![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I'm still a newbie stud player, so take my advice with a big grain of salt.
My inclination would be to always bring it in for the minimum, without necessarily even bothering to look first. I simply don't see the advantage to be gained by bringing it in for more, as compared to being able to reraise the raiser and win more with a premium hand like pocket aces.
If you bring it in for a full bet with a marginal hand like a medium pair, you're in a spot where you may get raised (and even reraised) and the best play will be to fold. In that case, you've wasted the difference between the full bet and the minimum. If you've got AA or KK down, then play for more. If no one raises, it's not a disaster, since you still have the best starting hand. You're still in a profitable situation, just one that has a lot more volatility.
In a tournament, when you're in the later stages, I can see the advantage to bringing it in for a full bet when stealing the antes is more than worth it, given your stack size and the like.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg:
I like your post and the advice you give. One thing I would add is that in a ring game you should probably bring it in for a full bet once in a while to keep your opponents guessing. there is something to be said about not looking (to avoid giving away tells), but this depends on your opponents. In most places I have played, 10-20 and lower players are generally not that skilled nor observant and may never pick up on this anyway. (don't get me wrong, a few are very skilled, but I generally avoid them!).
Several months ago, I posted a hand in 10-20 stud where I had (AA)2 and tried for a limp-reraise by bringing it in for 3$ and hoping someone raised. The player on my left had a king and immediately raised, after which two players called and I reraised. There was some discussion that I could have opted to bring it in for a raise and hope the king reraised and limited the field, possibly to just him and me, after which I could make it three bets with my hidden aces and play heads up with aces against kings.
Good post Greg, I just had to play Devil's advocate a little bit and offer a possibly alternate strategy!
Dave in Cali
I was playing $15-$30 stud game with a $2 ante and a $5 low card bring in. My hole cards are the Four of Hearts and the Four of Spades. My doorcard is the Queen of Spades. Deuce of Clubs on my left brings it in. Ten of Hearts calls. Jack of Clubs, Nine of Clubs, Three of Diamonds all fold. Ace of Spades calls. Eight of Hearts on my right calls. I call with no possibility of a raise. There is $41 in the pot and 5 players.
On fourth street, player #4 with Deuce of Clubs gets the Nine of Diamonds. #5 with the Ten of Hearts gets the Three of Hearts. #6,#7, and #8 had folded. #1 with Ace of Spades gets the Deuce of Diamonds. #2 with the Eight of Hearts gets the Seven of Diamonds. I catch the Six of Spades giving me three Spades to go with my pocket Fours. #1 checks. #2 checks. I check. #4 checks. #5 bets $15. #1 folds. #2 calls. I call because I have caught a third Spade and only one Spade is gone plus my cards are still live. I am putting the bettor on a Heart flush draw. With the Ace of Spades gone, if I make a flush it won't be Ace high. #4 folds. There is $86 in the pot and three players.
On fifth street #2 gets the Seven of Clubs so he now has an open pair of Sevens. I catch the Nine of Spades giving me four Spades with three of them showing on the board. #5 catches the King of Diamonds breaking off his Heart flush draw temporarily. #2 is high so he bets $30. I consider raising because I have a four flush and a hidden pair and my cards are all very live. The problem is that I am afraid of the open pair of Sevens. I just call. #5 just calls. There is $176 in the pot.
On sixth street, #2 catches the Queen of Clubs. I catch the Jack of Spades giving me a Spade flush. #5 catches the Ace of Hearts. So #2 has 8h, 7d, 7c, Qc showing, I have Qs,6s,9s,Js showing with the 4s and 4h in the hole, and #5 has 10h,3h,Kd,Ah showing. #2 is still high board with his open Sevens and he checks. I bet $30 with my flush. #5 now raises to $60 and #2 cold-calls $60. At this point, the raiser must have Heart flush. He knows I have a Spade flush with four Spades showing and I came out betting. His raise tells me his flush is Ace high and we both know the Ace of Spades was folded. In addition, there is a third player involved who has a live open pair and who called the raise cold. If he is not already full, he could have 3 sevens and get a full house. It will cost me $30 more now and probably $30 at the river. If it were heads-up I would make crying calls all the way to the river and hope #5 was bluffing or betting on the come. But the presence of a third player makes a critical difference. I reluctantly fold. There is $326 in the pot and two players.
On seventh street, #2 checked and #5 bet $30. #2 called. #5 wins since his hole cards were the Ace of Diamonds, the Jack of Hearts, and the Queen of Diamonds for an Ace-high straight at the river beating #2 who had the Eight of Spades, the Six of Clubs, and the King of Spades for two pair Eights over Sevens.
Obviously, I made a huge mistake by folding my flush on sixth street. #5 raised on an Ace high flush draw despite looking at my four Spades. #2 stayed hoping to fill up.
Any comments?
you need to know your players better before you can fold in big pots. all that money out there and you fold just because its raised. i bet you also made some tough folds before and he picked up on it. most times you would be right in folding though. its the times that you are wrong that hurt. i guess if you were going to fold if raised you should have checked because you werent sure that a raise meant you were dead. maybe you should have raised on 5th st. the pair of sevens was not his door card so he looked like maybe eights and sevens. you had spades, a four or a queen or a nine to hit and win. also you could drive out the other hand maybe and enable you to win with 2 pair. when the pot gets big these plays pay off when they work and since you are drawing ok its not bad at all.
Jim,
I think you played the hand correctly, especially on 6th street. Your non-raise on 5 is another story, but it depends on what I give #5. If I give him a flush draw, I will just call on five, unless I give #2 just the sevens and am hoping to run a semi-bluff. If I give #2 two pair and #5 four hearts I will play it exactly as you did. When we both suit-up on 6, I will invest $30 to see if #5 has the flush. I am also allowing him to be bluffed out because most players will not make a raise w/o having a heart flush so I would have no problem folding rather than giving a free card.
After reading the other responses, here are my thoughts.
I think you should have raised on 5th. You said your cards were very live so you had a good draw. A semi-bluff raise could have driven out the straight draw. As for the open pair of sevens, I say test him out see if he really has trips. Represent that you already have the flush and make them think about continuing with their draws on 5th. One they get to 6th they will probably be river bound and not going to fold whether you raise or not.
As for the fold, I am hard pressed to say that I would have done different. It's just one of those very tough decisions that really hurts when you are wrong. I can see you remembered every detail, as is usually the case on these tough hands.
Dave in Cali
I don't think you have a very good multi-way hand on 3rd, esp. w/ the As visibly out. Raise or Fold. Paves the way for a bet on 4th, esp. w/ all the trash that came out.
#5 prob'ly would've cry called $60 on 5th, then bet when checked to on 6th. I don't see how he could've bet on 7th when checked to. Costs you $90 either way, but this way you might get a free showdown. His raise didn't need to tell you his flush was Ace high, his BOARD already was (Boy, what an absolute stone perfect catch for him). If you check-call on 6th, you can fold on 7th if #2 bets out (he HAS to bet if he fills). I dunno if #5 would bet if he flushes out and is checked to on 7th, but he definitely isn't going to bet if he doesn't. You'd be getting $386 for $30 on this call, though, with no one to act behind you, and you know he knows you know he...etc..., that he's got the Ace and your Ace is dead.
BTW I find these 7Stud hands much more entertaining and educational than Hold 'em hands. Great detail and thanks for posting it.
Jim,
You put this guy on ONE hand and that was your mistake. You played loser poker. Why bet, especially in a big pot, if you can't stand a raise? I was very surprised to read this hand from you. I gotta know the player that raised extremely well before I even consider folding this hand and then I call. Maybe a call is not CORRECT poker strategy here but it is correct poker PLAYING. There is an old saying that my father or uncle or some other old timer used to use. It goes "If you don't bet on the come the come don't come" In this case your opponent bet the come and it came without coming. Saving "bets" is very important in poker. But saving them for the right reasons is even more important. But why am I preaching to you. I've read your threads before. You know all this.
Vince.
I think you made a mistake not raising on fifth street. You must know something about player #2 - a guy who calls a raise on 6th against two obvious flushes with low 2-pair(maniac mark?). You shouldn't have had as much respect for him - you could probably easily put him on 8's over 7's but you have all sorts of outs - your flush and higher 2-pairs. If you make your flush or high 2-pair its going to very obvious, and if you don't you don't want to let someone else pick up their boat or their flush, so there's no reason to keep more people in the pot here - you want to semi-bluff and get it heads up against either the maniac or the flush draw - that's where your odds will be the best.
And I am talking about 7CS!
A game gaining in popularity in my home games is 7CS Roll Your Own where the player gets to chose what his upcards are. It strikes me as a good game -- but it has a lot of variables.
Assuming everyone choses their upcard without knowing what everybody else is going to expose, I was wondering if anybody had any pointers on what cards should be exposed. When do you show strength? When do you expose your kicker v. a paired card, etc.?
Initially, I imagine that one's starting requirments shouldn't necessarily vary from those of normal 7Cs just because of the twist.
Generally, I have been exposing one of my pair cards, so that I have the chance of getting a hidden two pair. That is, unless my pair is really high, then I would expose my kicker.
I think the specific advice given by the other posts is great. In this game, you have a chance to be much more creative because of the "roll your own" format. You have much more opportunity to make "plays". In regular 7CS you have only 5 choices: bet, call, fold, raise, check-raise. In roll your own, you can combine these with choosing what to show your opponents.
I think the best way to approach this game is to show the cards that will cause your opponents to make the most or biggest mistakes against you. When you want callers because you have a big hand, hide most of your strength. When you need people out because your hand is vulnerable, show your strength. For the most part the general guidelines for regular stud should still apply.
By the way, is the exposure of the upcards done in sequence or simultaneous or what? If you can see what cards your opponents are exposing, you may decide to change the card you expose. I have played many versions of this game and the rules differ from house to house.
Dave in Cali
Play the game often in home games. I play fairly tight and win a lot from the manics (my in-laws). There are variants. The average winning hand is a boat, and is common to have quads esp if you roll after each card is dealt. What you need is a pocket pair and or a duce or trey in the hole. I'd like a dollar for everytime one of the players is top till the last card they craps out with an in between card or changes his low.
Try Scenario software on the www. They have a downloadable shareware game that permits 7CS roll.
Jon,
if the players are mostly going to call anyway, i would tend to show the cards that would make me last to act. also dont show the cards that will kill your action when you make a big hand and they will then be drawing mostly dead.( like flush cards) the big thing is to learn the habits of your opponents and then it becomes easy to read them. watch as they hesitate and decide what to do. then figure out just what they were looking at. since there will be more concealed hands against you pairs should have less value and the need to improve them becomes even more important. you might benefit by folding more often in earlier rounds due to the big hands that will appear that you cant read and save money on. good luck.
I was going to comment about "roll your own", but apparantly we are talking about two different things (if you catch my meaning, if you get my drift).
c
O.K. I've been playing that online poker which seems to have some fishy players playing 8-16 7CS. Here is the Ante Structure.
Ante= $2 per player
Low card Bring in= $4
On 3rd Street the first Raise completes the bet to $8 and second Raise is increments of $8.
This is like playing 15-30 with a $3.75 ante and a $7.50 bring in.
To top it off the action is loose. How do I adapt, or should I just leave this game be.
Rake is Maxed at $3
Thanks, CV
This is the same structure as the 80-160 at the Bellagio except the bring in is twice as much. Thus you should fold some hands you would limp in with at 80-160. A solid, not too tight game, that makes liberal use of reraises on third st. should get the money.
David,
It occurred to me after reading your brief but wonderful response that this one particular point, ante structure, especailly as described here would make an excellant essay. Maybe it's been done before but I can't recall reading one anywhere. I've read a few half heartedly written paragraphs on this subject before but none that do it justice. It seems to me that "the fight for the ante's" is an extremely important poker concept. Thoroughly understanding what it is you are fighting for has to help your play. I know that Mason usually doesn't allow you to write essays but he should make an exception here. I also understand that you got this "fuzzy thinking" column and you spend your writing time there. But; " A solid, not to tight game, that makes liberal use of reraises on third street, should get the money"; is just too beautifully concieved advice to allow to dangle at the end of a thread response.
It is advice I believe that only advanced (high limit) players can appreciate at face value without the need for further explanation. Thus begging the need for an essay, IMO. Maybe Mason will help if you ask him nicely. He's got this thing about essays.
Vince.
Don't you guys think a $3 cut is too large and almost impossible to beat? That would be $30 in 80-160 or $15 in 40-80. At only 15 pots/hour, the rake is close to 3 big bets/hour. That would be 450/hour at 80-160. Even in California, 80-160 rakes for 8 hands is only around $200/hour. Tough rake to beat don't you think?
You need a few players to play rather badly to make this game beatable. However with this particular stucture, bad play does not necessarily just mean very loose play.
Russ, the rake is $3 per pot not $3 per hand dealt in. thats less than 100 an hour total. still its always tough to beat the rake as the game gets smaller. and it tougher to beat the players as the game gets bigger.
Ray,
Thanks for the clarification on the take (pots/hands dealt). The statement you made about beating the rake in the little games and beating the players in the bigger games certainly is the truth.
I am a relative novice, so take my advice with a grain of salt. If one of the more advanced players notes a glaring mistake, I would appreciate the correction. I hate giving wrong advice more than being wrong.
"I am dealt a high pair on third street (sometimes split). In LL since there is no ante, I usually just call on 3rd street instead of raise, and, if I were to bet since I have a 'rock' image, everyone wouild folds"
I would ask the question if everyone folds to your bet, why aren't you betting more. Keep betting until they start calling you. If no one ever calls you without decent hands, when you win one of these steals, "accidently" throw your cards face up. Even, if you can't get the rocks to call, you will get alot more action from the real weak players. Especially in low limit where people like to play anything for a $1, I don't think you can afford to give these guys a cheap card. Thus, you have to alter your image to get more callers.
As to the question of when to slow down, I have given it alot of thought, and think the answer depends more on the player you face than your cards. LL is often filled with players that can be stereotyped.
Is this a tight passive player who had an overcard as his doorcard and is letting you bet his unimproved pair, but will never fold if he can beat your board? Slow down, this player usually hates to bet a single pair.
Is this a weak player that will play any draw, then you bet every round and hope he doesn't pair.
Maniacs will only let you have the lead if they have nothing, so bet into them.
Is this a player who you believe to be a decent player, letting you bet? I am not cetain what to do here. I play my home game with Todd and I hate it when I am up against him. The only thing I can say is that he usually bets if he knows he has me beat(and he says he reads me so well I might as well show him my cards). So by calling here, he is usually saying that he doesn't know absolutely that he has me beat, but is certain that if he hits his draw, I don't have a chance in hell. Showing weakness against him is deadly, as he will certainly take the lead. So, my guess is that you keep betting, and wait for the inevitable check-raise. Todd, you baaaastaaaard.
Seriously though, I think it depends greatly on your opponent. You have to know wether it is more likely your opponent is on a draw or has a high pair, or a low pair. Since the LL games I have played in have several of the weak passive players, you will need to slow down occasionally. But I think you continue agressive play against all others.
Wayne
I agree with Wayne to most extent. Whether to call or raise depends on the cards are showing and your position. Next it would matter the make-up of the table, and since one often does not know it, I can not make that as important as the former reasons. Although that comes into play later. I know a LL player who ALWAYS raises max when he has A or K. I do not agree, but he is a consistant winner. He is a former physics professor.
I still contend the LL is a trap game, so there is no pure approved action. It is always dependent on many factors that develop as the game progresses.
I have had the similar thoughts in regards to the intial post and also to the responses. I, too, am trying to improve my game and have found the question of "aggressiveness" with big pairs early in low-limit stud somewhat perplexing. I play the budget table usually, $1-3, and sometimes $1-5. I have encountered very little difference in the games. $1-5 bets get a slightly more respect, but there is still the cadre of passive, loose players at the tables who are often difficult to read and stay around to draw out on my early lead.
I must admit Walter that I find you somewhat courageous in waiting until 4th Street to make the raise. I have slowplayed my 3rd street big pairs into defeat more often than I want to remember. I have and still do slowplay big pairs on 3rd, but my intent is to keep my tablemates off the rhythmn of my game rather than trying to trap them. Often, with the intent of traping other players with my big pair, I watch as they catch their straight, flush, full house (off two small pair) on 7th and crush my two pair, or they pair up with the pocket 5s and beat me cause I don't catch that second pair.
The considered opinions expressed in the responses to your post all have merit and have been helpful to me. It seems there is no definite formula to the question, like most of poker playing it depends on the cirucumstances.
On Sunday, at a 1-3 game, some loose/passive types and a couple of solid aggressive players I was in last position on 3rd street with 7h,Qh/Qs and raised. The player to my left called with xx/5s. Now I had been playing with him for about an hour and noticed he liked to get in the hand. He didn't start with absurd cards, but he seemed to like to draw to straigts and flushes. He was also passive, a trapper either by design or accident.
Everybody else folded and I have him heads up. 4th Street: I with 7h,Qh/Qs,10h...my opponent with xx/5s, 3c. He could be on a small straight draw (as so many of them are), but I would have been more worried if he caught a spade, so I bet another $3.
5th Street brings me a blank and him a 6s. Since I don't improve and now he may have something that I should be alert to, 4 card straight draw or 4 flush, I check.
On 6th street he catchs an 8c and I an 8h. I have seen no spades played other than on his board. I have a four flush too but saw a few hearts folded early and don't have much of a chance to catch one here, and there isn't a whole lot of chips in the pot. His board is XX/5s, 3c, 6s, 8c.
So now there are a number of scenarios I can imagine for his hand. Flush draw or straight draw maybe combined with a small pair or two. I check on 6th, even though I have the best hand at the moment.
7th Street brings me a flush, Q high. The lead is mine and I bet. At this point I have made my hand, there are no overcards on his board, he may have hit his flush with hidden big cards, but he may not have a flush at all. All in all, I think its a good bet. Alas, he raises. I call. He has a spade flush with a K inside. Voila. I knew the opponenet somewhat, I played his board, I took the odds into consideration, played aggressive from the beginning, slowed down when I thought that betting was not going to get him out or result in my winning more chips...and I lost the hand. Sometimes it goes that way. Any comments would be welcome.
As before, opinions of novice.
"5th Street brings me a blank and him a 6s. Since I don't improve and now he may have something that I should be alert to, 4 card straight draw or 4 flush, I check. "
You hold (7hQh)QThx, He shows 5s,3c,6s. You are playing a loose player(I use loose to describe a player who plays more starting hands than a tight player). But also a passive player(I use passive to describe a player who will not bet unless he has a made hand). I say this is an automatic maximum bet. My reasoning is this. If he has his hand made he will raise you, and you drop. This type of player isn't sophisticated enough to bluff raise, and wont slow play a made hand. Thus, unless he has both the straight and the flush draw, he is the underdog. You will win more than half the time against either the flush or the straight draw alone. At this point he likely has the odds to call, but you are the favorite and should make him pay for every card.
"So now there are a number of scenarios I can imagine for his hand. Flush draw or straight draw maybe combined with a small pair or two. I check on 6th, even though I have the best hand at the moment."
The reasoning above also applies here. I don't think you can ever fail to bet when ahead, unless you are the prohibitive favorite. Never give a free card to someone on a draw.
The seventh street bet is questionable. Since you thought he was more likely to be on a flush draw than the straight, you have to consider whether if he makes a flush will it beat yours. To have good value, he should have overcards to your presumptive pair. Thus, I would probably check call given the situation.
However, at this level, most players value a straight as highly as a flush and thus bet and raise on the river with it. If his suit had been dead or if you had decided that he was on a straight draw alone, I would have bet-reraise.
When this type of player makes his flush or straight, just remember that he is likely to give that money back to you in the end.
Wayne
There was a very interesting thread on another forum talking about the difference between spread limit and fixed limit. It said that the spread limit favored the better player. The reasoning was that weak players will bet low amounts allowing the good player to have good odds to draw, where the good players will bet the max, punishing weak players on bad draws. Something to remember the next time you sit at a 1-3 or 1-5 table.
Wayne
wayne said,
"The seventh street bet is questionable. Since you thought he was more likely to be on a flush draw than the straight, you have to consider whether if he makes a flush will it beat yours. To have good value, he should have overcards to your presumptive pair. Thus, I would probably check call given the situation. "
I think when you make you flush you bet it. Especially when your highest card is in the hole. His opponent may put him on two pair, or a weak flush. Probably two pair, since he checked when his opponents board started to look like a straight.
Todd
ps. i agree with the other stuff you said. You sound like you know what you are talking about. You been sneaking out on the side to play with out me?
To over simplify it, there are only two reasons to bet on the river. One, you do not have the best hand and you want to make a better hand fold. Two, you have the best hand and you want a call.
The first, you are making a play for the pot, and thus can get fairly good odds on your bet. However, the player has to be able to fold a winning hand. At low limit, you almost never see anybody folding even two pair, unless someones board shows 4 flush or 4 straight or trips or better two pair. In this case, I am sure we can agree, that his opponent will not fold a hand better than Q high flush.
