% | 2,171,745 | 40,947 |
| 8%-40%K)!(KK,K6,K2) | 75.32% | 6,671,188 | 40,947 |
Here's a random gutter, with what might be a surprising 25% equity against a selection of top pairs. The extra 9% compared to the "rule of 4" comes from the bdfd, the bdsd, and all the backdoor two pair / trips. Backdoor two pair / trips is kind of a hilarious draw in NLHE, but it can account for a non-negligible part (often a couple %) of equities in PLO.
Anyway, what you have to do to learn equities in PLO is run a lot of sims and look at how various hands do against various ranges. For example, the equity of a non-nut draw can vary drastically depending on the proportion of the opposing range made of dominating draws. In NLHE, this isn't a big concern, but it's impossible to ignore in PLO.
The common thread is that it's very often not possible to accurately predict how many outs you have in a simple fashion.
09-18-2015
, 11:12 PM
