You're calling it nonsense without demonstrating why it is.

I guess you're also checking your stronger hands in PLO8 six card as well then?

Of course - in poker. Obviously talking about SPR1 spots.

It's even worse checking you strong hands in PLO8 six card.

Are you actually a PLO8 player, or are you just giving your viewpoints on the hand. I mean it's fine if you are not.

Good job buddy. Trolling is an art!

Not trolling at all. You seem a bit fishy at Big O.

Because I think you should be trapping in SPR1 spots instead of "protecting"? I have no idea who you are, but if you've been around you probably know who I am.

Okay, fair enough, I get the concept, and I agree with it, but I think it still depends on a) how much we are dominating the board with our hand and if it is PLO8, 4, 5 or 6 card. We still need to weigh up which is worth more, securing the money that is already in the pot, and denying equity, or checking so that we are a big favourite to win a much bigger pot, if the villain bets.

Also, when we lead for protection we may achieve this anyway when called.

No I don't know who you are, sorry, because I very rarely follow the PLO8 scene on the forum as I mainly play PLO but I've always done well in PLO8 in live tournaments and played a lot of PLO8 4, 5 and 6 card live cash and done well at that too.

I do also think that Big O playing theory may not be fully solved yet. I say this because I have noticed that there appears to often be disagreement on which is the best play on forum strat discussions, compared to other game formats.

Hopefully we are in agreement about the following statement:

When we have strong hands in a HU PLO8 (4, 5 or 6) card pot with an SPR of 1, if our equity is <66.66% we should be betting the pot, if our equity is >66.66% we should be checking.

My earlier point about us betting more often in Big O with strong hands than in PLO8 and more often in PLO8 six card than in Big O, is purely because it is harder to have >66.66% equity, the more cards there are.

I certainly don't agree with this nonsense. It's a joke, right? Where to begin even... The number 66,66% makes no sense. You have enough equity to gii if you have +33,33%. That doesn't mean you should be betting though. With 100% equity you should never be ripping it in like a fool.

It is not nonsense at all, 66.66% is the sweet spot where our expected profit is identical whether we are called are not, and is the same if we check call.

I was specifically addressing your point about whether we should check or bet with our stronger hands HU when the SPR is one on the flop.

E.g. Pot is 400, effective chips behind are 400. We have 66.66% equity, we shove and they fold. We have made a 200 profit.

Pot is 400, effective chips behind are 400. We have 66.66% equity, we shove and they call. We also on average make a 200 profit. (Same obv if we check call)

If you are having trouble understanding why we make on average a 200 profit, then a simple illustration is that we will on average
make 600 profit two times out of three and lose 600 once out of three times. So, that's a net 600 profit divided by 3 = 200.

Sure, underlying all of the above, is that both the villain and the hero are getting their chips all in OTF at an SPR1 with a very high percentage of their hands
because so often the equity of both players is >33%. But there there are still some other factors to consider before blindly always GII on that basis,
such as obviously what the board is, blockers, reverse blockers, controlling variance or not, short term bankroll for the game, opponent tendencies etc.

I understand what you say, but it doesn't make much sense. I understand that if Hero has 66,66% equity, villain has 33,33% equity and therefore is indifferent between calling and folding. How from that it went to "if our equity is <66.66% we should be betting the pot, if our equity is >66.66% we should be checking" remains a mystery.

Because if we bet when we have 70% equity and they fold we have lost out on 3.34% of +EV. If we check and they bet, and it's very like they will bet, then we realise that extra 3.34%.

Conversely, if we have 63% equity we should bet because we want them to fold because them folding will realise us an extra 3.66% of +EV, 66.66%.

I mean to be honest, it was only your explanation of your thoughts that got me thinking about all of the above in such a precise mathematical way, because I only really play live and not very often nowadays, so your coaching has taught me something that I had never fully analysed properly, and I thank you for that.

I may well have, and probably have been making the correct decisions in that spot anyway, but of course understanding the exact logic and processes behind making the correct decision will mean that I am more consistent so can play that spot perfectly every time from now on.

I don't agree with this. It's not very likely that they bet a hand that has poor equity, especially if they think like you do. At least you need to take it into consideration if you are trying to math it out. Do it properly.

Since you want to fold in this hand, I can guarantee you that you haven't been making even remotely correct decisions.

You don't agree with anything, and you seem to be chopping and changing your thoughts around almost post by post.

E.g. you are checking your strong hands, then when I demonstrate your own point that you made, you still argue with me and tell me to math it out.
I think you need to make your mind up.

Underlying all of this is that I am very sure that Big O is quite unsolved and the way you have replied, given that you are supposedly a good player at it, confirms this.
Remember that at multiple times through poker theory history, various eras of players thought they had solved the game, only to find out later on that they hadn't.
I suspect that this will happen even post solvers.

The reason why I say that is because there is an obvious flaw in NLHE solvers regarding river bet sizing. But I am not going to ever mention it on this forum
as I'll have 2000 people attacking me, which is what happens if you ever disagree with convention. It is such an obvious error, but no-one ever questions is because "solvers are right".