The second, getting called by a lessor hand. Here, you are making a play for a bet equal to what you are risking. Thus, you must get called by a losing hand half the time you get called. And this does not count the times you get raised by a better hand and lose an extra bet. Note: not half the time you make the play, since your opponent folding wins you no money. So, our hero believes he is up against a flush draw. On the side of making a better hand, you opponent has at least the A or K he can draw(perhaps Q as well), and there is the possibility he already had one of these and just needs another of the suit.
In this situation, our hero's hand is relatively well disquised. But, if he had been playing agressive, his opponent would rarely call with less than two pair. So, the question is, Will your opponent make a hand worth calling with as often as he makes a hand that will beat yours. Add to this, the possibility of losing another bet to the raise, and I think you shouldn't bet on the river. If our hero has KQhigh flush, I think he should bet, as the number of flushes that lose to his goes up. I think the Bet Call has a negative EV in this case with the Q high flush.
Now, compare this to the check call. Your opponent checks, you likely win. Your opponent bets. Your check showed weakness and encourages a bluff(semi-bluff) by your opponent. You certainly would have odds to call.
I think the check call has the highest EV in this case.
As I said above, I think there are only two reasons to bet. 1) To have a person with a better hand fold or 2) To have a weaker hand call. If neither of these have a positive EV, you have to check. Then you have to decide if calling has a positive EV.
Wayne
ps It is easier to think about these things in the slow motion of the forum than sitting at the table.
Chuckles, you certainly dont sound like a novice anymore.
There are a couple of points to consider that do not invalidate your analysis, but I think that they are relevent.
First. Our hero played passively. It is by no means a certainty that the OPponent had a str8 on 4th, and a flush draw on the river. Our hero, by checking on 5th and 6th, gave any measly hand a shot at him, including a pair of 5's with an inside straight draw! OP only put $7 into the pot.
Second, the OP played very passively. If you were checked into with 4 flush on 5th, you would probably bet. So would I. Make the hero sweat it. Make him decide if I have 2 pair, a str8, etc. When the OP has a decision to make, he has the opportunity to make the wrong decision. If you let him in for free, then shame on you.
So we are trying to analyze the river play based at least partly on the outcome. I am arguing that it is absolutely incorrect to assume OP was on a flush draw on the river. He could have 5's, or a pocket pair, he could have 2 small pair. He could have the miracle str8. Since OP was never threatened by the hero, and since he just checked 5th and 6th, you gotta assume he is weak, or just really passive. You know that passive/calling stations are the bread and butter of low limit stud. So I would have bet into him and paid off, because I would expect the pair of 5's to still be there at the river, and OP would have called if he made any 2 pair, or better. Maybe a really bad calling station (our other friend) would call with just 5's cuz he thinks you are on a draw that didnt come, and he doesnt want to be bluffed.
I think your analysis is very strong, but I think if you look at the play of the hand, you would have bet also. If the OP played more aggresively and bet on 5th or 6th, suggesting strength, then check on the river and call, since OP is obviously going for something, and your hand is a little vulnerable. Otherwise gotta soak the calling stations.
Missed you at Lab today.
later
Todd
Not that this should be our personal arguement, but there is one thing I consider of primary importance in poker. That is KNOW YOUR OPPONENT. If you felt your opponent was on a flush draw, you should play it differently than if you felt he had a pair or two or even a straight draw. Our hero said he felt his opponent was on a flush draw. In that case I think it is a clear check call. You or I might have put our opponent on something else. We also would have played it differently.
As for how I would have played, remember that I am the guy that raised a straight against what the whole table knew was a flush. I get giddy when I get Aces up, let alone a flush. Of course I would have bet. But just because that is the play I would make in the casino, doesn't make it right.
Wayne
I'll let it rest now, if you want to get in the last word. :0)
"5th Street brings me a blank and him a 6s. Since I don't improve and now he may have something that I should be alert to, 4 card straight draw or 4 flush, I check."
Wayne sort of said this already, but you have to bet here. It is almost beyond the realm of possibility that he has a straight,this is his board [XX/5s, 3c, 6s] since his hole cards would have to be (24)5 or (47)5. The only person who calls this for a raise is the kind of maniac you want to play against. Since you said he doesnt start with absurd cards, you can safely exclude a straight. If he doesnt have a made hand, then you should definately bet into him. If he started with (5x)5 he probably has one pair, if he has two they are both < Q, so you are either a small favorite or even money to keep playing. It is also likely that he started with 2 or 3 spades, thus as wayne said you are still a favorite. If you bet and he only has 3 spades he may flee, if he has 4 spades he may raise, and you can interpret that as he saying "I either have 2 pair or I have a 4 flush"
Same for 6th street, no spade so make him pay. This is especially true since you now have a flush draw to go with your high pair.
By checking, you make it easy for him to make decisions. He doesnt have to decide what you have, and whether to continue playing. Some times the decision will be easy for him, as when he has a 4 flush, but other times he may still have the pair of 5's, with the same board. Basically you are asking him to out draw you for free. Big mistake.
When his board shows that he could have a made hand, then slow down. Until then make him pay to beat you.
Todd
Todd and Wayne
Thanks for you considered comments. Both have made good points.
Just for the record: opponent has xx/5s, 3c, 6s. If he started with 4,6,/5s he has an open ended straight draw with a pair of 6s. A 456 starting hand would not be uncommon for my opponent or the limit.
Both of you have suggested bets on 5th & 6th Street. I appreciate the suggestions and the reasons for them. Your responses encouraged a more aggressive approach to this particular hand, and I, to an extent, agree.... but I have some doubts....and this was the reason for my post really. I don't know if my doubts have any merit or what, so I seek feedback.
The initial post asked about aggressiveness and how far into the hand he should apply it. I decided to take the hand which I played recently and post it because I believed it had many of the elements the initial post wished to address and I wanted to get some opinions about the way I played the hand.
One of my struggles lately has been with getting drawn out on, seemingly most of the time (I know every beat isn't a bad one). I'm talking about starting with the best hand and getting beat, most often on the river. I have no hard data to back this observation up with, but it happens alot, and seems to be more than half the time.... and it has affected me. I don't know if it is bad luck, my playing, or the nature of a loose/passive game and players at the lowest limit, but I have become uncertain about the efficacy of being aggressiveness at this level, especially in hands like the one I posted. Previous to the present, I would have bet right down to 7th Street, making my opponent pay, but with the number of times feel I'm getting drawn out on...I wonder if its my opponent who pays or me? My opponent did make his flush on the river heads up against my starting Qs, and he didn't catch his 4th spade until 5th Street. If I did bet on 5th and 6th Street, he would have called and the only person paying would have been me. If I have the big pair on 3rd Street, I will usually raise it. I usually have success getting heads up with another player, sometimes two, I have kept pressure on and am very mindful of the board and who I am playing, as best I can, .....but it seems some Tom, Sally or Don catches their draw on 7th Street and I'm in the dumper. This is not self-pity or a beef about getting drawn out on....I am truly uncertain about the advantage of aggressiveness at this limit. I feel at this point that I'm losing 2 out of three of the hands like the one I described in my post. That is the reason i didn't bet that hand on 5th & 6th Streets. I'm tired of making a pot for somebody else. My feelings about this just may be a matter which will in time show themselves to be unfounded, just an unfortunate stretch of getting beat in these situations. But I"m curious if anybody else feels if they are not experiencing the results of aggressive betting or if anybody may have some insights into the situation which will improve my card playing.
Richard
Badger,
Thanks for your response. I find myself nodding my head in agreement at your suggestions to often show strength except in cases of flushes and sets.
However, I find myself playing with loose players who do not fold and generally hide their strength. Where I show strength I have to bet more often than not, and get consistently raised and reraised by hands of obviously unknown strength (ranging from unsuited overcards to high pairs). Does this change your assessment?
There was 8.5 big bets in the pot on the river. A bad player to my right with a big pair on board checked. I had a very small pair on board and decided not to bluff at the pot and checked. The pro behind me bet. The bad player folded and it was up to me to decide what to do. All I had was a very small pair. The pro caught me by surprise when he bet the river and I started hesitating so a raise was out of the question or so I thought.
Going into the river:
I knew he was on a draw, he knew I knew he was on a draw, both him and me knew I was on a draw and we also knew the bad player did not have anything to go with his high pair. So the question is for you smaller limit players would you fold? And you higher/bigger limit players would you call?
His hand was live.
I say fold because the Pro figured to get called by the bad player. This would be a different story heads up but I think 8.5 to 1 would be bad odds for bluffing two players this hand.
Then again I'm new to stud.
Later, CV
Low limit player here.
What is the chance that he had no pair? You said, you had a very small pair, lets guess 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s. Your asking yourself not only did he miss draw, but that he has esentially no pair(especially if his board showed medium to high cards). I fold on this basis. The pro would feel much more confident making a play against the bad player if he knew he had you beat.
Wayne
ps I think the decision was actually made the first time around. By checking, you esentially forfeit your interest in the pot. With such a low hand you essentially have to decide wether to bet or check fold. You opted for check fold.
By checking, you told him you would fold - thus he's only trying (maybe) to bluff one hand. For the (now) 9.5 : 1 odds, I'd give him the last bet.
DJ (mostly low limit)
simple, if you think there is a more than about one in ten chance he is bluffing and you can beat the bluff call. ill go with DJ here.
I am sitting at a table and a woman raises with an Ace showing. I know this player well. She will only raise with a pair of Queens or better. I also know that her play will be to bet if high board. If her board is not high she will call if bet into, as long as she can beat your board. If checked into she will check unless improved, in that case she will bet.
What does it take to call a raise from this woman?
Can you call with a pair less than Aces, and if so, under what circumstances?
How much money must be in the pot or how many people must be in the game to call with a drawing hand(would you ever play a 3 straight)?
Wayne
This has been covered in a lot of books. It is old the 3rd street play. There are a lot of variables here. A lot depends on position, other players, your up card, other cards showing, the level of play (i.e.1-5, 15-30).
Plaaying with a straight - depends on th erank, if 2 cards are suited and the number of players and implied odds. Again covered perfectly in Sklansly et al's Green book.
Get the book today! (seriously)
7CSFAP (I don't have it in front of me) has a chapter titled "Reraising the Bigger Pair." I'd check it out. I've only read it once through, so far, so I don't have total recall of its contents.
7CSFAP states that "It is sometimes correct to reraise on third street with a big pair when a higher upcard has raised. This is especially true.....against someone whose upcard is duplicated elsewhere." So, if you know your opponent plays as discribed, at what point does it become proper to reraise with a pair of Ks. When you have seen 1 other ace? Even if I have seen two other aces, does it make it more likely that my opponent has a high pair in the hole than a split pair of aces? I have not done the math, but isn't it more likely that my opponent has (Ax)A, than (KK)A or (QQ)A, when I hold KK.
The heart of the question was really trying to get at the value of such additional considerations as a two flush or your opponents cards being dead. If a player has a pair of aces that are completely dead, aren't you still an underdog even if your Ks are completely live.
The example hands in 7CSFAP, show the value of a single dead card and a two flush, but not a cumulative total. My feeling is that you throw away any pair, but was wondering if others felt differently. Also, wondered if pot size or other opponents would make the hand any more playable.
Also, the nature of drawing hands has interested me. 7CSFAP says "...if you have a three flush and none of your suit is out, your hand is almost always playable...". However, in the example hands the 3 flush wins 31.5% of the time, less than the lower pair against Aces(33%). This suggests that heads up, you would prefer to play the lower pair compared to a live 3 flush. Yet, I could invision playing a 3 flush against this opponent in multi-way action where as stated above would not likely play a lower pair. If correct, there should be some determinant of when to play. For example, at least 3 playing with the pot offering at least 3:1 odds or something like that.
Wayne
10-20 stud. On 3rd I am rolled up with fours. Bring in is a 3 and bets 3$. Jack calls, I limp, 6 calls, King raises, Bring in folds, jack calls, I call, 6 calls, 4 way action.
4th I catch the 7h. King catches an ace, 6 pairs his door card, Jh catches 9h. Pair of sixes is high and bets 20$. All call to me, time to raise. I might be screwed already if the sixes reraise me, but the big bets are here so what am I waiting for? I raise, sixes reraises me. I am thinking I may have to fold because he now has trip sixes, but let's not jump the gun just yet... Now I am wishing I had reraised on 3rd like I probably should have! Both other players call and I call. 4 players.
5th I catch another 7 for a full boat. Other players catch blanks, or so I hope. I bet out. No free cards! Even if sixes does indeed have trip sixes, he'll just have to fill to beat me now (and PAY to try). I bet, sixes raises, both others call, I reraise, all 3 call.
6th they all catch blanks, I bet, they all call. I guess sixes hasn't filled yet.
7th I bet all but one call. Sixes actually has (22)66 on 4th and just had two pair. The jack had jacks up. Kings didn't call the last bet. I win a monster pot.
comments welcome.
Dave in cali
You should've known the 6 only had at most 2 pair - why would he call a raise from a King with only a pair of 6's? He must have held a wired pair or a flush draw. Still, calling there was probably a good play because you seemed to convince the 2 other players that your hand was weaker than it was.
from how you described the play they are all bad players. against bad players dont fold good hands, push them. with four in there and all those bets it would be wrong to fold even if you knew he had trip sixes. i hope you know that.
Ray:
thanks, and YES I know! If I somehow knew he had 666 the pot was still big enough to try and outdraw him. As it actually played, I would have made "crying calls to the end" no matter what. The pot was HUGE so I only needed a small chance of having the best hand. Besides that I have lots of outs and he may not fill. When I hit the full house on 5th I figure push it - since they are bad players, will probably call, and may NOT have me beat, but will definitely be drawing to beat me. Make 'em PAY to beat me.... And if I get raised on the river I still call anyway.
Dave in Cali
Dave,
"Bring in is a 3 and bets 3$. Jack calls, I limp, 6 calls, King raises, Bring in folds, jack calls, I call, 6 calls, 4 way action." As Ray says when someone raises into you and you are rolled up slam the whole group who cares what they think you have at this point and even if you only eliminate one person it's worth it and you have more money in there hopefully for you. You may eliminate the 6 with the pair of deuces that gave you a nightmare.
Paul
I think I would have re-raised the King's raise. I would have played the small trips as fast as I could. If the King re-raised, I might fold. Any comments?
This may be incredibly wrong, but I would never ever fold trips on third street.
The kings reraising may be a pair of kings trying to snap off a move by you. If you had the kings, you may even reraise a lower up card. I would consider letting go on 4th if the K paired. But if there is enough money in the pot, then you have to call to the river and hope to out draw. When you fill up on 5th, bet or raise every time you can.
Just my opinion
Todd
My limping in tells the King that I do not have aces. Coming over top of the King pretty much announces my trips. If the Kings re-raise and we are head to head, I suspect trip Kings esp if no king was out and those with Q have folded.
ratso,
I would just call.
Paul
Point taken. I was considering reraising on 3rd but I didn't and I was kicking myself for not doing so when 6's paired his doorcard. It's just human nature to get greedy with these premium hands and I am not immune. In all reality rolled 4's is not that premium in a multiway pot as it will get beaten more than you might expect. Thanks for the response.
Dave in Cali
all good responses. my imput is that i would not leave a game with these players if i had to play in my sleep. what did they think you had? even after you paired on board, bet and reraised
I was just at the USPC at the Taj and watched some of the big guys playing $300/$600 Omaha-8. The thing that struck me is some of the CRAP that these guys were taking to the river for a lot of cheese.
Here's an example. In one hand, it is capped before the flop and it is 4-handed. Of course, I'm thinking there must be a couple of A2-baby-baby hands and maybe a couple of suited ace or high hands to be raising and reraising.
The flop is 23T rainbow. There's a bet, a raise, a fold, and a call. The turn is a 7. There's a chack-check-bet-call-call.
The river is an 8.
A certain professional Jerj, who had check-called on the turn, now declares "I think that last card gets me the whole pot." and bets. The middle guy folds and the previous bettor just calls.
Board is 23T78 with no flushes.
The Jerj turns over A287 and says "I've got the low and two pair." I'm thinking to myself "Does he really think his low is good, is he just kidding, or is he angling?"
The other guy looks at the Jerj's hand, puzzled for a second, and then turns over his A34K (the Aces was suited) and says "I've got the nut low." They split the pot and both make a decent profit on the hand.
I watched similar antics for another 20 minutes and felt like I should go pull $50K on my credit card, sit down for awhile, and play nothing but the nuts.
Am I missing something?
Remember Ray Zee:
In small games play loose pre-flop and very tight post-flop. In big games just the contrary.
This situation came up in a 8 handed 40-80 stud game with $5 ante and $10 bring-in. The play has been extremely tight. A player to my left brought it in. Four people folded and a pro (my opinion after about 6 hours, never played against him before, I'm new to the game) called with an Ace up. The next guy folded and I was next/last with 62 6.
What do you think the right play is?
1) you think he has aces
2) you know he has aces
1. fold
2. refer to 1.
You wouldn't consider raising? You'd have position unless you improved. Perhaps against a pro it's better not to mess with it.
Tom D
I just reread the post. I forgot the two choices were thinking he had Aces, and knowing he had Aces.
Tom D
How high should I go?
I agree with Ray, Fold. However,I am curious why the "pro" did not raise with the Ace showing in that position.
Ratso -- I have little stud experience, but since I'm planning to make a project of studying it soon I'll take a shot at answering your question. You tell me if it makes sense or sounds right because it's sort of a guess.
I think *occasionally* good stud players actually slowplay a pair of aces on 3rd st. Seems I recall reading about this in an article in a poker magazine several years ago, I think it was by "Iceberg" Sitra who now writes for Poker Digest. (Of course I may have it all wrong...) I would think it might make more sense when it looks like the pot will be played short handed, as this one did. Might it just be a reasonable way of varying your play from time to time? Then the question would be do you raise on 4 or wait till 5. I don't recall what the writer said, but would guess that you raise on 4. Hmmm, maybe not. Maybe as long as you're going to slowplay it at all, you might as well wait to pull the trigger on 5? Any sense to this, or just plain goofy?
Ratso,
"The play has been extremely tight."
My theory is if he is a "pro" he might get berya to come in with exactly the type of hand he has. Maybe the pro hasn't had a hand for a while and finally gets one and everyone drops except guy next to(gnt), berya and the bring in. He has no chance of getting them to come in with a raise with that type of hand. Berya played it right if he folded because I believe the "pro" had A's or a real hand. A raise would probably eliminate gnt, Berya with hands that are questionable to play against an A and the bring in where playing possum he may hook Berya.
In conclusion I believe the pro enlarged his field for a call by calling vs a raise.
paul
That makes sense. The tight conditions would give more reason to wait a round or two before raising. Wouldn't it be better though to make this play when your ace is hidden?
.
John,
Yes of course because you've erased the fear of the A. Berya would call if he had a 5 up for sure or lower that wasn't the bring-in. Berya might even raise without the A there. Having pocket A's is very powerful when your down to a small field as in this example. He could have pocket A's with the A up it's a possibilty. That's where you have to know the players to extract maximum for the minimum. For this example I would drop as RZ stated coming out of the box. 62/6 is barely playable and HTH for me and even then debatable with a A up. A 5up probably call if 3 players as in this example.
paul
Here's the strange part. I would have played it the same way. I most likely would not have raised either for the reasons Paul and John said. Now, I figure that a pro would do the opposite of me, so thay is why the question. Maybe I am making some headway in my game. I not want to loose the other person, and probably would not raise unless I improved on 5th st.
ty
I will except that Ray knows what he is talking about with high limits, and that this hand seems like an easy fold.
However, In 1-5 I would call for the bring in. I imagine that the perfect card is a 6, and if I hit I will most likely win the pot. Having such a lame kicker would make it tough, but in 1-5, I would expect one or two to call a couple of $5 bets if I did catch a 6, which makes it pay off.
Why not pay $10 bucks to see the next card? If my math is correct, 8 antes =$40, + 2 bring ins=$20 total is 60 bucks. so you are getting 6:1 to shoot for your trips. Making trips would be 2 cards out of 42 unseen, which is pretty crappy odds.
So in this game, since it is tight, no-one will play against your 66 on the board, and you lose the implied odds necessary to call.
I guess I just answered my own question.
Thanks for the help.
Would you call if it were a loose table? Where 66 would get callers, or would you just always fold such a crappy hand?
Todd
I would call $10 in the hope of a 2 or a scare card. Either way, the Ace has to act first and if I catch a scare card, he will probably check a weak hand and bet a strong hand on 4th. I like the equity and while I don't like the hand that much, I think it is probably the best. I put the Ace on AK, or AQx, trying to limp, check the strength of the opposition and take the pot on 4th w/o having to raise into 4 handed on 3rd.
If the ace is exceptionally tight, you might even raise and get him to release. Of course, if you get reraised by that type, fold.
662 is not a call against 2 aces. if you play like this you play way too loose and cant win in any of the bigger games. sorry but thats how it is. this pot is going to be headup with any betting and you have your pair split so if you do make trips he will see them and fold. thats right pro players mostly will just fold when you pair your door card. you are trying for a long shot that if it hits you win nothing. if you make two pair on 4th street you only catch up to the aces. a much better hand would be 456 and that stinks. at least here you may catch a 6 and win on a bluff. or may make a straight draw for an even type hand. still a losing play.
How did this question become an assumption that the A has aces? I agree 4-5-6 is better in this spot, and also stinks against 2 aces but lets give the Ace (who is always going to be high, most likely) a chance to screw up the hand and give it away. It really all depends on the table image and if he will give you credit for trips if you hit the six also. I have noticed that many players, including pros, when they slow play hate to give up the hand, even against a door card. If the ace has not played a hand in a while, I would probably raise to get low card out and make ace pay or fold if he has a limping hand. If ace plays back, fine. If he has aces and continues to slow play, he will have to check 2x and I can feel out the hand and on 5 check or bet depending on any indications. Folding is not a bad play but it is far from the only play in this pot.
Russ
There is no question in my mind that he would fold 100% of the time if I paired the 6. Also he would come out betting on 4th no matter what I caught or he caught. The only exception might be if I caught a suited card such as 5 or 7 and still I would bet my money on him to come out betting. Even if he had limped in with AQx or something which is possible he still would come out betting and I would have no call.
Russ,
it says right in the original post that he has aces or you think he has aces. that is what i am talking about. if you play 662 under those conditions you wont be here soon unless you are a trust fund baby.
Ray,
I am sorry, you are correct--I misinterpreted the original post. If I thought the Ace had aces, I don't want to call $10. More interestingly, this leads to two follow-on questions: 1) If the ante was $10 and you thought/knew he had aces, would you play? In this structure you are more likely to get action if you hit a third 6.
2)If you just follow the original story but are not sure what the Ace has, how would you play? i.e. the story goes, "a relatively tight professional limps in with an Ace and I have 662 in last position."
These seem to be more interesting problems.
Russ, yes they are interesting. once you start chasing you kind of get stuck in to the end unless he gets too many scare cards. at what point do you give up and say i guess he has aces. basically you are over 2 to 1 dog with 662 if you go all the way. some of the time he gets the scare cards and you have to fold even if you were right and he didnt have aces. if he didnt look at his hole cards and raise you would only maybe be about a 6 to 5 favorite but i think an underdog because of the scare cards. to answer berya's question about how high a pair you need, the answer is if you really think he has aces give him the antes. same answer to your question of a tight pro limps in, unless he tends to give it up when he has nothing.
I actually researched it a little. What I did was I assumed he had aces and assumed I would only continue if I improved to two pair or trips on 4th. Then I ran poker probe. Two pair vs Aces. Trips I just win the antes and bring in. I also gave him credit for not having to call me on the river and me having to call him on the river. Under these circumstances I came up loosing I think somewhere between $3 and $4 per hand. Of course I don't always have to call him and he does not always have to fold, but also he sometimes would have two pair on 4th himself which I did not account and probably many other little things like that. But they probably would balance out more or less. Of course I would still be donating in this case. However that extra $40 in antes should swing it right there making -$3 to +$1 and -$4 to 0. So you probably wind up making about 50 cents everytime this situation comes up and therefore should call. Of course my simulations and calculations can be off, but most likely it OK and the call is correct with $10 ante assuming you will only continue if you improve.
You don't have to go to this much touble to see that it is close with a ten dollar ante. A little over 4% of the time you pair your doorcard and win $90. A little over 6% of the time you make hidden two pairs which is a slight favorite, maybe $60 or $70 average profit. The remaining not quite 90% you lose $10. Thus it appears to be a close fold against excellent players but a call against weaker ones , especially those that might fight your open sixes.
Notice that it is an easy call if your pair is buried, even aginst pros. Now you win $90, 6% of the time and well over $90 (at least an average of $150) 4% of the time. Still real close though when the ante is $5.
David,
You have made an excellent and elegant appraisal of an interesting situation.
Russ
Berya,
Playing at FW I had this exact hand 62/6. I said I'm going to play it to the end unless I see something crazy. The next card comes and there's 4 people playing the usual stuff in 1-5 7CS .50ante. I catch a blank 62/6x so I figure that's it but it get's checked around. Next card 62/6x2 no pairs on the board for the other players and no 2's or 6's out. Pos'n 7 xx/AsxTs bets 3. I call in Pos'n 3 and pos'n 6 calls with xx/QdxJc. Pos'n 4 drops who brought it in xx/3cxx. Next card comes out xx/QdxJcJh, xx/AsxTsx, and I get 62/6x2x. J's bet 3, call, call. River J's check, xx/AsxTsx/S bets 5. I drop catching a blank and J's call with two pair J's over. The flush won the hand, but it was close I would of dropped after 4 cards if someone had bet. I just starting laughing when I looked down. I know it's 1-5 but I just thought I would throw it out there.
paul
No, No, No, Badger! Dey playa da crapa at Omaha(a) becausa dey tink Omaha(a) is a gamea ofa luckiness. Afta alla u gotta 4 cardsa to hitta.
Vince.
I play in a very loose 4-8-12 omaha game. Looking for suggestions re: pre-flop hand selection.
Well, that's a pretty big topic. Perhaps you could narrow your question down a bit?
As a general principle, you can play somewhat looser in Omaha High than you can in Holdem. But don't take that concept too far.
A suited ace with almost any other value is usually playable.
A pair of aces is usually playable no matter what your other two cards are.
Four cards to a straight (9TJQ) is very good hand, except at the very bottom of the range (i.e. 2345).
Four cards with a gap (5789, 5679) are almost always playable, but you would prefer the gap to be on the bottom side (5789) since it gives you more nut straight draws.
Suited Kings are worth about half of what suited aces are, and your other cards need to be good to play them (i.e. KsQsJc7c is playable, but Ks9s6c5c isn't).
Beware suited cards below a King. You don't want to draw to a queen high or worse flush as a primary out, so a hand like QsJc5s4c is not playable, whereas AsKc5s4c is a decent starting hand. Having lower cards suited still adds value to the hand though, sometimes enough to change a fold into a call.
The EV spread between a lot of Omaha hands isn't very high, since you can hit the flop in so many different ways. But the variance from one hand to another is big. If you want to avoid the suckout factor and control your variance, play hands that have multiple draws so you can have redraws. Hands like 89TJ play much better than hands like 78QK, because the former hand can make straights with redraws, letting you suck out on the other guy when you both make your straight on the turn, instead of the other way around. Also, having the 78 suited helps your variance as well, even though you won't win any direct flush competitions with it. But sometimes the suitedness will give you a freeroll against someone else with the same straight, and that can be big. And even if someone else is in there with a bigger flush draw, you've got two of his outs.
But I'm rambling now. I'm on a 30 hour bender.
TWIMC,
Randomizing Your Play (ryp) I feel is very important and usually the difference for me in making a profit or not during a session. I will just talk about 7CS and how I use it to my benefit. Playing at FW at about 8am there are usually two tables going now I sign up for a seat and tell the head honcho that I would like a new table and seat #3 when one opens. The table opens and these people are all equal except I know a few of them and how they play. These people aren't moving for at least 3 hours so it gives you time to learn their traits and set up your RYP habit. I've played with at least 4 or 5 people at the table for 6-8hrs. Most sessions I start out slow going down but usually things turn around and if those people were beating up on you earlier in the day you can get them to hang around for extra bets because they still think they have the bead on you. The only difference is that you've made them play lesser hands, but your still making the same decisions but filling up instead of busting out.
I really feel strongly about this concept in a game where players are around 3 or more hours. If your jumping around from table to table looking for the perfect game then this doesn't matter. Also if people are in and out of your game it doesn't matter. It might be something you might try ask the head honcho if you could switch seats to a new game, although you may also have transfers from other games that may be in and outers.
Seat #1 and #8 usually rocks don't have to see the board that well because they usually have A's, K's, Q's and are HTH or three way when they enter.
paul
I was talking to a friend of mine (whom I hadn't seen in a few weeks) and he told me about a mutual friend (whom I haven't seen in a year or more) who comes into town (Edmonton) on the weekends to play poker. Usually at a club downtown, but sometimes casinos.
Apparently our mutual friend plays a lot of a game they call Showdown, and makes a lot of money doing so. Basically the game is no-limit 5 card stud. I was astonished that 5-stud was still played anywhere.
Is 5-stud still played out there? Is it making some kind of comeback? For those of you out there who may play it (or would play it) from time to time, what is your approach to the game?
As an aside, how common is half-and-half (holdem and omaha high)?
Eric
The game is 'Showhand'. It's 5 card stud played with a joker, and some changes in the ranking of hands. It's played table stakes, with a $300 buyin.
Tough game to beat, though, because there is a $5 ante on each hand, and the casino rakes 10% up to $25/hand.
The local poker club on 108th St. sometimes gets a showhand game.
Casino Edmonton has at least one 3-6 and 5-10 half/half game every day. 10-20 half/half is played Wed, Thurs, Fri, and Sat in the evenings.
BTW, I think the half/holdem half/Omaha high structure is great, and I much prefer it over straight holdem.
"The game is 'Showhand'. It's 5 card stud played with a joker, and some changes in the ranking of hands. It's played table stakes, with a $300 buyin."
Ahhh. The intermediate friend is from Poland, and his spoken English is occaisionally rough.
"Tough game to beat, though, because there is a $5 ante on each hand, and the casino rakes 10% up to $25/hand."
Well, the ante is no problem, being a necessity for this kind of game I figure. The rake is tough, though.
"The local poker club on 108th St. sometimes gets a showhand game."
Is that the one across from Grant MacEwan?
"BTW, I think the half/holdem half/Omaha high structure is great, and I much prefer it over straight holdem."
I don't like it much. I prefer to play one game (either is fine by me), rather than switching back and forth every half-hour. Of course I can see the appeal if one is a decent player at both games and can adjust better than the opponents. I can do that, but I don't enjoy it.
Thanks for the info, Dan.
Eric
Yeah, that's the club across from Grant MacEwan. The phone number there is (780) 426-0108. You'd do best to call them before going down, because they don't always have a game.
The half/half structure is great for many reasons. One is that the action players like it, and I like games with action players. Another is that after a half an hour of holdem, almost any Omaha hand looks great to a lot of these players so you get lots of multi-way action.
Finally, I think an Omaha high expert can make more money in Omaha against intermediate players than a Holdem expert can make against a field of intermediate holdem players. Since the games around here are fairly tough most of the time, I make a lot more money in Omaha.
I accidently posted this on the "other Games" Forum. I reproduce it here:
I have been playing some play money Omaha (high only) on Paradise Poker to try and learn the game. I have got a question re: runner-runner draws:
I am on the button with 5c6h8h9d and call (I don't know if this is a playable hand but what the hell..it's only play money) after the whole field had called. Blinds rap. We take the flop 10 handed.
Flop: As7h2c.
Small blind bets and gets 5 callers before it is my turn. Do I call?
p.s. I did call because it was play money but should I call in real games...why or why not?
If your answer is to call, would a raise be better because the texture of the board is such that no matter what card comes off on the turn, they will likely check to me on the turn and I can take the free card (of course, this assumes that I won't get 3 bet on the flop if I raise).
Thanks for any help. This Omaha puzzles me quite a bit. I have played it a couple of times with Dan Hanson and his fellow sharks in Edmonton but have always felt that I play way too tight after the flop because I perhaps don't properly take into account the value of backdoor draws.
you can figure out your chances of making the various hands just like in holdem. the downside is in this game many of your wins will be splits with someone. this hand looks really bad but the power of backdoor draws comes alive here. you are a small dog to each of the other hands but are getting paid a premium for calling. id call for sure.
I like the 5c-6h-8h-9d on the button. In fact, I'd probably raise with it. In fact, if I'd had a few hands tonight that looked as good as that, I'd probably have a better 'tude right now (we'll get to that in a moment). But I don't like that Ace on the flop, although with no raisers, you are getting great pot odds for taking one off (you do have a lot of ways to get on the draw, but in a tourney, I'm not sure I'd play it the same way).
My take on Limit High Omaha: For the first time in over two years, I played a Limit High Omaha tourney tonight (the last time I played the game was in a WSOP satellite in 1997). Boy do I suck at this game. In two hours, I played 4 hands to the river (and most who know me would probably consider me a loose-aggressive tourney player). I missed nearly every flop (hmmmm ... how can a can have 4 connected cards with no danglers and miss the flop so completely over and over). I never flopped a wrap, flopped a set 3 times, got cracked on two of them, and lost one hand when a player misread his hand but laid it down and everyone else got it right.
I consider myself a competent O-8 player, certainly not in Ray Zee's class, or Eskimo or Scotty, but I can hang in there with the rocks. Still, as you have run into, in some ways this High-Only version is a much more difficult and puzzling game. One thing I've learned is not only can you not play this as you would play O-8, but you most definitely cannot play this the same way you play Hold-em. Your playing tactics/approach have to be vastly different. The two most important aspects are starting hands and reading opponents. If you don't flop the nuts or a draw to the nuts, you are normally out of line even being in the hand. You almost never can bluff anyone, can almost never steal an ante or pressure the flop. An overpair is meaningless, bottom two pair are worthless, and top and bottom pair are just trouble. I imagine a lot of Hold-em players get seriously hurt when they pick this game up for the first time.
For what it's worth, and although it certainly didn't help me tonight, I recommend reading the Omaha book by Bob Ciaffone ("Millenium Edition), the Limit high section in McEvoy's "Tournament Poker" and also "Championship Omaha" by TJ Cloutier/McEvoy. There are some helpful quizzes and analysis in the back of Ciaffone's book as well as the "Championship" book. Now if I could only learn how to catch those hands that are recommended to be played ....
"I like the 5c-6h-8h-9d on the button. In fact, I'd probably raise with it. In fact, if I'd had a few hands tonight that looked as good as that, I'd probably have a better 'tude right now (we'll get to that in a moment)."
Straight runs are much stronger in pot-limit than in limit. They rarely connect, but in the situations they do they are very profitable, making them ideal in pot-limit and marginal in limit. When the money is deep, a hand like 8s7s6h5h can make the nuts on an earlier street and have a massive freeroll over another player who just has the straight. But in limit, you won't be able to knock out a player with a set or an ace-high flush draw. In limit it costs you much more all the times you miss the flop, and you earn far less those times you do make the nuts and redraw. I'm cautious with straight runs in limit, and I don't think I would make it two bets preflop (I would want to preserve my implied odds and not make it correct for weaker draws to call later in the hand since a straight on the flop or turn is so vulnerable in Omaha).
5689 is not the best example, because you need that seven on the flop to make a really strong hand. But a hand like 789T is definitely worth a raise in late position in a limit game. And don't underestimate the value of being suited, even with low cards like this. Situations where you can gain freerolls over your opponent are much prized, and this hand is perfect for that. There are lots of ways you can flop two pair with a straight draw, or a straight draw with lots of extra outs.
I like this hand a lot.
You chance of making any straight by the river with this hand is pretty good. If you hit a 4,5,6,8, 9 or 10 on the turn you have at least an open-ended draw. That's 20 outs on the flop. Some of those outs give you a BIG straight draw. For example, if you hit a 6 or an 8 on the turn, you have a 16-out straight draw. Some of those draws are not to the nuts, so you have to compensate for that. But you can't always assume that a runner-runner non-nut straight is going to be beaten.
These hands can be better than an open-ended straight on the flop, because you will split less often if you make your straight, while having just as good a chance of making it (or even better). Also, if you hit the big straight draw on the turn you can raise for value against the field, which you can't really do with just an open-ended straight.
Now, you have to degrade the draw because of the chance of splitting. Upgrade it a tad because of your backdoor heart draw. How much really depends on the exact context of the flop and the nature of the players you are up against. If the flop had something like two clubs and a spade and you had none of those suits, you can downgrade your outs by six on the flop. On the turn, if it puts the second card of the other suit there, you can eliminate half of your outs.
This is why I like Omaha. If you're an expert you can spot situations like this which may even be worth a raise for value on the flop, while there will be times when hands like an open-ended straight or bottom set on the flop can go straight into the muck. And there are very, very few players who have figured this out.
Ray, Earl, Dan: thanks. Sounds like a call is the proper play on the flop. As you say Dan, my hand may in fact be better than 22xx on that flop (at least, I think that you may be saying that).
Earl said something about reading hands. To me, that's the biggest reason why I don't play Omaha too well. While in Hold 'em, I feel that I can read hands and get creative at the proper times, I just have no bloody clue how to put anyone on hands in this crazy game. I just automatically assume that if someone is betting and a straight is showing...well..he's got the straight. If the turn makes 3 clubs and someone else bets...well...that guy just made a flush etc. I know that's pretty simplistic but am I really far off the mark? In other words, is it fair to say that a bet in Omaha represents the nuts or near nuts a much greater percentage of time than hold 'em? If so, where is the edge? Does it come from playing better starting cards i.e. well-coordinated hands that could offer you redraws? Does it come from properly recognizing backdoor draws and such? Does it come from making value raises at the correct times i.e. when you get your 12 or 16 way draws etc.? I may be asking you guys to write a book with these questions rather than a responsive post:).
BTW, I have read Ciaffone's book and Ray's book (I also have Cappaletti's (sp?) book but have just skimmed it). I think I understand what Bob and Ray are saying but as you know there really is no substitute for experience. I am sure that I need to play more...a lot more...to figure out the nuances of this game. I do like the game though. In fact, when I am in Edmonton and play in your half/half games, I generally look forward to the Omaha portion of the hour which is kind of strange given that the game is still pretty foggy to me.
Sure, you can *usually assume that if there's a 3-flush on the board and someone bets, he has the flush and probably the nut flush. If there's a straight on the board, he probably not only has a straight, but the nut straight. Etc.
The edge in Omaha comes from lots of places. First is pre-flop hand selection, although it's not as important as it is in holdem, since the concept of dominated hands doesn't really apply (or at least the effect is watered down greatly). The range in EV between the best and worst hands in Omaha is much narrower than it is in Holdem.
But where you make lots of money in Omaha is bad calls by other players. In a loose passive holdem game, the fish are often getting the odds they need to make the loose calls they want to make, so you don't make all that much money from them. But there is no pot size that makes it correct to call when drawing completely dead, and bad Omaha players do that ALL the time. In a loose Omaha game there is almost always a couple of players putting completely dead money in the pot. If you're smart enough to recognize those situations where you're drawing dead (or at least you're better at it than your opponents) you have a big edge.
Your average Omaha high player just isn't capable of laying down a set on the flop, or a king-high flush draw, and many are booked to the river with bottom two pair or a bottom-end straight draw. Let's say you're an average Omaha player, holding QcJs6c5s. To these guys, that looks like a pretty good hand (and it's not). Now, you get a flop like Qs8c7s, and you think you've flopped a monster with a flush draw, a straight draw, and top pair. So you call a bet on the flop, and now a 2c lands on the turn. Now you have TWO flush draws, top pair, and an open-ended straight! You're now calling all raises. In the meantime, someone else is holding a 9TJ, another player has the nut spade draw, and another one has top set. You are drawing completely dead, or dead to maybe your Queen-high flush, but it has to be a flush card that doesn't pair the board, and you have to hope that no one else was in there with the bigger flush draw. This 'monster hand' is complete garbage and should have been pitched on the flop.
Bad players are also constantly putting themselves in situations where they have the nuts, but with no backup and a ton of redraws against them. That's one reason why they whine so much about suckouts. If I come into a pot with KQJT, and the flop is 789, I may be up against JT45, who's in a world of trouble but will still raise, re-raise, and cap it on the flop and turn. So if I'm in a pot with the nuts against another opponent with the nuts, it's usually me that has the redraws against him. Big EV.
You make money off the intermediate Omaha players because they don't raise good hands for value enough, either before the flop or after, and they make folds that are too tight, giving up the equity in the pot that is rightly theirs. Your typical tight holdem player might chuck that 5689 hand on the flop, thinking that it missed him. Or he'll fold his second-nut straight because he doesn't realize that in THIS context it's good.
Then there are the expert plays that can be wildly profitable. There are lots of opportunities to represent big hands and knock competitors out of the pot. Omaha pots are usually large, so these plays have big EV.
An example: You make a straight on the turn against two other opponents. You check, intending to check-raise the maniac. He bets, now the guy behind him raises. Instead of re-raising, you can sometimes smooth-call, representing a draw like a set or a flush draw. The board changes on the river, bringing in a flush or board pair. Now you bet out, the maniac calls, and the guy who tied you for the straight folds. The maniac can't beat your straight, and you haul the whole pot. Because so many players have the mindset that whatever hand is possible must be out there, you can sometimes steal very large pots.
"You make money off the intermediate Omaha players because they don't raise good hands for value enough, either before the flop or after,"
What hands should raise for value preflop in loose-passive limit Omaha games?
And why don't we see this game more often?