That's until someone discovers that they are not always right, and/or a better solver comes along.

Anyway, we are going around in circles here, you and I, so let's wait for the OP to come back and tell us the outcome of the hand and discuss after that.

Gl

I don't argue with checking some strong hands, but I argue with your claim that all hands that have over 66,6% equity should be checked. I don't know what you have misunderstood, but I haven't chopped or changed my thoughts at all.

I didn't say all hands over 66.6%, I was just demonstrating the principle. (I probably should have been more clear about that, apologies.)

Naturally there will be some hands where we need a bit more protection, so we might bet these even if we think theoretically we're giving away 3% of EV
because we never truly know what our equity is. This is part of why I am saying that Big O just isn't solved, meaning that everyone is making some mistakes at
it, even the top players in the world.

Fwiw, PLO MTTs are definitely not solved either, there is way more complexity to how they should be played than I have ever heard supposedly good PLO MTT
players talk about. Incidentally, these people are always good PLO cash game players that think they have solved PLO MTTs. They haven't. PLO MTTs and PLO cash
are like comparing an Elephant to a Rhino, some similarities, different animal.

You seem to enjoy discussing solvers and different poker formats being solved or not - with yourself. I'm not a solver guy at all, and have never claimed something is or is not solved. Just focus on understanding principles and you'll do fine.

If you have 70% equity, why would you check and give a free card to a villain who will only bet if he catches up? Great way to lose the maximum and win the minimum.

We are checking if we evaluate that they will very likely be betting. In instances where we don't think they will, we bet. We're going to also be factoring in the opponent's tendencies,
any blockers and/or reverse blockers that we have and general game dynamics, to come to our decision.

I agree that the decision on whether to check or bet with an SPR of 1 on the flop is not as straightforward as say in NLHE if we have for example flopped top two on a dry board, where we'll always check OOP and will check or bet very small in position with an SPR of 1, but in Big O there will still be some very strong hands where we want to check for the same reason, to get all the money in and maximise every last percentage point of EV, but yes it can give the opponent a chance to catch up. Checking our very strong hands in Big O is also part of playing balanced, as it allows us to check some of our weaker hands too, because the opponent will be unsure whether we are checking because we are weak or because we are strong.

Slow-playing ABC in very low SPR spots: check hands that don't need a lot of protection. I am assuming we are still talking about checking OOP (which villain didn't do). Hands that he should check are strong 23(5), like 2334, A237. Hearts are a nice bonus, though I don't think it's that relevant even. When checked to Hero should be betting many of his hands that contain hearts.

Since he didn't check, we can remove some of the strongest hands from his range, making Hero's call even more clear. Though even if villain is a drooler who doesn't understand poker and just bets all of his best hands, it's a call, which I'd say was already proven by a simple sim giving Hero 65% against a reasonable pre-flop range for villain. It's just a good flop for Hero's hand, plain and simple. Even against A23!AA Hero has 44,5%, A237!AA 39,7%. I have no idea why this thread exists even.

I agree with you that on a pure theory basis, which is the best way to look at poker and to be a winning player, that in the OP's wwyd, it is a call.

I'm personally folding in this one very isolated hand, playing live, because without having info on the specific villain, I think that at live low stakes, which is what this is,
the villain will bet their very strong hands, not check them. So I put the villain on a very strong hand. I could easily be wrong.
And if I am right then I am not going to be "I told you so" and be results orientated, because I agree with you Amok with the game theory that we should call.

As I say, I play a bit different to most players and I 90% play live, so my natural game is to combine sound game theory with other human factors, live reads, and some outside of
the box thinking.

Well, I see this as a huge possibility for you to improve your game. I already showed you that you have enough equity even vs top2+nl (which doesn't exclude the possibility that he has a fd too btw)... Just drop the guessing part, non-existing live reads, voodoo magic, out of the box nonsense and you'll improve.

I could not care less about the results of this hand.

Results please.

I am very good at live reads and player profiling. I think this is valid, only because playing live the sample size is so small, so your P & L will often be determined by 2 or 3 key pots per session.
I agree that it's progressively less important, the more the poker variant is pure maths based, and Big O is definitely a very maths based game.

My main game is regular 4 card PLO, which lies somewhere between maths based and psychology based when playing live and I have often named all 4 cards or 3 of the 4 cards
in an opponent's hand before correctly folding or correctly calling. Players give a lot of info away live, if you observe them for long enough and pay very close attention. I am not just talking about live tells, I am talking about their betting patterns and starting hand ranges, their attitude towards risk, the size of their bankroll, what time they usually go home and many other factors.

I've only ever played Big O in cash games as part of a Dealer's Choice game and it's been as often 6 card as 5 card. Most players are pretty bad at it, they are particularly bad at starting hand selection, so they're giving you a nice edge right from the get go.

So from
you've gotten to
which can be seen as some kind of progress. At least you are no longer in full denial.

i.e. you should be able to understand that the opposite of your strengths - stuff like bigO, sims, math, poker theory, online play or a hand history with no reads are not your strongest suit. Yet you fail to behave in a manner that is coherent with these facts.