The range of raising hands is pretty large in Omaha. Hands that have multiple nut draws, big cards, lots of connected cards, etc. Most people don't raise nearly enough, especially in late position.
I think the main reason why Omaha high hasn't taken off is because the rocks hate it, and they are often the bread-and-butter players for the casino. We have that problem here in Edmonton. The tough, tight holdem players are always lobbying to get Omaha yanked out of the game. The action players love it. But the tight players are there day in, day out. They start the games. So the casino caters to them. With a little more foresight, they might see that it's the action players that keep the games alive in the long run, because games that are full of tough agressive players often don't last because the fish get busted out.
Two years ago, or so, I posted a couple of hands and was soundly criticized for my play on the river. In fact, except for considerate responses from Tom Haley and Ray Zee, it was unanimous that I was too much of a nit to play poker and should stay home with the women and children. Undeterred however, I have continued playing, and last Saturday, playing 5-10 stud at the Trop in AC, I was involved in a hand similar to those I had posted before.
My question, as it did two years ago, has to do with the action on the river, so I'll try to describe the early rounds briefly without omitting any pertinent details.
I had only been in the game for a few minutes and didn't know any of the players involved in this hand. The table seemed a little on the loose-passive side.
I was in last position and called with (10c, 2d) 10h (live), after three players limped in, leaving five of us vying for the pot.
I hit a blank on fourth street, the man on my right, showing an Ace, checked, I checked, the Bring-in checked, the Lady, showing (?, ?) Jc 5c, bet, the Old Man, showing (?, ?) 9d 4d, called, the Man On My Right called, I called, and the Bring-in called.
Fifth street: the Man On My Right (?, ?) As 3h 2h checked; I checked (10c, 2d) 10h 7d 2c; Bring-in checked, Lady (?, ?) Jc 5c 7c bet; Old Man (?, ?) 9d 4d 6d called; Man On My Right called, I called, Bring-in folded.
Sixth street: Me: (10c, 2d) 10h 7d 2c 10s (I filled): Lady: (?, ?) Jc 5c 7c 8c; Old Man (?, ?) 9d 4d 6d Ks; Man On My Right (?, ?) As 3h 2h Qc...........I bet out, spurning the check-raise attempt in spite of Lady's four clubs (comments?). Lady, looking confused, called, Old man called, and Man On My Right folded. BTW, Old Man's Ks was the only King I had seen.
River: Me: No change, I bet. Lady, pausing and making a face, folded, and Old Man (?, ?) 9d 4d 6d Ks RAISED!
What should I have done?
Tom D
On 6th street I would have gone for the check-raise. You're in a perfect spot, the lady is to your immediate left with 2 people in between. She has been betting 4th and 5th street representing clubs. When someone, especially someone who has been betting earlier streets, makes 4 of the same suites on board it's been my experience that they almost always continue betting. I think you missed a perfect check-raising opportunity here.
On the river, it depends on the player. If he is a very solid player I would just call. He saw you betting your paired Ten door-card into a open 4-flush so he has to be worried about Ten's full yet he is willing to come over the top. If he is a maniac or a bad player in general who isn't aware at all and only plays his cards I would re-raise and call if re-re-raised.
You know it is really not that easy to tell you what you should have done because none of us were there. I don't think you loose much either way here. I think if you want to play it safe then call if not, raise. What did he start with? Would he not raise with pocket kings? Is he a good player who knows what he is doing a little? My guess is he either made a flush or had two pair 9's and 4's or 9's and 6's and filled up.
Anyway I think you should raise, but if you just called I don't see anything wrong with that (you were there I wasn't).
P.S Do you think he cares that you paired your ten? Also you probably could have checked on 6 here and gotten a couple of extra bets since the lady seems weak and would bet her flush which she probably made on 5.
In any game above 3-6 you have a crying call at best. You bet an open pair of tens into a four flush. It is a cut and dried painted forehead problem. I am surprised at anyone who would think differently.
David,
Are you certain this is such a crying call? Many players just play their own hands and when they make one, raise no matter what. Also the 10's showed no strength before 6th so a flush/small full might raise. Is a reraise and then fold to another raise really out of the question, at any limit? I am not saying that is the only play only it does not appear to me as obvious as you make it, especially given the prior probabilities of the four flush's open cards.
I would probably not have played the 10's with a duce even though they were live. I agree with Sklansky. Maybe you get it in that weak 5-10. You are dead meat in 20-40.
I'm not that wild about the call on 4th, to be honest. There's 9 bucks in the pot. A probable four-flush (maybe w/a three-str, too) bets; another likely four-flush calls; a guy w/ an Ace up overcalls; you're getting 21-5 on the call(rake figured in); and someone's still to act behind you. You've got a medium pair w/ a couple of rags, not even any runner-runner-runner draws. You've gotta be a huge dog to win the pot at this point.
In fact, you shouldn't have even limped on 3rd. 10-2-10 rainbow against an Ace, Hook, and two other yahoos? Not a multi-way hand. Assuming you called the raise and he had you, that $1 cost you another $45.
Of course, Ol' Man might be a moron (or caught the Ad and misread your board) and you make $95. You've gotta call in a 5-10 game getting 13.5-1 against a grayhair (maybe w/ poor eyesight?) you don't know, but I still say you were a big dog on 3rd and 4th.
Soon after I posted my question, I had a series of computer problems, and couldn't respond to your posts. Sorry.
The Old Man only had a flush, and I won, of course. My purpose for posting the hand was because a couple of people asked me why I hadn't raised. I was dumbfounded (it happens a lot), so I thought I would poll the 2+2 people. Thanks.
While I made an extra bet because the Old Man didn't know what he was doing, I find it difficult to play with this type of player (level 0: only considers their own hands and cannot process information from the play of a hand).
Check-raising on 6th street. I considered it, but I have all but discarded check-raising, at the 5-10 level, for purposes of getting more money into the pot. I have to be very very sure there is going to be a bet. Since I wasn't sure the Lady had a flush and was concerned she would take the opportunity to check behind my paired door card, and since I hesitated, briefly, thinking about check-raising, I just bet. My fear was that I would give my three opponents a free draw on 6th and an easy muck on the river.
Not playing the hand in the first place. I can't take serious issue. In my defense, I limped in for $2 on third street with no chance of being raised. On 4th street, I checked and called after three players came in. If anyone had shown any speed, I was ready to dump my little hand. I might have played the same way in a 20-40, but I don't think it likely the other players would have let me tag along (what was the guy on my right doing with his Ace?) Maybe he was on a draw, but I'd have been out of there if he had popped it.
Thanks, and again I apologize for the delay.
Tom D
"That's not the main point though. The group of hands well above average is much larger in Omaha than in Holdem. Holdem has only four or five hands that are really head and shoulders above the rest. The Omaha equivalent group of hands of AQo, JJ, TT, AJs is much much larger."
One major difference is that premium Omaha hands gain in value as additional hands call, while many strong holdem hands lose relative strength in large fields (of reasonable hands) due to the Horse Race concept. In Omaha, since you're drawing to the nuts, you want as much of a crowd as possible. Heads-up, Omaha matchups tend to be closer than most holdem matchups. Even an overpair is not that strong heads-up in Omaha when the opponent has a connected hand whose outs aren't dominated.
I can agree with that, and as a result I do a lot more raising out of the blinds in Omaha than I do in Holdem.
Okay, what you say is true, but those are the absolute extreme examples. In the range of hands that people are likely to play the gap is narrower. More to the point, the punishment you take for calling with weak hands is usually not as severe. For instance, calling a raise by AA in holdem when you hold AJ is devastating. In Omaha it's rare that one hand is completely dominated by another like that.
You write, "Asad9s7h versus KsQh7s6c is a 2-1 favorite before the flop ..." How do you make these calculations with an Omaha hand -or- what source can you point me to for the explanation? Thanks for the good insight you've given us all on this @#$% game.
Are these correct:
5-10 .50 ante 1 bring-in 10-20 1 ante 3 bring-in 15-30 2 ante 5 bring-in 20-40 3 ante 5 bring-in 30-60 5 ante 10 bring-in 40-80 10 ante 10 bring-in 50-100 10 ante 15 bring-in 75-150 15 ante 25 bring-in?
What are the rakes/time charges? oops, guess maybe I shoulda posted this on "Other Topics"...
"Overpairs, pairs of any sort are a weak Omaha holding. Pairs don't dominate in Omaha. That's a Holdem concept."
Pairs don't dominate, ace-high flush draws do. There's a big difference between AcAs2d2h vs. 8d7c6d5c, as opposed to AcAd8c7d vs. 8d7c6d5c. Heads-up, a lot of your wins against a high pair come from making two pair. Other than real trash like trips and quads, most hands have decent two pair potential, and so don't do that badly heads-up even against premium hands. (AdAcJdTc vs. Ks9h5d2c is probably not much worse than 2-1, and the odds are probably closer to 3-2 for a hand with live flush and straight draws.) In multiway pots, hands that have nut potential (high pairs, suited aces, and straight runs) will do far better than hands that don't.
"Dan's making this up as he goes along"
-an intern, when I was teaching people in the office how to play Omaha
"Omaha hands much more *often* dominate other hands when it is important, post-flop. Asad9s7h versus KsQh7s6c is a 2-1 favorite before the flop, but is an even bigger one $-wise post-flop because of how their strengths match-up. The disparity between these two hands is bigger than 2-1 in actual money play."
This is the key. Hands that can be played strongly and where you can more accurately evaluate the situation will have much greater value than their showdown results. Middle pairs and king-high flush draws win showdowns, but have very little *playing* value. A hand like KcQd7c7d probably has decent showdown value against most fields, but I doubt it would ever be profitable to play. (Like A9o in loose-passive holdem.) I would much rather have 7s6h5s4h. (Which is similar to 44 in loose-passive holdem.)
"Dan's making this up as he goes along."
-an intern, when I was teaching people in the office how to play Omaha
Thanks. I've been using the free hand analyzer for hold-em and stud, but it doesn't include Omaha.
I was talking about pre-flop. I agree with you completely that there are a lot of ways in which you can be dominated by another hand after the flop. I alluded to that in my other message when talking about where the EV in Omaha comes from.
One concept I have trouble with is when to raise with the second best hand, especially when it's possible I might have the best hand.
For example, consider a 15-30 game where on fifth street I have trips against a possible flush, and there is one other player in the hand. There is about $80 in the pot. The player on my left has (? ?) Qh 10h 10c and checks. The player on my right has (? ?) 4s Ks 10s and bets out. I have (6c 7s) 8d 7c 7d.
I put the player on my left on a heart draw, but there are several other hands he might have. The player on my right could have a flush, but might have only four spades.
Is this a spot where I should raise, hoping to make the player on my left fold? Or should I just call?
Nick,
I would raise. The ptl will probably fold unless he has an Ah. Now if he drops and flush will probably just call maybe stating that he doesn't have it yet. Now if he reraises you back then I would just call and you found out he more than likely has the flush. IMO the raise is worth the money and if you catch and win the rule is you have to take the money.
paul
Badger,
What would you suggest to a person whose never played Omaha high-low do to get started? Beginner book? Starting limit at one of the LA casinos? Whatever you suggest.
Any help appreciated, Don
I've only been playing poker for about 7 months, and I started out with Texas Holdem.However I would like to learn to play any form of poker well. I have read Ray Zee's book on high-Low-Split Poker, and since played in one game of 7CS8.
The game I have available to me is spread limit 1-5, with no ante. I played for about 5 hours and had huge swings in my bank roll the entire game. Is this normal for 7CS8? Also are there any strategy changes I should make do to the lower limit, and no ante?
Thx for any help
you wouldn't take a card off three to a low straight flush that caught an offsuit K on 4th? even just the straight or the flush with the low and i would take a brick. i there's no antes, but people called some bets on 3rd. i want wouldn't give up a good chance to scoop.
scott
when you play tight with loose friends and win the money soon the friends will resent you. there is no way around it. if you want to maintain a decent relationship you will have to play much looser(in their minds only) call more on third street as thats where they notice it. always bring special treats to the game that works(poker players are gluttons). push some straight and flush draws very hard. they will see that as betting on the come. you will see it as getting an overlay on your draw. even bet on 6th street with a draw against a bunch of people. its a break even or less bet that wont cost much and they will see it as a gift. or if you dont care about the heat, play tight and win all you can and soon not be welcome.
Ray,
The tone of my original post was much more of "I've got this tight table image, how can I best take advantage of it." You're response was much more of "You've got this tight table image among loose friends, here's how not to lose your friends and continue to be welcome." Thanks for the reminding me of the other perspective -- that these guys are friends first, poker players second. I have thought about not wanting to be a "poor sport" in their eyes, yet I also want to balance it with playing "good" poker. I like the compromise you suggest -- call more often on 3rd, and pursue the draws more than I otherwise would. Thanks.
Talk loose and friendly. Play tight and deadly. "Social occasions are warfare conceiled".
jon i have run into this exact same situation. listen to ray zee. the tight agressive play is great in the card rooms. in a home game with friends it pays to loosen up as ray suggests. i always go to fourth street now in our home game, no matter what i hold. good thing because i don't think i would still have a home game to go to.
I have a PL 7 stud game available to me on the weekends. Ante is $2, bring in is also $2. Any advice on how to play this variant or on any books about PL stud?
Should this game be more or less profitable than $10-$20 stud with $1 ante $3 bring in? I imagine more, but I have zero experience with it.
Thanks in advance for any help.
if the game is at all agressive or loose it will play so much bigger than 10,20. you need to do alot of thinking about it or you will get creamed. some general tips wont be enough to help more than a little. if you understand potlimit then you will do ok.
Poker is played for money. If you consistently win money from people that are your friends you will soon have ex-friends. Unless they are special friends that understand why you win thir money. Z gave you advice that would change the way you play to show your friends that you are one of them. That won't work. I will repeat it that if you consistently win money from friends you will soon have ex-friends. If you want to keep these friends as friends explain to them the reason that you win. Explain to them that you have been studying stratigic and tactical poker concepts. Explain to them why this gives you an edge in your poker sessions. Then play your best game against them. You do them no service by keeping them as friends by chaning your style of play and you do yourself even less of a service for changing styles to suit someone else. I could go on but that's probably more than what you wanted to hear.
Vince.
I dont agree that changing your style of play to make your friends happy is the right move. First of all, all 7 or 8 guys in a game cant all be considered friends. Probably one or two are true friends and the others you just know from poker and wouldnt even be invited to your wedding were you to have one.
Secondly, regardless of how you play, the consistent losers in the game are still going to lose every week and will quit eventually because they are tired of losing or tapped out.
So basically playing looser or not winning as much will not benefit the consistent losers and keep your "friends" happy, it will just put more cash in the pockets of the guys who finish right behind you in the money.
As for how to take advantage of your image, it seems that you can get away with some bluffing and stealing, at least as much that is possible in a home game. Either way, get as much money as you can now, cause the game will break at some point eventually whether you see more cards and play looser or not.
Gambler
Here, everybody that plays DID come to my wedding. I tried to do what Vince has suggested, but to no avail. It is a strange situation. Everybody is playing for "fun" (its a chump-change game -- the only way I will play with friends; plus we are all fresh out of school). Yet it is a competitive game, and we all track our winnings and take full advantage of bragging rights. I think most of the guys understand that I am playing sound poker, but they see it as stifling their fun. I think their emphasis is more on the social aspects, too.
The other complicating factor is that I am the driving force behind getting the game together every month. I don't want people to get the impression that I am herding the lambs into the slaughter. But I have no other games to play, and I enjoy playing with my friends and for low stakes.
I think I will try to educate my friends, and then loosen up if that doesn't work (at least for a while).
You, my friend, have the right attitude. You will not lose any "FRIENDS" over a poker game. If for some reason you lose a so called "friend" for something that occurs during a poker game you will have to wonder whether they were a true "friend". I have high standards when giving my "friendship" to another. There must be "high" cause for me to disavow that friendship. Losing at poker is a silly reason for losing a much more important thing than money. A FRIEND. The force be with you!
Vince
BTW - The force thing , I don't know, must have been in a Star Wars mood. I'm not religious so I didn't want to say God Speed so...
Ihave a similar situation in my game. I am the driving force in bringing it together, and the only long term winner. IN order to keep everyone happy, I play just about every hand on 3rd in stud, and pay to see the flop in omaha and holdem. The only hand I fold are the 72o and (2T)5 rainbow in stud. Since there is very little raising on the first round you are getting almost infinite odds to call and see the flop/next card. This is what I do. You advantage over your opponents will be in having the discipline to let go of you medium hands (8T) 5T that dont play. You friends will not focus on you folding all the time, and they will assume you are "playing" just like they are.
Also, I give a lot of S+M theory and advice at the table to my friends, IF they ask questions. I believe I can play better than them even if they know as much theory, so it slows down the rate that I get their money, but they also feel better about the game. Plus, as said somewhere else. It doesnt matter how much you know, only whether you play correctly.
Todd
Badger,
I played my first ever session of 7CS8 or better at FW on Sunday. It was expensive. From my obsevation and reflection, your advice is right on tthe money. One thing though I believe that all but one (exceptional) of the players at my table played poorly. 7CS8 or better offers many opportunities to the knowlegeable poker player to win big. The problem as I see it, with my very limited experience, is the tedium you aptly describe. Those interested more in instant gratification than grinding best stick to Holdem. Not that Holdem's not a grind it's just a much faster grind.
Vince.
That game is usually not playable at Foxwoods, due to the idiotic no-ante spread-limit structure that makes the game a total rockfest. The Trop in Atlantic City spreads the game with normal stud ante structures at 5-10, 10-20, and 15-30, and the game is thriving there.
Even more than Omaha-8, you really need some loose players to make this worth playing. If a large fraction of the hands are heads-up between a high pair and a decent low, there's virtually no profit in the game. Unless there's multiway action on most hands, go play something else.
When there are bad players, this can be the most profitable game at the lowest variance. I think the variance in stud-8 can be lower than Omaha-8 for an expert in a loose game (Iceman hides from Badger) - in Omaha-8 you raise preflop with a large fraction of the hands you play, while in stud-8 you usually don't have to commit much money until your hand is better defined. In stud-8, there are more frequent freeroll opportunities against bad players. While in Omaha-8 it's easier to get a more exact appraisal of the situation, it generally isn't hard to make the right decision on later streets in a loose stud-8 game. And the partial information helps a lot in terms of knocking players out/keeping them in.
I agree that most Omaha players in your typical 3-6/6-12 game currently being spread in LA are "truly dreadul" but why is it that you never find, or rarely find, top Omaha players sitting in these games?
It seems to me that you can pick up $500-600 in a 6-12 session much easier than you can sitting in a 20-40 Hold Em game or even a 20-40 Omaha game (of which there are basically none now in LA, except during tournament time). Yet these games are never filled with people you would put at the top of a "Best Omaha Players" list. Why dont these players sit in these games and take adavantage of the dreadful play? Or maybe they do and i am just missing it.
Gambler
Hmm, I find it hard to believe 7cs8 to be more tedious than omaha let alone any other commonly spread games in most casinos.
During most of the home games ive played in this game is alot more fun than any of the others (although i think i do prefer no qual high/low w/declare but i dont' think many casinos offer this (if any!)). although i find hard to believe omaha 8 would have lower fluctuations than this.
One other note, it seems hard to believe these notes I read about 0/8 low fluctuations. seems very often i'd lose quite a bit with some monster hands/draws and get nothing eg (id have the nut flush on the turn, w/the nut low draw it would get jammed the board woudl pair and id get nothing),(or have both nut flush draws the nut low draw jam away and the board pairs) (etc etc!) there are many similar situations i have experienced and don't think this game is that profitable and has alot more luck than other games at the low limits....
comments...
he is specifically refering to a game with no ante.
scott
I haven't been playing stud for a long time but heres a hand i thought i played right and wanted some opinions (I think i may not have all the details as i cannot remember all the upcards and such)
In a 1-5 game I bring it w/a 2 ,5 call 2 fold and the player to my left raises w/ an A up to 6, i look at my cards (i usually look only after i bring it in (is this a bad policy , i don't usually look at my cards until i have to act in holdem which i really believe is a good policty there)) and find 2 aces... i reraise to 6 and the table folds except the initial raiser.
The initial raiser is one who has played his big pairs in such an agressive manner i thought he had aces and had no idea i had aces but maybe this raise gives it away? should i just call here?
In any event i pair my door card (the 2) on 4th street and then bet 10 all the way. he reluctantly calls all the way i recieve no help as does he.
In the end his AA 33 beats my AA22. should i have backed off earlier? I think he had gotten lucky as i am a pretty decent favorite on 4th street. He even said i was afraid you had trips on 4th street. (These guys always make these claims and still call all the way...)
Comments appreciated.
You had the better hand with aces conceled. When the duce fell, he probably should have folded but he saw the other duce and figured you for aces up. I suppose it depends on how he bet. Probably did everything right. One of those hands.
Curious:
I look before putting in my bringin.
Are you sure the raiser was not to your right? It's the only way this scenario works properly. The reraise was good because you want to be head up with the A, and he might have a big pocket pair since three aces are out.
Hell yes, bet it all the way. He needed the case A and another pair to beat you. Like they say, S--- happens.
BTW, his thinking on fourth st. is faulty. First of all he should have been concerned with Rolled up 2's to start with. (In your original message I am assuming "2 fold" means 2 players folded) You wouldn't have reraised with only a pair of dueces. But the 2 on fourth st. made quad dueces highly unlikely. Therefore your reraise probably indicated a high pocket pair. Depending on how tight you play, he could put you on EXACTLY pocket aces.
Fred
4-8 Omaha/8 game couple of nights ago. This game is normally very loose and often very aggressive. The players with few exceptions have little or no clue about the types of hands that play well in Omaha/8. I have at least read Zee's 2+2 book and Capelletti's work as well (liked Ray's a lot better) and while the swings can be horrendous, I have generally done well in the game.
I pick up As-2s-5c-9c in the BB. Six of us take the flop unraised. Flop comes down Kh-8c-5s. I bet out with the draw for the nut low and backdoor flush potential. Three callers to the button, who raises. I call, as do the other three.
Turn card is the 6c, giving me the nut low, a gutshot straight-flush draw, and rough clubs should a rag club hit that doesn't pair the board. I had put the button on trips, probably trip K's, because he is the type of player who almost never raises in this game without the best hand, at least at the moment. I tried for a check-raise as I had no good back-up low if an A or 2 hit, and I wanted the chance for a free-roll for a swoop if I could get the other drawing hands out. Much to my dismay, it got checked out.
Right on cue, the 2h hits the board on the river, and I check, fully expecting someone to bet their low. It gets checked out again. At the showdown, lady on my left wins the low with A-4 and the button had his trip K's,as I suspected, which held up for high. I was surprised that he had not bet the turn when it was checked to him and he still held top trips.
Questions for more experienced Omaha/8 players:
1. Is the bet on the flop correct?
2. When the button raises after my bet and 3 callers, am I correct to call or is a re-raise better?
3. Should I bet out on the turn, or is my thinking about trying for a check-raise correct in this type of game?
4. Is the button's play correct on the turn by checking with a possible straight on the board?
I agree with Badger that if you raise before the flop and continue to bet throughout, the lady with A-4 isnt around to get the low when you get counterfieted and that may possibly get the three K's to fold after the river, although unlikely if he only has to call one bet.
Considering the lady didnt even bet when the 2 hit on the river, which had to be the best card she could see, you would have to think she would have folded had you been aggressive throughout. Actually, a bet by her on the river, after checking along prior to it, may have scared the 3 K's off and got her the whole pot with no callers, although again the 3 K's may have made what he thought was a crying call for one bet.
Gambler
So, in a sense, the same ego that sometimes makes good players the tough players that they are, sometimes works against them because they can be making more money in a less "prestigious" game or part of the casino.
As for the player who has been making 50+ an hour for the last two years in this game at the Commerce, I have been trying to think of who that could be and come up with a blank......unless of course you're speaking of yourself, which I can then believe.
Which leads me to this question: Are you taking adavantage of the poor play and the omaha games being spread at the Commerce yourself?
x
On a RGP thread a while ago Badger claimed that a great deal of the play and the value in O8 is before the flop. He claimed that there are many hands that, given the usual multiway nature of O8, are a long way better than other starting hands and should be raised and reraised (if possible) before the flop to get more money in the pot for value. And this method of playing is where a lot of your long term profit in the game comes from.
But then I read in RZ's book that most of the raising in O8 before the flop is not done for value but mainly to knock opponents out behind you and gain position. He implies that even the premium starting hands are not that far ahead of the mediocre ones so raising to get more money in the pot is not usually appropriate.
So now I am confused. Who is correct? Or are both somehow correct?
I posted this but it didn't seem to come up on the board, apologys if it does and there are two versions.
On a RGP thread a while ago Badger claimed that a lot of the play and value in O8 is before the flop through raising and reraising when you have a good starting hand. Given the usual multiway nature of O8, premium starting hands are much better than other hands and should be raised to get more money in the pot. This is where a good deal of your long term profit comes from.
But then I read in RZ's book that preflop raising in O8 is mainly done to knock players out behind you and gain position. Even good starting hands are not that far ahead of mediocre hands and raising just for value is not that important a strategy.
So now I am confused. Who is correct? Or are both correct somehow?
both sides have merit. in the games i talk about where there are less players and you can knock out people, raises for that purpose have more value. anytime you can make the hand play so that you can win without a showdown you have accomplished much. premium hands do well with early raising. getting position in a hand is more valuable than getting more money in when a slight favorite. when you are a bigger favorite that starts to change. and in pots that are going to be multiway and called all the way down you might as well play fast with the goods.
i don't know omaha, though i am trying to learn. i am drunk and, yet, i know that the midpoint between 3 and 9 is 6. i have my math final in 2 days, so i better know this. let alone fubini's lemma and the constuction of the lebesgue measure and other crazy theorems that i have to know. djtj is here and he agrees, although he has never heard of fubini or radon or nikodym or levy or kolmogorov,
scott
scott,
since you need an 8 to qualify its very obvious to the rest of us that 5 is the midpoint between 3 and 9. plus factor into the equation that low hands are more valuble in om/8 and there you have it. its a shame that you have so much trouble with seemingly easy concepts.
of course, that's the whole point. you find the midpoint by diving the bigger number by the smaller number then adding the sum minus 8 (because you need an 8 to qualify). that would get 9/3+9+3-8=7. but, since low hands are more important, we round down to 6.
scott
ya, in games where everybody takes the flop and you arent going to get them out on the flop or later just because you raise, then pushing your good hands against the players is of utmost importance. you need to capitalize on your edge.
In the low level games I have played in, raising preflop just tends to get people off their bad low draws. This tends to decrease the amount you win, since being paid off by non nut lows is where much of the profit comes from.
Now, if you want to raise with KKQJ or some other good high hand, that certainly can reap big rewards, ie scooping a pot that you may have had to split otherwise.
Danny S
Jon,
I don't know how old you are or your friends, but if your old enuf to go to a casino, go as a group. That way you can keep your friendships and you can work on improving your poker at the casino. This way you'll avoid fistfights etc. in the home game. That way you can talk about how you did at the tables. You won't be taking from each other and you'll be playing against the CASINO. My advice would be to start at the lowest limit whatever game and when your comfortable go to the next level. No more than a 100 hours at the lowest level. Try 5-10 or whatever but don't wait because the lower limit is going to be just like playing with your friends and it will ruin your game. My advice is the same as Vince's don't change your game to plz the game. Change your game to improve your results.
paul
Thanks Paul,
That is an outstanding suggestion, but one that is hard to implement here in the poker wasteland of South Central Wisconsin. Apparently under the treaties, Wisconsin Indians are only allowed to deal blackjack and plug in slot machines. Argh! Not even a craps table!
Illinois and Iowa aren't too far away, though. I think I will have to make a proposal to my friends for a road-trip. We are all of age (I'm 25). I have my first casino excursion planned for April -- I'm heading down to Phoenix for a family get-together (I'll be on Rounder and Dick in Phoenix's home turf).
The thing that is the real kicker is that poker is so exciting for me right now. My studies have opened up worlds of strategy, and I have no friends to share it with because they simply aren't as interested as I am.
Jon,
That's not true you have the forum until you play for real in a casino.
Good Luck Jon
Clearly you have much more experience with Omaha/8 than I do, and I value your opinions a lot, but I want to get a few things cleared up to help down the road. I thought about raising out of the BB with my hand, but I didn't think it was worth it. As per the above thread about RZ's comments on raising before the flop in Omaha/8, this raise would not get anyone to fold. The main feature is the A-2 suited, but the re-draw is marginal and the 9 adds nothing. I wanted to see the flop for no more than the cost of the BB. You obviously feel a raise is full value with this holding.
Ok, given the fact that I didn't double the size of the pot with a pre-flop raise, you now say the flop is "not very favorable". The 5 is counterfeited, but there are 16 clear outs for the low, the spade 9,10,J & Q give me re-draw potential for the nut high and similar club cards give me more marginal potential for re-draw club flushes, IF I can thin the herd somewhat. Therefore with about half the deck at least reasonable cards, I felt leading out with a bet was called for. Mason and David advocate the principle in HE that if you are going to call a bet, you are most often better off betting yourself. Is this principle flawed for Omaha/8? Should I be getting into more of a check-call mode in Omaha/8 than in HE until I make a hand?
In retrospect, I was clearly wrong not to bet the turn when the low came. It is possible that LHO with the A-4 might have mucked, but I have seen this player time and time again make thin draws to 2nd and 3rd best hands and she almsot NEVER makes any sort of aggressive bet until all the cards are out and she has the nuts. I wanted to force her and any other marginal low hands to pay the max for their bad draws, and I screwed it up. But with the pot size increased if I had raised pre=flop out of the BB, they would have more incentive to make a thin draw would they not? Also, you say the trip King hand has a clear check on the turn. Well, if I was holding top trips and no one had bet their straight to me on the button in a 5-man field, I would at least be tempted to not give a free card. You disagree, and I will have to give that scenario more thought.
I suspect that if I had bet the turn, she and at least one of the other middle position players would have called, the trip King hand would have also called, and I would have got run over at the river. I can live with that; that's poker. I am going to have to go back into Ray's book, study some more and keep getting more experience. This particular game is very beatable if for no other reason than the truly terible play of most of the competitors. I just don't want to keep making plays that might be keeping me in that category when I think I might have a better handle on the game than I really do.
"I have 16 clear outs for the low"
Don't forget that when drawing to a low without backup, if you hit your low on the turn there is a 6-card redraw to counterfeit your low on the river. And you may be getting quartered.
To me, this is an interesting hand (and post). A few points:
0. I do agree with Badger's initial point, a pre-flop raise is appropriate (for value). This is a fine Omaha starting hand.
1. I like the bet on the flop. You will make your nut low 49.3% of the time. With 6 players, there are 6 (not 5) small bets in the pot. To lose the hand, you will have to get at least 1 caller, so make it 7 bets. By itself, (ignoring with sweep potential), and with only one caller, the low is getting 3.5 to 1 on a 49% draw. How can this be bad?
I also like the high potential of the hand. On the turn you have 20 cards to get a flush draw, 2 offsuit fives for a set, 2 additional offsuit A's, (A's and 5's may stand up for high against K's and something). Yes, the flushes (not to mention straights) are draws to draws, but they do give you a sweep potential.
Besides, many good things can happen to you if you bet: a. Everyone else could fold (unlikely with 6 players, but I've seen it happen). b. You might get only one caller with and A2, and no pair, or a high hand you can beat. c. You might get a large pot, where even 1/2 the pot is very significant.
2. Here I completely disagree with Badger, the raise by the button was the best thing that could have happened. A reraise here is essential. Now the limpers have to call 2 bets to continue, you might get lucky and knock out all three. At the very least, you will probably knock out the A3, 23, A4 (could there possibly by anyone drawing only to a 4th nut low? What a game.). Notice you don't care if they do call ... the low half of the pot will now be 10.5 bets (6 on the flop + 15 on turn). Another point, with 5 players you will not lose money by getting quartered if there is another A2 out there.
3. The 6c is a dream card for your excellent hand. What could be better, the 3s or 4s? Bet the turn. Notice that if you had raised on the flop, and gotten head's up against the 3K's, you would now be free rolling for a 7 or a club.
One additional note: Against the A4, the ONLY card that bricks you on the river is a 2. Your live 2 still beats the 4 if you get an A, so the A4 hit one of his only 3 outs. You MUST not give free cards is a situation like this.
It's two weeks later, but I was just cruising here, and was surprised to see another response. Thanks for the comments. If you want to get a better picture about the texture of this game, check out my post above (Wild, Wild, Omaha/8 Hand)
Ray Zee - How can low hands be better than high hands in Omaha eight-or-better?
I’ll grant that it is easier to play low hands than high hands, because there are so many different types of high hands (one pair, two pair, trips, straights, flushes, boats, etc.). It’s more difficult, at least for me, to evaluate a high hand than a low hand before the flop because of this complexity. But that is not to say low hands are better than high hands.
I read everything you write in the forum. Your insight is invaluable and very much appreciated. In general, you give very clever, clear advice, in spite of your difficulty with the shift key :-). I have nothing but the highest respect for you as a poker guru. I have read the Omaha section of your book HLSP several times.
However, I think you’re missing the boat here. When there is an eight or better for low qualifier, I don’t think low hands are better than high hands.
The object of playing high/low split games is to scoop. The old argument is: playing low hands in high/low games is better than playing high hands because if you hold the best low, that hand will sometimes scoop the pot by also winning for high.
However, in Omaha-8-or-better the pot is split less than 60% of the time, because 60% of the time the common hand does not have three different ranks of cards of eight or lower.
The 60% of the time when the low hand wins half the pot for low, the high hand also wins half the pot.
The other 40% of the time the high hand wins both halves of the pot (all the pot). Even if you are holding a great low hand like A-2-3-4, you are usually up-the-creek-with-no-paddle the 40% of the time when there is no low.
Half of 60% is 30%.
If all the pots were equal, what it would amount to would be a 30% win rate for low and a 70% win rate for high. Thus high is better than low in Omaha-8-low by a factor of 7/3. (Actually, most of the betting and raising in Omaha-8-low is done before the flop by low hands. Thus when there are low hands there is generally more money in the pot before the flop. However, when players hold low cards there is even a poorer chance of low cards appearing in the common hand.)
It is true that sometimes a hand that wins for low scoops the pot by hitting a wheel. However, a high hand in a high only situation scoops the pot MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY than a wheel.
Of course, any low hand has fluke-out high potential. We’ve probably all seen a pair of twos win the high half of the pot, but that doesn’t happen much.
Back in the old days, before there was an eight or better low qualifier, it made perfect sense to play low hands and hope that they also won for high. But does that still make sense with the 8 or better qualifier requirement??
You yourself admit that A-2 by itself is not great because of the twin danger of getting counterfeited or quartered. Even so, A-2 by itself is more valuable than the A-x (suited) combination, because you are likely to win half the pot much more frequently when you hold A-2 than a flush in your suit will enable you to win half (or all) the pot when you hold A-x (suited). Similarly, A-2 by itself will show a greater profit over time than a pair of aces or a pair of kings. However, that is not to say that low hands are better than high hands. The 2-3 combination by itself is not very good, and 3-4 by itself is horrid.
But let’s talk four card low hands. A-2-3-4 is certainly a great low combination. However, 3-4-5-6 isn’t (and it’s not very good for high either). I think you would have to agree that just having four low cards isn’t particularly great. And there goes your argument that low hands are better than high hands.
So stop picking on Ivy leaguers who are trying to imitate your typing style.
you are correct. the midpoint really is 7.
scott
hands that only can play for high are indeed inferior to hands with low potential. you underestimate the hands that turn into high winners from a low base. when we talk about low card hands 3,4,5,6 is not one of them. it is not a good low hand and most times i dont consider it a playing hand, as well as 8,9,t,j. that is a high hand but not very good at all. with lots of people in id rather have the 3456 and headup maybe as well.
Ray - Hmm. It’s hard to separate the skills that lead to success. Golf is simple and yet complex. There are many aspects to a good swing which are difficult to separate one from another (at least when I’m the one swinging the club). Similarly there are many aspects of skill in poker and it is difficult to separate one from another.
With your level of skill, you might be able to occasionally play 3-4-5-6, perhaps in certain specific situations where you have a good read on somebody or are on a steal.
However, for me, at my level of poker skill (if you can even call it that) and in the games in which I generally find myself, both 3-4-5-6 and 8-9-T-J are both pretty much fold ‘ems unless I am in the big blind with no raises. Then they are probably both check and fold ‘ems after the flop, unless the flop is something amazing.
I’m not trying to underestimate the hands that turn into high winners from a low base. I’m trying to establish the value of low. I wonder if you are overestimating the value of hands that, for you, turn into high winners from a low base. Perhaps you are making trash like 3-4-5-6 pay off for you by using your other poker skills.
On the average, in Omaha-8-or-better, low is worth 30% and high is worth 70%. The reason is because 60% of the time there is no low at all.
When you write that I am underestimating the value of hands that turn into high winners from a low base, what is the basis for your reasoning?
Buzz
i guess i didnt write what i thought. i never said in my mind that 3456 is a hand i can make money off. i dont know how i gave that impression. but im glad to know that low is worth 30% and high is worth 70% and 60% of the pots there is no low.
Ray - Oops. My mistake. 40% of the time there is no low. 60% of the time there is a low. Sorry.
That does make low worth 30% overall, doesn't it?
Buzz
Buzz,
The problem with high only hands is that they rarely win big pots with jammed up action on the river. They do scoop but they tend to scoop small pots.
Contrast this with a low hand that is drawing to the nut flush, some straights, and low with backup. You will get action on every betting round and have a big overlay. The pots you get half of can be huge and you will even get 3/4 or all of a monster. This just doesn't seem to happen often with a high only hand (or course you can never win 3/4 with a high only hand).
Regards,
Rick
Rick - Thanks for the comment. My limited experience is that there is often more money put into the pot before the flop than afterwards, all depending, of course, on the particular mix of opponents.
I played in a game this week where the first hour went by with the pre-flop pot raised every single time and capped most of the time. Really. Usually those in the pot had some kind of two card low holding, but often not as good as A-2 or even A-3.
If you find yourself in one of these pre-flop speculative situations where some of your opponents don't seem to recognize a good starting hand from a poor starting hand, but do have the sense to recognize when they have missed the flop, how do you take advantage of the situation?
My style is to play tight-aggressive before the flop, raising about as often as calling. The opponents in the game described above played like maniacs before the flop, but after the flop, they played more shrewdly. Some of them might have had an advantage over me in that some of them seemed to familiar to each other. If they missed the flop, they would frequently check and call all the way to the showdown, depending on the particular opponent.
On the way home I got to thinking about how the game had gone. The hands with which I usually raise pre-flop are hands with good low potential, with A-2-4 or better. It occurred to me, on that long drive home, that maybe I was missing the boat by not playing strictly high hands more aggressively. After all, I reasoned, high hands win more than low hands.
Then I read the exchange between Scott and Ray and posted my idea.
I think you're correct about there being more money in the pot when you have to split it, but a substantial portion of it is your own contribution. You don't win a lot of someone else's money when you split the pot. I suppose it depends on the circumstances and your particualr opponents.
Before the flop a higher portion of the money is from your opponents. After the flop a higher portion of the pot is your own money. Frequently when you split the pot in a tight game, you're risking much to split the blinds.
Anyway, thanks for your well worded comment.
Buzz
Buzz,
its too hard to say what hands make the most money. clearly to me anyway in om/8 those lock low hands with good potential to also make a high do the best. the lock low hands flop the most hands that can continue on. with so many chasing with lows that cant win its the way to get free money on half the pot. now try to back into a high. if you are playing strong hands most times you will have decent draws for all the pot. the all high cards hands also do well but must be mucked after the flop very often. so i dont like these in games where they jam before the flop. where they play loose passive the high hands show well.
Ray - Thank you. I always appreciate your comments and your excellent advice. Truly.
Steve Badger, in a comment below says “The 70-30 is way off and not helpful.” I don’t get the way off part, but perhaps the 70-30 part is not helpful.
So both of my Omaha gurus agree that I’m off base here. That gives me pause.
However, I’m not willing to concede yet. In truth, the hand I would most like to have before the flop includes A-2-3 with either another A or a 4, and with the ace or aces to be suited. The problem is that those hands don’t come up much. (I suspect the suited aspect amounts to less than in Texas hold ‘em, but that’s another whole topic).
A problem with lows is that often the board is such that no low is possible. With no low cards on the flop, low hands are easy to play. They’re folders. With three low cards on the flop, low hands are also easy to play. With only one low card on the board, low hands are risky to play. Where I tend to get in the most trouble is with two low cards on the flop, not counterfeited by those in my hand. I suspect most of my opponents also tend to have trouble with these hands.
For example, if you have A-2-3 and the flop is 4-5-K, then you’re stuck seeing two more cards. If the turn is another high card, a four, or a five, you’re still stuck seeing one more card, even though at that point it’s about 6 to 5 that you won’t make a low. So six times out of eleven, you get burned when there are two low cards and two high cards showing on the board. You don’t make a low on the river and you probably don’t win high either. Ugh.
Contrast the situation described in the last paragraph with holding all high cards before the flop. If you miss the flop, you’re out cheaply. If you flop quads or a high boat, it’s groovy. If you flop a nut flush or a nut flush draw, or flop a straight or a multiple straight draw, or flop a set or a couple high pairs, you have decisions to make. Forty per cent of the time, you’re looking at a scooper or a draw to a high only scooper. (The down-side is that, even if you win for high, sixty per cent of the time you’ll probably end up splitting the pot if there are two or three low cards on the flop).
Anyway, thanks for all your helpful advice.
Buzz
Other than "experimenting" with various computer programs, I have not played Omaha8. However, I have considered sitting in a low limit Omaha8 game at the Taj in AC, and would appreciate criticisms to the following logic.
I understand your 70-30 split. However, how often will a good high hand win low? Never. Thus, the 30% of pots the low has are untouchable by high hands. The low hands have the ability to play high though. Low hands would only need to have a 30% chance of winning high to make low hands more profitable than high. Since two pair and below win high so infrequently, the value of high pairs and high straight runs are minimalized in comparison to low pairs and low straight runs. AK flush is no better than A2 flush in making high. I would argue that in a multi-way pot a good high hand does not hold that large an advantage over low hands in making high.
If I am way off, I'd appreciate knowing before I put my money on the line.
Thanks,
Wayne
LL, $1-5, semi-loose/passive table with 7 players. I have the bring in ($1) with a 2h, have 2d & Ac in hole. I shoot out a $3 bet. There are no cards on board higher than a 10. 3 players to my immediate right fold; next 3 call. xx/5s, xx/7c, xx/4d. 4th Street brings me 2d,Ac/2h, Ad, next is xx/5s, 4c; xx/7c, 10c; xx/4d, 3d. I bet the nickel and xx/5s, 4c drops. The other two call. 5th Street: I don't improve and the other two catch blanks. I go all in for my last $3. The next bettor is also all in. The diamond flush hit on 7th. I didn't improve. Was it such a bad move on 3rd?
it starts to get real complicated since you only had 11 bucks. your logical options might have been to bet $1 on 3rd and check or fold depending on what they catch. in bigger limit games you can win without going to the river so more aggressive play may be called for. with so little money i think you should have bet $5 and tried to hope to get it headup and maybe have him go out on four. your hand wasnt a bad starting hand. i dont like the $3 bet for your hand unless you are hoping to get a few callers and get allin and improve to win.
"Was it such a bad move on 3rd? "
Contrary to what the mighty Z wrote I say it was a horrible move regardless of the limit. Your hand is the type of hand that begs headsup play. More so at a structured limit where the bet carries some weight. The value is in the kicker and deception qualities of this hand. 7sfap has an example very close to this hand. The problem with 7CSFAP's handling of this hand is that they do not elaborate on it's value. Of course there is the possibility that Sklansky and Malmuth don't really understand the power of this hand. I especially believe this may be true because of Z's weak comments to your post.
Gosh I wonder if Sklansky is going to ask me to back up my comments. I hope not because I won't. I will tell you, for what it's worth, no one in the whole world plays this holding or one similiar as good as I do. I'll only say that unless one plays this hand optimally, it's value will be reduced to a very small winner and in most cases a very negative EV.
The value of this hand in 1-5 stud is entirely different from it's value at higher limits. As a bring in it has no, repeat no, raising value. When you are the bring at 1-5, bring it in for the minimum. This is also true at mid limits but more so at the lower limits. At the 1-5 hand the value of this hand goes up considerably depending on the weak play of your opponents. At mid limits the value of this hand increases as the skill level of your opponent increases. (Sounds like a math problem. You'd think Sklansky would be good at this one). That may sound counter intuitive but it is true! Take my word for it! After all I have been playing poker for a few years. I've never written a book. I don't know math. And I particpate in this forum. What better credentials do I need?
That's enough. I don't want to put out enough information here so that Malmuth gets any better at stud than he is now. Then he may just get an edge on me. Couldn't stand that.
Vince.
When I start a hand with $11 my objective is to make as much money as I can with the hand rather than maximize my chance to win the pot. I would just bring it in with $1 and consider myself very lucky to make aces up on fourth street. My play for the rest of the hand would be to get as many callers as possible with the intent of going all in on the river. I want to make four or five times my money if possible and for that I am willing to give up odds on winning the pot.
First question, is there an ante? Lots of 1-5 games have no ante, and as such, there is never any reason to bring it in for more than the minimum, since there is NOTHING in the pot to win.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
<< Sometimes there is a reason. If I'm in a loose game where 5 - 6 players routinely see 4th street, I'll bring it in for $5 with hands like TT or JJ hoping for one caller. Occassionally I get no calls and occassionally I get 6 calls, but more often, I get one $5 call and the other guy folds on my 4th street bet.
DJ (you results may vary)
Greg: 2/5 spread, no ante $2 bringin. I infrequently bring it in for $5. Reasons? (A) It is only costing me $3 additional since $2 is forced. (B) Build a pot in a loose game) (C) Isolate against a calling station in a tighter game. (D) maintain the ol' table image.
Richard: Sorry I don't have any comments to your original post. I sorta agree with Moses tho'.
Fred
Posted by: Fred M (jmorim2315@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 11:12 a.m.
Recently I have noticed a big change in my area in the poker world. Hold'em use to be the game everyone played now they have been playing a lot more Omaha Hi/Lo. Only one or two tables of Hold'em are spread and 3-5 tables of Omaha are going. I was wondering. Is this just a fad or does this happen every so often? Are the players getting bored with hold'em and now want something new. All opinions and comments would be appreciated.
Dice
i guess i had better have more copies printed up of my book. the older copies will of course be collectors items and very valuble. new players and recreational players like om/8 because it seems like you can play more hands. and it is hard to see that you played badly or were a big underdog, so when you lose it looks like you were unlucky as opposed to playing poorly. now i expect Mason will have a fire sale on hfap and raise the price on my book whatever its called.
When I was in the gift shop at the Commerce the other day, three young women had one of the books and they were passing it around and looking at the picture on the back cover. Some of those comments were pretty risque. After they left, I walked over to make sure that it was your picture they were drooling over, Sure enough, it was that 2+2 bestseller........... Scroll down if you want the surprise answer. Ray, you don't want to scroll down.
"Poker essays Volume II" by Mason Malmuth. Can you believe that?
I find the same thing at our local casino. In fact, I'm one of the converts to Omaha from Hold Em. After one year at the game I'm still no expert, but these are my observations: 1. Most Hold Em converts look at an Omaha holding as six Hold Em hands. Thus, they may even raise on the button with a four card hand the includes TcJc. They ALSO LOVE 6789 (EVEN WITH ALL IN THE SAME SUIT!!!).
2. I win more POTS with low hands, but win more MONEY with high hands. (Having both high and low is best, but this rarely happens). 3. There is no such thing as playing too tight before the flop. The tighter I get, the more I win. There is no problem getting action.
In the old Oceanside Card Club, back in 1995, the main game was 3-6 HE. They would often have 6 tables of it going on a busy night. Then, all of a sudden, crazy pineapple hi/lo became a hit at this room. For close to a year, CPh/l dominated the room, with 4-5 tables of this game going on a busy night, and only 1-2 of the HE. Finally, the regulars learned how to play the game modestly well, the superb action dried up, and slowly the game shifted back to HE (for some reason, they never seem to learn some of the errors that many of us consider pretty obvious).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
x
Betting structure and the dealing of cards onto the board is like HE or omaha. You are originally dealt 3 cards, and must discard one card after the flop and before the turn is dealt. At showdown, you can play 0, 1, or 2 cards from your hand, and the best hi and the best lo (8 or better) split the pot. Just like new omaha players make huge mistakes because they overvalue hands, new CP players make huge mistakes because they misvalue hands (HE players will tend to overvalue hands, especially overpairs, and Omaha players will tend to undervalue hands, especially low draws).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As a side note, Pineapple (as opposed to Crazy Pineapple) is played the same way, except discarding takes place before the flop.
just wanted to know if anybody would happen to know the odds of 2 people getting 4 of a kind with 5 people playing?had three 7's in the hole 1 showing got beet with 4 nines ouch!
It depends very slightly on your other cards being of three ranks, 2 ranks or just one. We will ignore this.
We have 5 players, and assume all of them see all 7 cards. One player has four of a kind, so let's get the odds for this first:
The "choose" operation refers to how many distinct subsets there are when order is unimportant. A choose B means the number of ways to select B items from a group of A items. "A choose B" equals A! divided by (B! * (A-B)!).
The "!" refers to factorial. "5!" means "5 factorial" which equals 5*4*3*2*1, or 120.
First, compute odds for 4 aces: (4 choose 4)*(48 choose 3) divided by (52 choose 7)
There are 4 aces and 48 non aces, we are choosing all 4 aces and any 3 other cards, and overall we are choosing 7 cards from a full deck. We can take this result and multiply by 13 for the general case. This works because it is impossible for there to be 2 different 4 of a kinds in one hand. If this were not the case, we would have to caluculate and subtract off any "double counting" of hands.
Notice that 4 choose 4 is one, which makes sense - there's only 1 way to pick 4 items from a group of 4.
Let's call the result of our calculation F, the probability of getting quads after 7 cards.
We need to multiply F by the probability that 1 or more of 4 opponents has quads given that you do. Or, we could calculate the how often none of them will and subtract this from 1.
Note that these 4 opponents are getting cards from a 48 card deck, since you hold all of one rank, and we don't really care about your other cards (they do matter, but not too much).
The chances a particular opponent will get quads when you do is similar, compute for 4 aces and multiply by 12, since there are 12 ranks of cards remaining: 12 * ( ((4 choose 4)* (44 choose 3))/ (48 choose 7) ).
Let's call this number Q, the chances a particular opponent has quads. What are the chances none of 4 opponents has quads?
(1-Q) is the probability that one doesn't have quads, so (1-Q) to the 4th power is the probability that none of them do. Let's call this number N, none of them having quads.
Let's call H = 1 - N. H refers to one or more opponents having quads while you do.
So the answer to your question, what are the chances that 2 players have quads when 5 players see 7 cards, is:
F * H. I'll let you calculate the numbers.
what your are asking is not what happened. the odds of two people getting 4 of a kind on the next hand dealt and you being one of them is quite high( up around a John Feeny plex figure:) )
what you really need to know is what are the chances an average 4 of a kind will get beat by a better hand which is what happened.
You write, "just wanted to know ... the odds of 2 people getting 4 of a kind with 5 people playing?"
Depends on who is dealing.
I appreciate your comments. Obviously you bring alot to this forum.
In one of the posts above, there was a comment about being agressive pre-flop with strictly high hands. In a game where several players see the flop, is there a time when you want to raise with a high hand. Unless the answer is no, it is likely to be more complicated than a simple post can cover. However, if you could give one example of when you would raise preflop with a strictly high hand, it might get me thinking in the right direction.
Thanks again,
Wayne
Wayne - Thanks for jumping in. I don’t have the answers; just some questions and some ideas which maybe are crazy ideas. Ray Zee and Steve Badger would both take me to the cleaners playing any poker game. Following their advice has been fruitful for me.
If you are planning to play Omaha-8-low, I suggest that you read Ray Zee’s book, High-Low-Split Poker. If Badger had written a book about Omaha, I would suggest that you also buy Badger’s book. These two clearly know the game.
Having said that, it turns out that I may not agree with EVERYTHING Steve Badger and Ray Zee write. At least I’m not yet convinced that playing certain high-only hands is disadvantageous. I’d like to see some computer simulation results for hands like A-A-K-K, K-K-Q-Q, etc. before making my final decision. At this point I’m questioning my own pre-flop hand selection in Omaha, trying to get playable and raiseable pre-flop hands better defined, better sorted out, in my own mind.
Years ago David Sklansky did the sorting for the 169 basically different Texas Hold ‘Em hands, and then he was kind enough to share his knowledge with the world. Doing the sorting with Omaha-High-Low hands would be more complex because there are many more than 169 hands. Badger may have done that sorting already, but he may be unwilling at this point to share the information (or maybe he hasn’t done the sorting). Steve has suggested that anyone who plays Omaha should figure out for himself what starting hands should be played and what starting hands should be raised. At least that’s my impression, but then I make a lot of mistakes (as mixing up 60 and 40 in a post above in this thread).
Anyhow, Wayne, I’m sort of with you looking for answers. The difference between us is I’m already playing Omaha. I consider myself a student of the game of Omaha Hi/Low and a recreational player, playing for fewer than twelve hours a week. At this point I’m doing a little better than holding my own playing Omaha, but the money honestly doesn’t matter much to me. Winning won’t improve my life style (but losing would upset my wife). I spend more time thinking about Omaha than playing it.
After my round of golf today, I should probably spend less time on Omaha and more time on golf. Tried to change my swing to get a little more power. What a disaster.
Buzz
Steve - “The 70-30 is way off and not helpful.”
All right, maybe not helpful, at least to you, but “way off”? What is your basis for writing the 70-30 is “way off”?
“The poster's focus above is off”
Could be. It’s an original idea. At least I have not read about it in any of the seven different books about Omaha that I have in my poker library.
“You want to play hands, high ones and low ones, in situations where you are aiming to win the whole thing.”
You’re the man. I’m not disagreeing with you here. Perhaps you misunderstood. I’m not talking about getting half of the pot. Rather I’m also talking about scooping.
At least 40% of the time a high hand scoops in Omaha-8 high/low. Period. I’m talking about the kind of scooping you do when you win for high and there is no low. If you think otherwise, I’m willing to make a wager and give odds.
In truth, most of my (limited) success in poker has come from following your (and Ray Zee’s and David Sklansky’s and Mike Caro’s) advice as closely as possible. That is not to say that I agree with everything you all write.
I’m very interested in knowing what your basis is for posting “the 70-30 is way off” and also “The poster's focus above is off.”
Thank you for all your assistance (in previous posts) to my understanding of strategy in Omaha Hi/Low. You write a book, I’ll buy it.
Sincerely,
Buzz
Buzz,
What percentage of scooped, high only pots are won by hands that had both hi and low potential? What Badger is saying is that hands that have two way potential are always to be preferred over one way hands. You can't back into a low with your KKQQ, and though you probably aren't going to win that many scoopers with 2345, I've seen it done. It might not be a case of disagreeing with the 40% of the time no low, as it is disagreeing with whether one way hands won the lion's share of that 40%. I never play Omaha, but that's my thinking.
I don't think Badger would ever claim that KKQQ was a bad hand.
What you're missing is that the percentage of boards with no low goes way up if you consider only the subset of boards that help a hand like KKQQ or KQJT. So the value of these hands is pretty high, especially in loose games where players will make bad draws for low.
You are right; however, my point was that KKQQ can *never* back into a low, while 2345 can make a winning high even though it was played only for its low value. I was trying to show why having two way potential versus one way only was important. Sorry that my post didn't clearly communicate that.
Big John - You did communicate that. it was a good post. Following is my response to your post above, written while you were evidently writing your own response to Dan Hanson.
Big John
“What percentage of scooped, high only pots are won by hands that had both hi and low potential?”
I don’t know, Big John, I think a lot. However, I don’t think it’s as high as 40% which is the minimum percentage of pots scooped by high only.
“What Badger is saying is that hands that have two way potential are always to be preferred over one way hands.”
That does seem to be what he is saying. And I have to agree it’s comforting to have a low out, a chance to fluke into a win for half the pot. I’m posing a theoretical question that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere, and also playing the devil’s advocate somewhat in being persistent in seeking the answer.
“You can't back into a low with your KKQQ, and though you probably aren't going to win that many scoopers with 2345.....”
I would play 2345 under most circumstances. In doing so, I would be hoping for an ace on the flop or something else that would enable me to hang in there to see the next two cards, something like a pair of fives or a pair of deuces with an eight on the flop. Low pairs are dangerous, however. Usually when there is a pair on the board in a nine handed game, someone has a full house and someone else also has a full house. If you match one of your cards to a low pair on the board to make a full house, more frequently than not I think, you will be beaten by a better full house. Of course that would depend on how many players stayed to see the flop. I’m assuming most players stay to see the flop, which usually seems to be the case with the fields I play.
“I've seen it done. It might not be a case of disagreeing with the 40% of the time no low, as it is disagreeing with whether one way hands won the lion's share of that 40%.”
High only wins 100% of that 40% of the hands where no 8-or-better-low is possible. Period.
“I never play Omaha, but that's my thinking.”
Thanks for your ideas. I frequently read and enjoy your posts here. I started semi-serious poker just this last year as a recreational player - a diletante to you pros. I don’t have the time to concentrate on all games and somehow thought my particular set of natural skills might be better adapted to Omaha High/Low than some of the other games. Seven stud involves keeping track of a lot of cards that have been folded. I think most regular seven stud players are able to do that better than me. Texas hold ‘em involves a lot of bluffing. I think most regular Texas hold ‘em players can do that a lot better than me. You never know, Big John, you might also be well adapted to Omaha Hi/Low.
Buzz
You wrote: "High only wins 100% of that 40% of the hands where no 8-or-better-low is possible. Period."
I say: Of the 40% of hands that are won by high only, some large fraction of that 40% are won by hands that featured a low draw *and* a high draw preflop. When your starting cards have two way potential, you *might* win high, you *might* win low, or, you *might* scoop. A hand with high only potential can win the high half or it can scoop if no low is present, but it cannot win the low if one is out there. In that sense, it is crippled.
I know that this is obvious, and is something that all Omaha players must certainly accept as basic. "In a split game, one way hands are at a disadvantage, relative to two way hands."
As regards you being a diletante to us pros; Badger is a pro, Ray Zee is a pro, I am a recreational player just like yourself. Being a poker pro is somewhat akin to being an Omaha hand with one way potential, if your way doesn't pan out, what do you have to fall back on? Most pros don't have the ability, dedication or results that Badger and Zee have had. If I had to worry about meeting my monthly "nut" from my poker winnings, I doubt if I'd be able to sleep at night. It is not having to worry about supporting yourself from your winnings that allows the "amateurs" to sometimes overcome the superior skills of the professionals. The money we win or lose might mean something to us, but it isn't going to make the difference between having a roof over our heads or being able to get those teeth taken care of. Amateurs usually have a big edge in having much less pressure being placed on their immediate results. In the bigger tournaments, you can see the stress that financial pressure has on the decision making ability of pros who have been running bad. There are some really good players who spend a significant portion of their time in search of financial backing to restabalize their playing careers. Without a bankroll, a player is out of business. Unless you are one of a very select group, it is difficult to find long term financial backing. You can get some people to finance a "shot" at a 15-30 or 20-40 for half your "net" winnings, but almost never can you get someone to provide a real playing bankroll for a fixed duration.
Big John - I hate reading messages when they get too far over on the right side of the thread column. I moved my reponse to your last post over to the General Theory forum (still on 2+2).
Buzz
Dan -
“I don't think Badger would ever claim that KKQQ was a bad hand.”
Yes, probably true. (I haven't yet read his last two posts).
A difference between Texas hold ‘em and Omaha Hi/Low is that you could play a pocket pair of kings with assurance in Texas hold ‘em even if you missed the flop (and if there was no ace on the flop). The reason is that full houses and flushes and straights are relatively rare in Texas hold ‘em. In Omaha, full houses and flushes and straights are not rare at all. Thus if you miss the flop with a pair of kings plus a pair of queens in Omaha, the kings and queens are probably a liability rather than an asset, and you’re probably out of the action and saving your chips rather than chasing. That’s especially true for a flop with three cards of 8 or below. If three cards to a low flop, you’re out cheaply (after one betting round) because otherwise you would be playing for only half the pot.
“What you're missing is that the percentage of boards with no low goes way up if you consider only the subset of boards that help a hand like KKQQ or KQJT. So the value of these hands is pretty high, especially in loose games where players will make bad draws for low.”
Yesssssssss. Thank you. That’s how it seems to me too. Even in games where players will make GOOD draws for low (like A-2-3-4 pre-flop), when you consider the subset of hands that help high only hands, and that’s a whopping 40% of the hands, the value of high only hands is pretty high.
Buzz
Steve - Good info, as always. Well worth my time struggling through this.
Thanks.
Buzz
Steve: This is a pretty big can of worms but I'll try..
Buzz: Thanks. A noble effort, as always.
Steve: “You are saying there are 70 high shares for every 30 low shares. I pointed out what I think is much more important, that the difference between scooping and getting half is often *much more* than double (or 70-30).”
Buzz: Yes, I think I see your point. Frequently in a tight game, when you are heads up with another opponent and then have to split the pot you end up winning only a chip or two more than you started with. You might have wagered twelve chips during the betting and you end up getting thirteen chips on the split. With the same amount of betting, if you scoop, then you end up getting twenty six chips. You end up winning fourteen chips instead of just one chip when you scoop. Yes, clearly the difference is much more than double.
Steve: AND, it doesn't matter whether you have the high or the low there!
Buzz: Yes, I see that there is no profit in playing high only hands or low only hands if the pot is split between high and low.
Buzz continuing: However, I’m not talking about any particular hand. I’m saying out of every one hundred hands, on the average, forty of the hands are won by high only while sixty per cent of the hands are split between high and low. If the pots were all of equal value, then high would be awarded 70% of the money and low would be awarded 30% of the money.
Buzz continuing: Of course the pots are not all of equal value. When there are no low cards on the flop, then there are fewer players staying for subsequent rounds of betting. There tends to be less money in the pot.
Buzz continuing: However, the amount of money invested in the pot BEFORE the flop tends to be about the same. Unless somebody is clairvoyant, no one knows there will be no low cards on the flop.
Buzz continuing with a possible new offshoot concept perhpas to be explored later: Let’s think about the 40% of the time you don’t have to split with low, because there is no low. Now, with high cards only you must have an edge. It must be sort of like playing Texas hold ‘em and preferring to play high cards like K-Q rather than low cards like 7-2, mustn’t it?.
Steve: What makes going for high often very bad though is, unlike low draws where you have up to 16 possible cards to make your hand, many high draws are gutshots or two pair draws. Four cards. So *drawing* for the high half is often very dubious. It's very often a money losing call, while drawing for that straightforward, 10+ card, low draw is clearly profitable.
Buzz: I see. If you have KKQQ and the flop is K45, then you need one of seven cards (any K,4,5) for a probable winner for high. Someone heads up with you and holding A234 is looking for any one of twenty one cards (any A,2,3,6,7,8) for a probable winner for low. Over time, it seems the low draw is about than three times as profitable as the high draw.
Buzz continuing: And if a 3 or a 6 (and no K,4,or 5) appears in the next two cards, then you won’t even win the high. However, if none of the twenty one cards the A234 is looking for appear in the next two cards, then the KKQQ scoops.
Buzz continuing: So let’s say you are heads up with KKQQ (rainbow) against A234 (rainbow) and the flop is K45 (rainbow). Who has the advantage?
Buzz continuing: It took me over an hour to tediously wade through the probability chart I set up. But you’re worth it, Steve. (Of course there are no guarantees I didn’t make a math mistake along the way, but I did check it).
Buzz continuing: On the average, then, with a flop of K,4,5, a flop which is mildly favorable to both hands, KKQQ (rainbow) against A234 (rainbow) scoops 305, splits 280 and loses 235 times out of every 820.
Buzz continuing: In other words, heads up, against the ideal low hand, with a flop mildly favorable to both hands, KKQQ reigns supreme. Mainly because of the two low cards on the flop, KKQQ scoops slightly less than 40% of the time (more like 37% in this particular case), but still beats A234 head to head, 445 to 375 (counting splits as half wins).
Buzz continuing: Of course, before a flop with a king or a queen, A234 is clearly more valuable than KKQQ.
Steve: With a 789T board, I don't mind having A2. But with a 6789 board, I sure as hell don't want 98.
Buzz: Me neither. And with a 6789 board you probably don’t want KKQQ either.
Steve: “You want to play hands, high ones and low ones, in situations where you are aiming to win the whole thing.”
Buzz: O.K.
Steve: And I'm saying playing high cards should not be equated with scooping. In many ways, it's harder to scoop with high cards. Low hands are able to let their hands develop, most obviously with stuff like backdoor flushes when you flop the nut low, or even a draw to the nut low.
Buzz: Yes. I see it. With low hands the value is clear cut. A2 is as good with 456 as it is with 678, but KKQQ is only good with a K or a Q, and even then, especially without a pair on the board, may end up losing. And with KKQQ, before the flop you generally need a king or a queen on the flop to continue.
Steve: Perhaps your assignment for the next millenium would be to find out the makeup of those 40% of hands that scoop. What cards make up that universe? It's not just big cards. And it's not even primarily big cards. (Think suited aces.)
Buzz: That’s a pretty difficult assignment (and I was hoping you had already done it). Whenever there are not at least three different ranked cards of 8 or lower on the board, a high only hand scoops. The board could look like 4442Q and some high only hand would scoop the pot. In that particular case, you’d rather be holding a 4 than four high cards. But you’ve probably seen similar situations (like 4442Q) where no one has the 4 and a high pair wins the whole thing.
Steve: I believe your emphasis is off, both in thinking about how you came up with 70-30 rather than the bigger $-disparity that can happen.
Buzz: In this thread I’m challenging the notion that you want to have at least two low cards in your hand to be seeing the flop, because otherwise you’re playing for high only. In truth I like A234 as well as the next person.
You, Steve, have indicated in other posts that starting hand selection is of critical importance. Ray Zee emphasizes the importance of good starting hands and tight play. Both Mike Cappelletti and Ed Hutchison have developed point scales for beginners to help them evaluate their Omaha high/low hands. I’m continuing to explore evaluation of starting hands.
O.K. I accept that my emphasis in this thread is off. Still it got me to thinking
Steve: And secondly you seem to be thinking playing for high/scoops implies big cards.
Buzz: Yes, I see your point. Clearly playing for high scoops does not imply big cards. I wonder if there is some data available for Ohama-High-Only (as there is for Texas Hold ‘em) regarding the value of high cards for high over low cards for high.
Thanks again for you help.
Buzz
I've been flipping through the comments randomly (mostly focused around Badger and Ray) and I have this to muck up your figuring...
In your KKQQ vs. A234 example, forget the flop you mentioned. What about J104, two suited? Are you still in then? A or 9 hits, you scoop... unless flush/full comes.. or low runner-runners...etc.
How many flops will come that will allow the lock low draw to drive you out of scoop hands you'd end up with, simply because of the betting? How does that affect your scoop percentage calcs for high-only? If any straight card below a 9 falls, are you gone?
Also, heads up, you might be able to stand the heat the A234 is gonna put on your trips... but what about adding a few other players? How many raises on the turn/river are you going to call?
And, will the scoop pots of the low hands who suck out on you for high be high enough (because they were raising the crap out of your high-only) gonna be higher than your high only scoop pots???
hmmmm......
nm
x
I thought I'd post this on the forum to get some feedback on my thinking about chasing with a small pair on 5th Street.
A Small Pair with Ace Kicker vs. Two Larger Pair on 5th St.
Your opponent Bets on 5th giving you Pot odds of 4 to 1 and Effective Odds of 2 to 1 since you will chase, but not Pay Off on the River if you don’t improve. This is typical Pot Odds.
As,2c,2h,9h,8s 4 to 1 Dog vs.Jc,3d,Jh,4c,4d
Of course you can never be positive that you are truly up against Jacks over Fours. The reason Folding here is right is because your hand is still a Dog to a Three Flush and a small pair, or Two small pair which are other probable hands that your opponent may be holding right now.
As,2c,2d,9h,8s 1.6 to 1 Dog vs.7h,6h,Jh,4c,4d
Once your hand picks up an other live Overcard Kicker calling is definitely a good play, and Raising is even better if your Opponent will give you a Free card. This is right because if your Opponent truly has Jacks Up your Call is only slightly wrong, but if he actually has less your Call is correct.
As,2c,2d,9h,Kc 2.4 to 1 Dog vs.Jc,3d,Jh,4c,4d
As,2c,2d,8s,Kc 1.5 to 1 Dog vs.
6h,7h,Jh,4c,4s
Just remember guys that the two posters on this forum who actually took a few personal lessons from me were John Feeney and the above Chris V and they were both beginners at the time!
yeah, i've talked with john about his lessons with you. he speaks very highly of them. but he only had to pay $200 back then. and i am sure you understand even that is expensive. and through in airfare, etc. i'd like some, but they're going to have to wait a while.
maybe you could tour major cities and do some free samples. if you swing though ny or dc, i'll make sure to catch it.
scott
$200 an hour would be a bargain. David is the foremost authority and a great teacher. what you get back over a lifetime with compounded interest could in itself make you wealthy. hard to see but true.
Ray,
Do you still offer your $600.00, one week poker seminar packages in Montana? I think that one week stay at the log-mansion, which includes all meals, and fifty hours of advanced poker theory taught by you personally, is an incredible deal. I especially like the fact that all your graduates get 30 lbs. of frozen bear meat and your own personal bear meat stew and bear meat spaghetti recipes absolutely free, in lieu of a diploma or certificate of completion.
yes and John Feeney came to take the course but left right away when he found out there werent very many organic vegetables for him to eat. then Paul Feeney was going to come and do some hunting but he somehow change d his mind when i offered to let him walk in front of me so he could see the game first. when are you coming John?
I'm coming up as soon as I can. BTW thanks for sending me that nice hunting jacket! I was quite surprised to learn that all you Montana hunters are required to wear bearfur jackets when out hunting. Mine look s awful good on me, but my wife thinks someone might accidently mistake me for a bear. I told her about the Montana fish and game clothing rules, but she still won't let me come up until that new life insurance policy is approved and takes effect. Goes to show you that women don't know a damn thing about hunting. Hope to see you soon Ray, and Happy Holidays to you!
Is the bullseye painted on the back required also?
its a nice black bear jacket(ha ha). its all black with a white stripe down the middle.
Chris,
If you explain how you got HTH with this hand it might help. Otherwise there are too many possibilities for this dinosaur mind. OP (OTHER PLAYER) UTG, middle, end pos'n would help also.
thanks
paul
Usually this happens when the Jack is high and either you called the Bring-in, or Called the Jack's raise and no one else is in the pot. Of course you need to consider who you are playing with, if they Rasied as a possible steal, or if they were early, had high cards behind them, but still Raised. My post was just to try to grasp the Theory of playing Small Pairs with Big Kickers, not as a cut and dried way to play in every situation.
An other starting hand I'm trying to study right now is the small and medium pair with a Straight Flush Kicker. It seems even harder to play correctly.
Later, CV
Your opponent Bets on 5th giving you Pot odds of 4 to 1 and Effective Odds of 2 to 1 since you will chase, but not Pay Off on the River if you don’t improve. This is typical Pot Odds.
As,2c,2h,9h,8s 4 to 1 Dog vs. Jc,3d,Jh,4c,4d
1) I would drop if he raised on third. If he called I would play.
Of course you can never be positive that you are truly up against Jacks over Fours. The reason Folding here is right is because your hand is still a Dog to a Three Flush and a small pair, or Two small pair which are other probable hands that your opponent may be holding right now.
As,2c,2d,9h,8s 1.6 to 1 Dog vs. 7h,6h,Jh,4c,4d
2) I would drop if he raised on third. If he called I would play.
Once your hand picks up an other live Overcard Kicker calling is definitely a good play, and Raising is even better if your Opponent will give you a Free card. This is right because if your Opponent truly has Jacks Up your Call is only slightly wrong, but if he actually has less your Call is correct.
As,2c,2d,9h,Kc 2.4 to 1 Dog vs. Jc,3d,Jh,4c,4d As,2c,2d,8s,Kc 1.5 to 1 Dog vs. 6h,7h,Jh,4c,4s
3)I would play.
Just general answers.
paul
You mean that if you were the bring-in. I could steal from you with any high card up from any postion on 3rd St. I don't believe it unless we are talking about 1-5 stud no-ante with a $1 bring-in.
CV
Paul,
I figure that even if your opponent showed you his Pair of Kings on 3rd St. You will still play him heads up with a live pair of 2's with an Ace Kicker in a 15/30 game if there was around $17 of antes and bring-ins in the Pot. That means 6 players. It actually would be less since you can see him improve his hand and get out when you are drawing dead.
(A,2),2 is only a 1.4 to 1 Dog vs. (K,3),K
Later, CV
Chris,
No your talking about 5th street with a pair on the board. If you raised on third street and then bet again on 5th street I would assume you had two pair after checking 4th street. That's what I meant.
paul
I see what you are saying now. As long as you don't think he would try to check-raise on 4th with a Pair of Jacks.
Later, CV
Would you be more or less likely to raise with split K's if one of your K's was dead? Assume no aces are showing.
I am of two minds here. Raise to drive people out since one of your cards is dead VS call and people will not expect you to have K's since one is dead.
I am leaning towards raise more often, since you might also get callers who figure you dont have the K's.
any ideas?
Todd
Couple ideas here for split Kings, 1 dead:
Almost always at least play them unless
1. There are 2 unduplicated aces still to act.
2. If you are raised by an ace and you have reason to believe he has a pair of aces
3. Your kicker is totally dead.
To call or raise would depend on the crowd and your position. Clearly, playing heads up is best, so go ahead and raise esp if your King is highest card on board. If you get a king, you'll win right there. Paring your kicker is great too. Look to see what cards of your opponents are out. Unless you think someone has aces, I's probably raise.
if alot of people were going to be in the pot id be inclined to fold rather than raise. if i could get it headup by a raise then certainly thats the thing to do.
I would definitely raise, unless there are Aces behind you yet to act. even then I still might raise to see what the Aces do. If an Ace calls or re-raises, its very likely he has a pair of them. As always, it all depends on how well you know the opponenet too.
But it seems every time I try and get cute and just call with what I think to be top pair, I get outdrawn bysomeone who probably wouldnt have even been in the pot had I raised to begin with.
Gambler
would your decision be based on the presence of the dead king, or would you always raise with K's.
I think in low limit stud it is almost always correct to raise with K's, your decision comes down to whether to raise 1-5 bucks.
The thing I was going for was: what do you (I )think about how the table interprets your raise, in light of the dead king. Would you be more likely to believe the raiser has K's with one dead or with no other K's around. I tend to think that as a steal, you lose value when another K is out there, since he may have K's and reraise you. Thus, a raise with one dead K probably is even more likely to be K's
What ray said is very interesting too. How many of us would fold K's for the bringin in a family pot. I am certainly not there yet.
Todd
Ray, I think Todd is talking low limit. If he has good position and no Aces showing, would you still fold? Wouldn't you try to get head up or steal right there if your position is good?
Hey Todd,
I think you have to play the kings very fast, and be happy when you win, even if it is a small pot. You have dramatically reduced your chance of drawing trips and even more so your chance of drawing to a full house. Any legitimate hand against you has now even better reason to be drawing against you. Yet, I have a problem folding here as your kings are likely the best hand out and heads up are still a favorite against all but pocket aces or trips.
Wayne
TWIMC,
HTH from third street. xx/Js PTR (player to right of me) raises on third st., I have Kc7d/Ks I reraise everyone else drops. I bet all the way until the river my board is Kc7d/Ks8c5d5h vs ptr xx/Js4c7h9h. All J's and K's are live. There is approx. $80 in the pot 5-10 7CS .50ante $2bringin. I check on the river and he bets. I check my cards again just to make sure, but I still have K's over 5's. I called he had 3 Q's. Do you ever not call and fold in this situation?? I think I should of folded in this particular situation, but I would like to hear other people's opinion on this.
paul
If I have read your post correctly he had a pair of queens going into the river, but hit a set on the river.
I don't know why you would want to check and fold. I think there is enough in the pot to justify a call. If he is willing to take a pair of queens into the river against the Kings-over that you most likely have you have to call in this situation. Especially because your check may in such instances induce a bluff.
I've been concentrating on Hold'em for the last couple of weeks -- but maybe you could explain to me why you think a check and fold might be warranted. I just don't see it. I think it is a clear call.
Jon,
I was just using this as an example. I did call but I was 95% sure I was beat. The question I'm asking I guess do you ever not call in this situation when all odds say you should call.
Paul
If the odds are there I think you have to call. It seems no different from the discussions that everybody has with Rounder about taking advantage of odds when they are there.
Unless you conform to Rounder's way of thinking (which I am not criticizing) I cannot think of one reason not to call when you are getting the best of it. Some bad things could happen, however. If your check induced a bluff, your folding is going to make you a more likely bluff target in the future. Second, you could fold the winning hand.
Obviously, there are reasons to occasionally call when you are not getting the odds -- advertising, randomizing your play, etc.
I am sorry if I am still missing the point. You say that you were 95% sure you were beat, but yet your question presupposes that the odds justify a call.
What happened on the hand?
you were in the game not me but most times i would bet out with kings up as he would most likely have jacks up. if raised id consider the options. if i checked like you i would fold if i knew he was the kind of player scared to bet a hand like jacks up and wouldnt bluff. in bigger stud games i might check to get him to bet jacks up for value thinking i died with my kings. then i would raise him. with a player that would fold then i wouldnt do it unless as a bluff.
Can't see any reason to fold here except if you absolutly know that your opponent would never ever bluff or bet unless he had the nuts.
That aside, I think your best play is to bet on the river with the hand you had. You are losing money against weak players like this when you don't bet for value on the end. If he's weak enough to chase your K's, then your two pair, he'll probably call the $10 on the river with just his Q's and he'll definitly call if he catches or has two pair. The thing you need to look at here is that beacuse of your board and your raise on third st., betting is not going to cost you more than calling - even if you are beat. Unless he's brain dead he's gotta put you on 2 pair going into the river - he can't raise you with his trip Q's because he'll fear you could have filled up too. If you have him beat you win an extra $10. If he has you beat you still only lose $10. Free money. Those extra bets add up.
Thanks for your answers,
Next time I will bet out even though this ptr was a call station, he probably wouldn't raise me back with 3Q's figuring I had the full house.
It was bugging me.
paul
Hi Paul,
I agree with Ray (I usually do). I would have bet the kings up. Your raise should have said you had kings. He probably should not have satayed with queens. I would have figured him for jacks up and raised him or check raised him. He would probably not have folded with 3 concelled queens. He (in my opinion) made a mistake on 3rd street yet came out smelling like a rose. I hope he does the same things when I go down there.
Ratso,
How are you. This was at FW not AC. I had developed checking with this hand playing 1-5 7CS because it was usually multiway and I would save some bets due to raises of someone catching a flush or whatever. Everyone pretty much said what I was thinking but it certainly helps to throw it out there and get it confirmed by the forum.
Happy holidays Ratso
Check and call is the best play unless this guy is such a passive calling station that he begs you to bet.
Vince.
Why not arrange a sponsored seminar in the one of the AC casinos. You could possibly find a company (Conjelco, Wilson, something like that) who might foot the costs of bring Sklansky to the Taj or Trop to give a 1-2 day seminar. Actually, having a number of Poker speakers would be a nice idea capped off by a final day tournament. Entry fees and rooms would be paid by the individuals. It works well in science.
Do you think there would be any interest? If so, any suggestions for a program? Maybe even a wrestling tag team match - you pick 'em
Don't invite Mason. Back in 1993, the second week of November, I spoke to Mason briefly, bought "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" as he suggested, and went on the longest, most hideous period of running bad the world has ever known. For nine months, I never won a pot.
Tom D
How do I calculate the odds for a 7CS hand? I do it all the time in Hold Em, but I am new to stud and I have found that it seems to be much harder. For example - on Sunday I was in a tournament, six handed and I had AsQh(Kd) and another player went all in with xxJc. One of my Queens was dead, but all of the Aces and Kings were still live. I put the all-in guy on a pair of Jacks and I figured that gave me 8 cards that would give me an overpair (2 Qs, 3 Ks, 3 As) plus a slim chance of getting a broadway. But this doesn't account for the other person getting another J or 2 pair, flush, etc. In hold 'em since there are community cards it is fairly simple to determine what cards will help you and not improve him, but how do I calculate this quickly in 7CS.
Now let's take this one step farther - say in the above example I have 10d10c(Kd) and all of my cards are live. Which hand is better against what I believe to be a pair of Jacks?
Lonnie Snyder
Since hold'em uses community cards its much easier to calculate your odds of winning on paper. Stud gets much more complex in the combinations that can come up so I use Caro's program. I think that is what 2+2 used in 7CSFAP.
Later, CV
Thanks Chris! What is Mike's Caro Poker Probe, and how can I get a hold of it? Already decided I should get 7CSFAP.
Thanks,
Lonnie
You can get both at ConJelco.
CV
Suppose you know an opponent with a Medium Upcard on third street has to have:
1) A Pair
2) A Three Straight
3) A Three Flush
4) Trips
Now on 4th they catch a no gap or one gap Straight Flush card.
How many combinations can there be of:
1) Just a Pair
2) Two Pair
3) Four Flush
4) Four Straight
5) Three Straight plus a Pair
6) Trips
I can't seem to figure out the right formulas for these combinations. And the question I'm trying to answer is when I should throw away a Mediocre hand like a Small Pair big kicker. It seems as though I should throw away alot of Hands in this situation if the pot is still small.
Thanks, Chris
virtually all hands that are less than a live overpair and even many of those if you will be outplayed from scare cards.
I kinda figured the answer would be around those lines. Thanks for confirming it.
Later, CV
A lot depends on the opponent. Bad players frequently play medium pairs with no kicker or medium straight draws (in situations they shouldn't). If you open-raise with the second-highest upcard in early position and the only caller is an expert player on the bring-in's immediate right, his probable range of hands is considerably narrower, especially if the ante is small or his flush or straight cards are dead.
Yeah I know it can get complex, but I'm just trying for a typical 15/30 player. Maybe I'll talk to a Statician that I know at work. Maybe I'll post what I think is correct then maybe we can see where I'm messing up.
Thanks,
CV
Are you familiar with "Poker Expertise Through Probability" by Robert T. Riley? There may be some techniques that he doesn't cover that you may need for this problem - but the book starts with the basics and goes on to show how to tackle some pretty complex problems.
C.J.
I'm glad that you posted this, because I have been looking at some elementary books in regards to probability, but many of them don't emphasize poker nearly enough...as they are not books about gambling per se.
I know that Mason Malmuth's Gambling theory has a pretty good appendix with books that might be helpful in this regard as well.
Knowing the combinations will help to determine how mediocre your hand really is.
Where can I get a copy of this book? Does it deal with poker probability exlusively?
Thanks.
The Gambler's Bookshop has it. Yes it does deal with poker probability exclusively. The book looks self-published, but the author does a good job. I think he used to be a high school probability teacher and is a poker player.
For instance assume player started with 8s and caught 7s. To have trips he needs 88 or 77 in hole. There are three combinations of each. To have a four flush he needs two spades in hole which is 11 choose 2, or 55.(nine are straight flush draws). A straight draw is 45, 46, 56, 59, 69, 610, 910, 9J or 10J (assuming he would start with all these hands). There are 16 of each which is 144 minus the 9 straight flush draws already counted or 135. Two pair means 87 in hole and there are nine of them. You finish it up Chris.
I guess it isn't. I worked on it today and am getting some interesting information. I was trying to make it too complex. One thing that you might find interesting is that the Engineers I showed the problem to, here at Micron, wouldn't touch it with a Ten Foot pole. They believed it much more complex also.
Thanks, CV
Let that be a lesson to you. Stick with Uncle David.
Has anybody ever heard of aviation poker?
You start out with 4 cards in your hand, you discard one before the flop, one on the flop then you play it like regular hold'em. Can anybody tell me what hands should be played pre-flop? Any indication on strategy would be welcome.
Thanks
One of the most frustrating hands for many players is unimproved aces. When is it time to fold, raise, call, bet? With unimproved aces (UA), is it better to have a showing ace or conceiled? Why does it appear that we loose more hands with aces than not? Are UA's much different in low limit vs high?
Would anyone like to comment about this?
It's more painful to lose starting with Aces than with some other pair. It feels like a bad beat. Also, it usually costs more because we tend to be reluctant to toss them.
Since I almost always raise with either hand (split or pocket), I think I get a better read if I have split Aces, and my opponent raises later in the hand. At the limits I play, most players won't get too tricky against a probable pair of Aces, or possibly Aces up, unless they have the goods. Certainly, against a straight foreward player, I could toss it without losing any sleep.
Multiway hands are more complex. I don't feel too comfortable with a single pair, even Aces, against several opponents. If I can, I try for a check-raise, or hope for an opportunity to re-raise, to make it two bets cold to the players behind me.
Sometimes, it seems like Aces are death, but I guess if I could choose a pair, it would be Aces.
Tom D
My experience with unimproved aces at 5th street of check raising has been disasterous. Assuming one raises on 3rd st with the aces and bets on 4th st. One must consider tossing unimproved aces at 5th street if
(1) there has been a raise after the ace
(2) if someone shows 2 suited (non-A,K)cards and has answered 1 raise.
(3) if there are 3 players answering the raises.
(4) if you have seen either 1 ace or 2 dead secondary cards.
Any comments?
most times you will go to the river with aces unless the bets and raises are to you or you put someone on trips or better and you know what you are doing. what i love are those that always raise to protect their aces and hardly ever raise with an ace up without aces. unless something good happens to their hand the pots mine.
After 1000 hands on a simulator, I show that folding unimproved aces on 5th street is not profitable as I thought (47-48%). However, folding them unimproved on 6th street is profitable 56% of the time. I think if you go to 6th street with aces, and you are not sure if the opponent(s) have tripped up or have aces with you, you should see the river.
you will very rarely be right to fold on 6th street unless its bet and raised to you and you suspect a made hand. whatever simulator you are using and if using correctly, if it says to fold aces on 6th street it is wrong and i wouldnt use it in any decisions for the future. software is only as good as the person who wrote it.
I certainly agree that if your cards and your evaluation of the opponents hands are good enough on 5th street to keep you in, and the pot odds are favorable, it is usually incorrect to fold on 6th.
I will tweek the parameters on the software. I also understand that the Advisor is justy that, an advisor. It is a nice feature since it makes one think about the situation, analyze pot odds and implied odds then decide for ones self. TY, Ray. BTY I did re-read the chapter in the green book
"i wouldnt use it in any decisions for the future"
Gee Z, sometimes your brilliance amazes even me. What I like about this statement is that it applies to all so called "poker simulators".
Vince.
Did you mean simulators or sTimulators?
What percentage of omaha hi-lo pots would you estimate are split between 2 players? 3 or more?
One more question: If it's 3 or 4 out of ten pots that are split among players, does the game become tiresome, especially when it seems like you just can't catch playable starting hands? I'm planning on learning when I get my beginner book in the mail.
Thanks, DD
DD - Your question can't be answered directly because the answer depends on the tightness of the game and on the number of players in the game.
The theoretical maximum percentage of split pots in a full game is 60%, if you're just talking about splits between high and low. In a game with just a few players, the theoretical maximum is even lower.
However, in a tight game sometimes the winner is decided before the flop because someone bets and everybody else folds. Or, sometimes the winner is decided on some other bet when someone bets and everyone else folds. In this (common tournament) situation the winner does not have to show his/her hand and wins the whole pot. In a game that is not very loose, sometimes there is no winner for low because no one has a good enough low hand to play. For example, let's say you hold K,Q,4,3 multisuited. A good Omaha player in a full game and not in the unraised big blind would routinely fold that hand. Although there are two low cards (the 4 and the 3), that's not a good enough combination for a sensible player to play (and K,Q by itself is also not a very good combination). That's just my opinion. I'm sure there are many Omaha players out there who disagree with me (just not any very good ones - again, just my opinion).
The answer to your question about three way splits is more complicated. Often the low half of the pot is split between 2 (or more) players. Sometimes the high half of the pot is split between 2 (or more) players. Again, the percentage of the time those splits occur depends on the number of players and the tightness of the game.
The answer to your question about the game getting tiresome depends on your perspective. It's more fun to win pots than just sit there, but it's more fun to just sit there than to lose pots.
I highly recommend starting to play Omaha in tournaments, unless you are already an accomplished Texas hold 'em player. You could always get lucky and win, but you should be prepared to lose at the start to better, more experienced players. Reading the books helps a lot, and will save you money and make you money, but there is finally no substitute for experience.
Good luck to you.
Buzz
"I highly recommend starting to play Omaha in tournaments, unless you are..."
Buzz, is that in PLACE of playing O/8 ring games? I can understand you want to cut DD's expenses, but won't a newbie probably get knocked out too early too often to gain a whole lot? Plus, aren't tournaments more aggressive or tight or both? (never played a O/8 tournament, except computer)...
I've only been playing a little while myself, but I just plan on bigger swings as i'm learning...
Some casinos have small buy in weekly tournaments where valuable experience can be gained. I recommend this to any one wanting to learn Omaha. These tourneys usually have unlimited rebuys in the first hour.
My local casino, The Silver Star in Philadelphia, MS, has a tournament with a $25 buyin, unlimited $20 rebuys during the first hour. A novice with a certain degree of restraint on calling too many hands before the flop should be able to get through the first hour with no more than $65 invested. With a little luck (cards seem to always run over first time players) that person should be able to play well into the second hour of a tournament that usually lasts just over 3 hours.
Of course, the other methods of learning (read, study, play IRC, etc) are very helpful, too. However, to get your feet wet the first times and be able to limit your losses to a fixed amount the small tournaments are wonderful for the novice.
I agree with mredge.
I should have been clearer in my earlier post. I’m not advising DD to get involved in a high level “special event” tournament.
Low level tournaments in the L.A. area cost about $15 to enter with optional re-buys for $10, and are offered by some casinos on a weekly basis. Typically you get about 200 TC (tournament chips) for the initial fee and 300 TC or 400 TC for the re-buy fee. The house “collection fee” is taken up front and is usually $5 for the whole tournament (which is usually about four hours for me). That has to be the best deal going!
You have to post one big blind and one small blind every round in a tournament, but there is no “collection fee” every round. Thus you get playing experience against real opponents for a low cost.
Depending on luck, skill, and tightness of play, a beginner should be able to last a couple of hours or more for fifteen or twenty five dollars. That’s a whole lot cheaper than the cost of playing in a ring game. Some beginners show more aptitude for the game (and have more luck) than others and may even end up “in the money.”
Of course if you bet wildly on every hand, or if there are maniacs at your table who are luring you into the action too frequently, then your money isn’t going to last very long. But it will last longer than in a ring game where you are paying a “collection fee” to the casino every round plus a toke to the dealer when you win a hand. In a tournament the winners toke the dealers at the end of the tournament.
To answer your questions:
Yes, that is in place of playing O/8 ring games.
No, I don’t think a newbie will get knocked out too early too often to gain a whole lot.
Some tournament players are very aggressive while others are weak, and some are very tight while others are loose.
My experience is the mix of players is similar to ring games. To be successful in a tournament, I think the strategy is very different from a ring game. However, learning to play in a tournament may make you more successful when you return to a ring game even though the styles of play are different.
Buzz
Viva Las Vegas provides two free services for the traveler to Las Vegas.
1. If you would like to receive the free newsletter "VIVA LAS VEGAS", every Wednesday and Friday, delivered by free e-mail,just send an e-mail to:-- billhere@lvcm.com Put the word "subscribe" in the “Subject:” line of your e-mail.
2. If you would like to receive an index, delivered by free e-mail, which lists and tells you how to get free Las Vegas coupons for buffets, gaming guides, shows and over 200 lists of interest to Las Vegas bound travelers, just send an e-mail to:- billhere@lvcm.com Put the words "coupons-lists" in the “Subject:” line of your e-mail.
NOTE: If you would like a free e-mail on both the above, mark "subscribe+coupons-lists" in the “Subject:” line of your e-mail and send to:- billhere@lvcm.com
Does anyone know a good 7CS teacher in NY/NJ area?
I'd like some advice on how to play in a shorthanded (varying from 3 to 5 players) loose O8 game. Stealing the blinds is a no-go because all players are loose with at least one of the maniac variety. What standards of hands should you call in the BB against loose raisers who could have anything? Is it still a nuts game because the combinations of cards are still wide?
i believe you can deduce the answers you are looking for from my book on the subject. the rest of what you get will be the real payoff. you will still need extra good hands if you are sure you are going to get multiway action through the hand. good luck.
a raise is better against two tights who will fold without jacks or better. but in general you commit yourself to a big pot for no reason. good players will pick you apart with overcards and bluff you out with scare cards. your hand is most likely the best hand and you would want to play it against bad players for sure. what happens though is when you get against a better hand you lose too much. dont say you are now going to throw it away if someone three bets it to you. which is what is going to happen most times if you get a player. now you are in for three bets and one more on fourth street. and what did you find out?
Ray... you talk about getting "three-bet" here on third street.??
The original scenario is a player who make the initial raise with a a pair of tens and a 7 kicker when he is the FIRST RAISER in the pot and there is a J or Q left to act behind him.
I agree with the poster that if I believe that the pair of tens is the best hand on third street I will raise coming in.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Just got the software. It seems very nice. One problem I notice is that sometimes the "advisor" suggest a call or a raise when the pot odds are below the possible winning draws. There is no mention of implied odds in the software. I am keeping a record of the times it advises me to call or raise when I think I should fold based on pot odds and implied odds as defined in the yellow book. I am also keeping records of when it tells me to fold when the implied odds I calculate tell me to raise or call. So far, I am doing 70% better in close situations. Only 300 hands so far and only 20 times I have disagreed with the advisor. Any comments or similar experiences. There must be someone from Wilso on this forum. Thanks.
Overall, I like the software. It is well implemented, small and quick. Fun too.
Don't listen to the advisor..... Bad Ju Ju.
Seriously, the advisor is not a winning player. I also think the Turbo Stud isn't as good as the Texas Hold'em program. Maybe the programers just didn't know how to play Stud all that well.
Nice program, but you'd do better by playing against real opponents. With these on-line card rooms opening up there should be some great Stud action. Like I keep telling everyone, Paradise Poker has a very weak Stud Game. I think this is because Stud is new to the Internet.
Later, CV
Two Tens with a seven kicker! Do you really want to play against a Q, or a J that may call your hand or reraise you. I doubt that the advice that you were given is "it is better to just call" with two overcards behind you. If it was it was wrong. The correct advice is; it MAY be better to just call. Poker is situational. The better you are at evaluating the situation the more likely you are to make the correct decision. The nice thing about 7 stud as opposed to flop games is the information available on third street. Use that information coupled with knowledge of your opponents to make your play. For instance. If you have two live tens with a Q, and J behind you and one or both are duplicated tend to raise. If the cards behind you are J, and or A and are live and held by strong players tend to call. Even though Tens are cosidered premium hands they are not that good especially with a weak kicker. If the over cards are held by strong players that don't need a big pair to reraise, you must be very cautious with hands like this.
Vince.
BTW - IMO, there is no one on this forum or anywhere else, including Sklansky, Malmuth, Abdul et al that can give you a mathematical answer for this question that is correct for all situations. Of course if it were possible the experts on this forum would be the most likely to come up with an answer. My point is that it is not a math question or a question of math. My answer was for low to medium limit 7 stud with a relatively modest ante and bring in. Playing in situations like this is what poker playing is all about. P(E) is not the answer here.
So far I like Turbo, and I have seen good reviews. I have never seen the other.
AceSpade on their page give some good reasons why Turbo is not good (AceSpade.com). Of course, it's advertising but sounds convincing. I would like to hear from someone who tried both programs.
After playing seven stud exclusively for years, I have decided to study seven stud high-low. I bought High- Low FAP three or four years ago, but it, as well as, Skansly's chapter in Brunson's book do not explain the rank of low hands. Tonight I started a list of hands in order from wheel (A2345) to the highest possible in 8 or better. I came up with 53 different hands, but am not sure if I am ranking them correctly.
For instance, is A3678 a better hand than A4578? Can anyone explain the logic behind figuring out which is the better low hand?
Can I read these two hands as a number i.e. A3678 = 13,678 which is lower than A4578 = 14,578 as a way to help me visualize why one hand is lower than another?
The light bulb went off in my head when this concept was explained to me. Maybe this will help.
Look at the cards reversed from highest down as a 5 digit number. Your example would look like this A3678 is 87,631. A4578 is 87,541. Thus 87,631 is the lower of the two numbers making it the lower hand.
Go from the highest card in your hand to the lowest. 875...beats 876. 8764 beats 8765, 7643A beats 7652A, etc.
Hand came up last night that I want to post for comments from Badger and the Omaha/8 experts.
First, a little background. This was the loosest, wildest, 4-8 Omaha/8 game in which I had been involved for quite some time. To be completely accurate, the game was actually Dealer's Choice, with the button having the choice of HE, Omaha high only, or Omaha/8. The usual game of choice was Omaha/8, about 60% of the time. Game was populated by a nice mixture of 2 or 3 maniacs, 5 or 6 extremely looses players who saw virtually EVERY flop, and a couple of solid players who saw very few flops with quality starting hands only. I put myself in the latter category; I was routinely folding hands that others were raising and even re-raising with pre-flop. It was routine for 7-9 players to see the flop, often for 2,3 or 4 bets. Huge variance, obviously, but great payoffs when you took a hand down. Well over $3000 in play, in a 4-8 game.
On this particular hand, I had mucked pre-flop, and I think 7 people took the flop, capped at $16 each. Flop comes down 9c-8h-4s. Betting was once again capped on the flop, with only 1 hand folding, I think. I wasn't paying real close attention at first, because I was out of the hand, although I do keep fairly close watch on the action to see who does what, etc. However, we had been playing for several hours, and I had a good hand on the styles of the players anyway.
Turn comes the Jc. Now here is where the major maniac (MM) in the game made a play that caught my eye. There were still 6 players in the game, I think. MM is first to act, and he checks. Player to his left bets, I think only 1 player folded, and MM check-raised. His LHO 3-bets, everyone calls, and MM caps it. Now this pot is HUGE, over $400, which even for this game as wild as it was, was big. I might not have the exact numbers of players correct, but I know the pot size is correct, because the dealer had all the chips lined up in stacks of $20, and there were over 20 stacks, plus some $5 chips. The river is the Qc, MM bets out, and his LHO makes a crying call with his Q-T straight. MM's hand was Ac-2c-3s-8d, and his nut flush took down the hand of the night.
Now, my questions for the Omaha experts are these:
1. Would you aggressively seek to cap out pre-flop with MM's hand? He was routinely raising with hands much worse than this all night.
2. What about his actions on the flop? MM led out the betting, and re-raised as well. He's got a non-counterfeitable (is that a word?) low draw, a back-door flush, and multi opponents.
3. Play on the turn. MM check-raised the obvious straight, again with the low draw and now the nut flush draw, with the same number of opponents and a huge pot. He then caps it at $32, all with nothing more than a big draw. Is this in your opinion a solid play, or nothing more than the high variance stuff you usually see from maniacs?
1. Yes. That hand does very well against a large field. A23 is a very strong combination in a crowd, and the suited ace also adds a lot of value against many opponents.
2. When there will be several callers, it is often correct to bet a low draw at every opportunity (while you would be concerned about being quartered, etc. if there were fewer callers). The fact that you can't be counterfeited and have a backdoor flush draw only makes the hand stronger. The "wait and see" approach gives away a lot of profit in the very loosest games (but is frequently correct in tighter games - see HLSFAP); you win a large share of your expectation by raising draws for value against large fields.
3. Nine clubs will scoop or 3/4, and he also has 17 outs for low. This is a definite raise with four opponents. I rarely check-raise on the flop or turn in Omaha-8, since it often costs bets; some hands will just call the check-raise that might have raised and allowed you to 3-bet. You also don't want to lose players who are drawing dead.
1: With MM's hand in a crazy game I like the action capped before the flop. I even liked it capped in a tight or average game with that hand.
2: MM betting the flop is fine too considering in this game he is going to get 5 or 6 callers. So even though at this point he is looking to get the low only (with runner-runner possibilitie for high), if he gets quartered for low he will still make money. and in this crazy game he may be the only one with A-2.
3: After the turn, I would choose to see the river as cheaply as possible. If you miss, you saved a bet or two, and if you hit the pot is already big enough and you will still get to add to it post flop. But his style is to play it fast and he does have a real big draw. Also, his capping after the turn may have the second and third nut lows (A-3, 2-3) calling thinking that he has a high hand and that they're low is good.
IMO, I dont have a problem with the way he played the hand at all.
Would you expound on this? Why deal Omaha Hi?
If enough players would definitely call, it would be correct to raise for value with an A23 low draw. You have a 70% chance at half the pot, and won't always be quartered (a lot depends on the situation and opponents as to whether it's likely that the bettor had a high). One time you usually wouldn't raise with just a nut low draw is if it's likely the raise would knock players out.
A backdoor flush draw is a very small addition to your EV, and the pair of eights is worth little if the pot remains multiway.
First, let me thank you profusley for your book The Theory of Poker. My worn copy accompanied me around the country when I worked for Paulson Dice and Card delivering gaming equipment coast to coast, and still gets pulled of the shelf many a night as I think about the game. 7St FAP (thanks also to Mason and Ray) together with Theory, turned me into a winning stud player during the two years I spent in and out of nearly every casino and card room in the country. I've not played more than occassionaly since then having burned out from too much play. It just got boring after awhile.
I am now ready to come back to the game, and have decided to take up 7ST Hi-Lo, having bought the FAP book three or four years ago. In preparation for that book, I started reading your chapter on Hi-Lo in Brunson's Super System (second edition) and was reminded why I wanted to make the switch in the first place. It was your statements as to the low level of fluctuations in bankroll that is inherant to Hi-Lo. On page 257, " In such a game you will be constantly freerolling...and it's about 7 to 1 or 8 to 1 against your having a losing session - even if you play as little as four hours."
Now in Brunson's book, you were not talking about 8 or better, which is the only version of the game I see spread at Hollywood Park. In 7ST FAP 8 or Better, page 7, Ray Zee writes, "It's true that you will go through some big swings and see many pots going to the live players..." Later on the same page. "... there is a lot of short term luck... seven card stud 8 or better is also a roller coaster ride - one that can go at high speed.
My question is how much does the addition of the 8 or better qualifier turn what seems like the sure thing game to play you described in Super system into the roller coaster ride even a very good straight stud player must ride?
...plus, I would think, transitioning back and forth between Omaha Hi and /8 (with HE thrown in as an extra twist) can be confusing if you aren't careful. Hand values for one game are poor hands in the other... and if you can catch people not adjusting, I assume you are in Badger Heaven..
Assuming reasonable postflop play, their loose preflop play is a much greater error in holdem than in Omaha High. OTOH, if they frequently draw to non-nut hands in Omaha, but fold total garbage in holdem, then Omaha will be more profitable.
Seven people took the flop. Given the large field and the capped pot on that flop, that pair of eights is worth next to nothing. A backdoor flush draw in holdem is only worth about two outs. In Omaha they're worth even less; if you make the flush you'll often lose to a full house or only get half the pot.
I got my calculation of the odds from "A Few Omaha Odds" by Sklansky in the Essays department of this forum. The odds of one of the cards being a brick are included in the calculation. I think the 49.3% figure is factual.
Other Poker Games
December 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo