![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Do any casinos in LV, AC or Cal have draw games?
Ratso,
I have never seen it played at either the TROP or the TAJ in AC. However, several players have told me that draw poker is an approved game in AC. So theorically you and several buddies could go into the TROP or TAJ and request that the game be spread, and there would be no legal reason that would stop the casino from starting the game.
Still, I think you would have a better chance of walking a snowball through hell.
Big Steve
Two years ago Showboat and Trop had a 10/20 Draw game every Sat and Sunday. There was a waiting list almost all the time. The same people played. There were some excellent old timers who played, and I learned a lot. No games for over a year. Seems it was a bet or out game with a $1 ante. House did not make much and they did not encourage it, but it could still be played if there is an interest.
In California:
Aldo's in Delano should be spreading no-limit draw, deuces wild, $5 ante, $6 drop. Game on Friday and Saturday nights.
Royal Flush Cardroom in Lemoore may still have a no-limit draw game one or two days a week.
Primavera Club in Madera may still have a game on Fridays/Saturdays. The guard will frisk you for weapons before entering.
got this wrong according to tom, and was wondering what everyone else thinks. "correct" answer to follow.
You have A-A-K-Q double suited under the gun what is your best play?
A fold B call C raise
I find it hard to believe that Tom said fold. If you can't play this hand in Omaha-hi UTG, what CAN you play there? He can't be THAT conservative, can he?
I've never played Omaha hi-only "live", just Turbo Omaha... but I'd be calling and raising this hand from almost anywhere (call-raise from up front, probably- trying to get others into the pot with my great hand).
I'd love to know the rationale behind Tom's answer. Where is this quiz?
That's why he talked about folding, and why he said it would make second best too often (I'm assuming he's playing without a qualifier, or his "second-best low" comment makes absolutely no sense.)
Unless the table was really tight-aggressive (especially post-flop), i'd probably still have to play it... ESPECIALLY if 8-qualifier
What concerns me is that McEvoy's answer says you will often make the second best high and low (?!?!). But considering one of the other questions is clearly a limit stud question (with an Omaha answer), I think not too much effort was put in on Mark Napolitano's or McEvoy's effort.
Dan
P.S. Would Mason be willing to take the quiz? I got 13 right, I'd think anyone that gets more than 16 right has either been reading too much TJ/Tom...or doing some hardcore drugs.
Actually, I'm not real anxious to take the quiz. Over the years I have seen much incorrect information published under the McEvoy name and really don't need to look at any more of his material.
Vince:
Of course more information can be beneficial to your analysis (the cards out on 3rd St. in Stud). But that does not mean it is simpler. On the contrary, it is more complex. You would be right if you said the cards that are out have the potential to help you make a better decision. But just what this decision should be is not always apparent. Just because you have more information, which can greatly or slightly impact the relative value of your hand, does not mean that this necessarily makes it easier to handicap the relative value of your hand. Of course very often it does. But the times it is close can be very pivotal hands and the fine edge of the expert can reap large monetary rewards here and later in the hand as it is handicapped along the way. The times it seems close can be both hard to properly handicap and very important. This is true also as the hand progresses.
Chess is more complex than checkers. It it should be obvious that there are more ways for an expert to outplay an average player if the game were chess rather than checkers. And you can't possibly argue with the statement that a checker expert has more ways to out play an average player at checkers than does a tic-tac-toe expert at tic-tac-toe. So it appears that the expert has more ways to outplay the average player as the complexity of the game increases, whatever the game might be. I know this doesn't prove anything about poker but it does support the notion that in the more complex game there are more ways to outplay someone.
Actually in Hold'em, contrary to what you wrote, errors get punished more early in the hand than they do proportionately in Stud. This is because more money goes in early in Hold'em both in absolute terms and relative to the percentage of money going in in relation to the pot size. Compounding errors here in Stud, on the other hand, become more costly later.
In Stud there is room for more creative plays and for plays that a lot of decent players don't understand. For instance it is often right to raise on a later street in Stud without the best hand because of your chances of knocking out a potential winner. In Hold'em it is rarely correct to raise on a later street without the best hand. Those who are able to accurately pick their spots to do this in Stud can far outperform those who are merely solid players.
In Hold'em, for good card/people readers, the community cards make it easier, not harder, to read opponents' hands (see Sklansky recent article). In fact what their hands can be is more limited (by the board). In Stud you had better have a good idea of what cards were folded to help you in reading hands on later streets (not to mention figuring your chances of improving versus your opponents' chances of improving).
I'm getting tired too. It is rather amazing that no one else has chimed in on this discussion.
Guys, You left out 3 important factors that impact the complexity of the games in question. 1. In Hold'em one can always figure out the nuts, this makes reading the board much easier because it eliminates many possible hands. 2. In Stud the river card is down, this in itself (I think) makes Stud more complex, because betting at the river is more difficult. For example in Hold'em you can read the board to see if you are possibly outdrawn, in stud there is no such luck, and one card can vastly change the power of a hand. Here's a small example, how many ways can someone have quads in Hold'em, only one way, if the board is paired. In Stud any hand can possibly be quads. The same is true for full houses (at the river). 3. In hold'm position is fixed for the entire hand, while in Stud it changes, which calls for quick changes in how the hand is play and much more variation in possible ways it can be played.
no betting structure or stakes noted on the quiz. Again, this is O/8
I can't see playing this hand in O8. You would need a miracle board to get half the pot. Maybe a 2 3 5 K Q rainbow? A 2 3 6 K rainbow for the whole thing?
Someone else in another thread commented about a similiar situation on the turn: you might only get a hand like this once a night.
Raise the turn. Sure.
It turned out so well, I hate to be picky. But did you really have enough to call the flop? Your one low card is a brick. I know you have good $ odds, but is it enought for 2 runner runners? Especially when the low has to be perfect. I wouldn't even have a quibble if the flop was 10 9 4.
Sure the deuce partially counterfeited my low draws. But I still had A3, A5, and 3-5 combo's for redraws. Even the fact that the T was a club, was JUST enough IMO to tip the scales to see the turn. I was the last player to call the UTG bet, so I did not fear any check-raise. Because I had been the instigator to build the pot up in the first place, I was probably more reluctant than I should be to see at least the turn, but I still think I had more than enough to take one off on the turn for a small bet.
I believe i figuered once that you need about 10-1 pot odds to draw to a runner-runner low. Your odds if i remember right is 16% to 20%to make a low with only 1 on the flop.
You had better be drawing to the nuts prefably with back up because there is a 25% chance that yoou can be counterfitted.
Your call was correct getting at least 10-1 and you had back up. With out your raise pre-flop it wuold have been very marginal.
I'm not sure I agree, but I don't get to play O/8 much.
My thinking with quad fives UTG: Low still has to catch runner-runner and NOT conterfeit their hand. Only QQ is gonna like this flop (unless two suited), so no one out there probably has a strong hand. Only a Q on the turn corrupts my quad 5's... If I bet, how many callers am I gonna get? With 6 limpers, any bettor is betting at least Queen's up... and everyone fears the trip 5's
If you're saying that the early or later callers were limping (and regularly do) with A2-something... then the table isn't very aggressive. With 5's UTG, wouldn't you think about a check-raise on the flop to get low's out??? That would explain the turn bet...
And look at the pot. 6 bets preflop, with 1 1/2 from the blinds (unless SB folded). No bets gained on flop from what I assume was a failed check-raise. Turn added 6 more small bets (plus the 2 from bettor=8) to make a pot of 14. River gets pot to 20 small bets. Quad 5's get 10 bets from half of pot.... -4 they invested turn/rive = 6 bets net.
If you DON'T have QQ out there, who's calling that 1 small bet on the flop that you wanted the quads to make? I'm assuming no one.... are you saying callers would have been there? If so, checking flop was a mistake... if no one calls, quads pull down 6 small bets on flop.... same amount as they netted on river.
28 cards make the low... but some will counterfeit those lows, so let's assume A2 and make it 22 cards (which have to be runner-runner). Only the 2 Queen counterfeit the high... and that's assuming QQ is out there.....Do the math from there.
It may not have worked as the quads wanted to, but a bad play? Certainly NOT the worst of the year, by any stretch..
Now those QUEENS not raising at LEAST the turn, if not ALSO the flop... THAT was stupid!
"My thinking with quad fives UTG: Low still has to catch runner-runner and NOT conterfeit their hand. Only QQ is gonna like this flop (unless two suited), so no one out there probably has a strong hand. Only a Q on the turn corrupts my quad 5's... If I bet, how many callers am I gonna get? With 6 limpers, any bettor is betting at least Queen's up... and everyone fears the trip 5's "
1. No one fears the trip fives.
2. Many strong lows bet here, trying to be the only low hand at the river.
3. Queen's up will not bet here.
"If you're saying that the early or later callers were limping (and regularly do) with A2-something... then the table isn't very aggressive. With 5's UTG, wouldn't you think about a check-raise on the flop to get low's out??? That would explain the turn bet... "
4. Many players limp with a dry A2, rather than fold it. They do NOT raise with it. That by itself doesn't mean a non-agressive table.
5. If you are worried about getting even one caller above, because no one has enough of a hand, who do you think is going to do the betting for you if you check? No one, as Quads found out.
6. Fred's law: "No Omaha player will ever fold a draw to a low on the turn". This is violated slightly less often than the law of gravity.
"And look at the pot. 6 bets preflop, with 1 1/2 from the blinds (unless SB folded). No bets gained on flop from what I assume was a failed check-raise. Turn added 6 more small bets (plus the 2 from bettor=8) to make a pot of 14. River gets pot to 20 small bets. Quad 5's get 10 bets from half of pot.... -4 they invested turn/rive = 6 bets net. "
7. Quads was lucky to find so many turn callers on the turn into a now small pot.
8. So he got the same amount by slow playing the quad 5's. On the other hand, if he bets the flop, he might get a raise from the Q's, which WILL chase the lows. Now he can call, check-raise the turn, bet the river, and take down 14 small bets.
"If you DON'T have QQ out there, who's calling that 1 small bet on the flop that you wanted the quads to make? I'm assuming no one.... are you saying callers would have been there? If so, checking flop was a mistake... if no one calls, quads pull down 6 small bets on flop.... same amount as they netted on river. "
9. No Fair. Without QQ he doesn't even get 6 bets by checking, because he doesn't get 4 callers on the turn.
"28 cards make the low... but some will counterfeit those lows, so let's assume A2 and make it 22 cards (which have to be runner-runner). Only the 2 Queen counterfeit the high... and that's assuming QQ is out there.....Do the math from there. "
10. This may be a quibble, but runner runner "any pair bigger than 5's" can be trouble.
11. I don't quite get how you are working out the number of cards to make a low. Assume A23. There are 25 cards to hit the turn. Assume a non-brick low on the turn (like the 7), there are 21 cards on to hit on the river.
"Now those QUEENS not raising at LEAST the turn, if not ALSO the flop... THAT was stupid! "
12. You are absolutely right.
I stand corrected, to some point (that's why i'm only leaning, get it? ...oh well)
If what you and Dunc are saying is correct about your loose games (which are different than the few O/8 games I've played in), then i would probably bet the flop also...
And no one fears trips, with two matching lows on board and 6 non-raise callers? Why not, unless you have high pairs and are looking for an over-trips to fall on turn? Isn't an overpair fighting uphill against the trips AND fearing low draws on the turn?
And are you telling me that, with 6 callers, with you UTG and you flop quads with 1 low card that you would NEVER go for a checkraise on the flop (or slowplay, in effect)? Especially after stating #2 and #5 (getting a caller is much different than inducing someone to bet at an unraised flop, especially late position)? As UTG quads, hoping overpairs who don't fear trip are out there, along with at least one agressive A2, so I can checkraise IS reasonable, isn't it?
There wasn't enough about the tables/games y'all play in to make the environment clear enough.... but if you're saying that strong 3 card lows wouldn't raise preflop and wouldn't bet flop to drive out others... and all A2-dry are limping on the flop... then betting for only the 6 bets is probably better.
If you're trying to maximize your hand value, however, i think the risk is worth it... maybe not at your games!
#11- I was assuming 2 low cards, not three. #9- But the low draws on turn mean you only need 2 callers to break even on not betting the flop (3 big bets in pot on flop, 6 big bets on turn... so even if they make it, still 3 big bets won). And given your loose low callers, could expect more?
and if your #8 is fair, then #9 is as well.... If we're gonna assume that QQ would raise turn, why not bet flop so quads could check-raise then and DEFINATELY? drive out lows on flop?
I should have been more detailed up front in my description of the clientele in lowlimit O/8 here in Edmonton. This is not the standard textbook style of O/8 where people raise a lot pre-flop and on the flop to protect their hands and/or build big pots when they have the best of it. The games are largely populated by passive calling stations who have NO concept of starting hand qualifications. As I mentioned in my post, I had gone nearly 3 full rounds of the table without seeing one flop other than my BB. Many of these players will see 80-90% of flops, routinely putting in $4 on something like Q-T-5-2 or 9-8-7-5 or 8-8-4-3. If they've got a chance for ANY sort of hand, they will chase you down.
So when I said the quad's or the Q's full should bet the flop, I meant that especially given the texture of the game, there is no reason to slowplay. None. Whatever marginal case you might want to make for the quad's just does not apply for the Q's full, IMO. He can fully expect someone with a single 5 to call, or perhaps even raise. He justifiably has to fear someone with KK or AA getting a free card to run him over. And he does not want to give the runner-runner lows any free cards to see the turn and cut up what would normally be half his pot. Top full just does not run into quad's that often for him to fear the possibility.
Maybe Worst Played Hand of the Year is over the top a bit, but I still maintain that the combined errors of the two players with the high hands were pretty bad.
Wow.... and I'm with you all the way on the wimpy QQ full, Dunc... it was just the quads that I was evidently deluded on..
Guess I need to get to those games someday! While the suckouts must be aggrivating as hell, the game must be pretty profitable on the right days...
Gentlemen, I fold. Bet those quads into the morons, since check-raising is evidently worthless in these games.
What you should do when you catch quads on the flop depends on your opponents. Your opponents don't all play the same, even in loose, low limit games.
Low is unlikely with a flop of Q55. It is true that some players will chase with A279, or even 2479, hoping to catch a runner-runner low. It also is true that other players will not chase a flop of Q55 with A234. But they'll all stay for free and maybe later call a bet or two if a favorable low card appears on the turn and they think you have nothing.
In my opinion, betting a flop of Q55 with quad fives is like not setting the hook before you try to reel in the fish. You don't want your opponents folding when you have quads. Rather, you want them to think they can steal the pot with a bet.
I do think it proper to bet a flop of Q55 with queens full. You want to drive out a pair of aces or kings and you don't want to share with a runner-runner low draw. Either that or you want them to pay to draw.
In neither case (quad fives or queens full) should you be considering a check raise while you are playing for small bets. In general, I would slow play the quad fives all the way to the river and, in general, I would bet the queens full in a straightforward manner.
Buzz
No check-raise against loose chasers?
Garner no extra bets with quads before the river? Allow lows to gets free chances to draw out to half the pot?
Doesn't seem as profitable as it should be, Buzz. If I can only expect 6 bets from quads, why even play the pairs in the first place?
"No one fears trips"
I realized this was somewhat cryptic after the post ... sorry.
With a flop of 55Q Omaha players will fear quads or Q's full. No one is afraid of a small set because it doesn't stand up that often. High pairs are not afraid of a small set, because a) they fold, or b) if they call with a dry high pair they don't have enough sense to be afraid of anything.
I don't think this guy was trying for any sort of fancy check-raise at all. He just had the mentality of a HE player, and was slowplaying his "big" hand. I don't think he gave any thought whatsoever to trying to max out his earn on this one.
Maybe this guy doesn't play O/8 that much. But if he played at all with the locals, he would know that they chase ANY sort of runner-runner low all the time. I mean, the guy who did win the low called the turn bet with about 4th best low or something. I have just found that in O/8, it is virtually never correct to slowplay, even with the biggest hands.
I agree about never slow playing.
Last week i was in the blind and floped qaud As with a flop of A A Q in a 4-8 game bet it the whole way and lost half the pot to a low.
I briefly thought about checking but decided that they wuold chase me and they did and took half my pot.
I think if the players aren't truly awful the check on the flop makes sense. (Eg only an awful player will call a bet on the flop w/ only 3 to a low in a paired board).
There is a very good chance that the quads would pick up the pot w/a flop bet and being that the pot is something like 6 bets. So by slow playing he stands to win more bets by doing so.
As for the worst play of the year this isn't even close.
I think EasyE was correct...
Edward Hutchison recently posted a point system which he developed to RGP. This system gives certain points to starting hands. For example:
Suited As = 4 Ks = 3 Qs = 2.1
Pairs AA = 9 KK = 8
Straigts 6-K (two cards) 4 points
He states that in general you should have 15 points to call and 20 pts. to raise. He does caution that these are only general guidelines and are based on each hand competing against 9 random hands.
My question is whether this can be used in a pot limit game the same as used in a ring game. It would seem that you would certainly need a different hand requirement playing pot-limit.
If any of you are familiar with his point system , I would appreciate your thoughts.
you may see it by going to:
http://erh.homestead.com/omaha=ns4.html
Or you can go to RGP and see his post on Sept.29.
Thanks,
Tom Overton Denton, Texas
no point system has any use unless it takes into position of the opener and how he plays and your position relative to him. furthermore even after you get a point total how would any one know if using that total is correct for that spot. also anything based on playing against random hands would seem to have little bearing in the real world. having said that it may help a rank beginner to play tight and stay out of pots with total garbage.
Correct. Such systems work only on odd days of the month and even then only in odd months. A leap year will of course screw you up completely.
I often play low limit Omaha High, usually successfully. The typical game has 6 to 8 callers before the flop. Bluffing is usually useless and you have to show the best hand. Strong hands or hands with potential just bet because everyone will call at least to the turn. In a game like this, the effects of position are minimized.
In a game like this, the point system can be useful in determining which of your starting hands are worth seeing the flop.
I used the point system before but later have had more success by just evaluating the "texture" of the hand. The best hands are those where the cards all work together. These often lead to high percentage drawing hands which will win a lot of big pots. I don't like pairs, even big ones, because a pair reduces the flexibility of the hand and the pots won generally aren't as big. Trying to increase the pot by raising a big pair before the flop is a bad percentage play.
I've just re-read Mason Malmuth's "The Two Types of Stud" essay. In the $4-$8 game on the Internet card room where I like to play, one antes $.50 and the bring-in is $2. (The $2-$4 game is structured proportionally.) Should these games be considered little stud or real stud? The ratio of the antes to the bets would indicate that they're real stud, but the limits are rather low. What adjustments should one make for these games? (Ante stealing usually is difficult. At least that's how I find it.)
I asked much the same question a few months back, and the consensus was that, because of the decent-sized ante, this was in fact "real" stud. You're right: ante-stealing isn't much of a factor. I'd guess that I'm in a position to steal the antes an average of once every five or six hours in my local $4/8 game (same structure as yours). Other "real stud" concepts apply. As for adjustments, it all depends on who shows up. Sometimes you can knock people out, and sometimes you can't. Usually, you have to show down the best hand. Small straight draws aren't worth that much to begin with, and if almost everyone is in, they're almost worthless. With a large field, big pairs go down in value somewhat, and flush draws go up.
I think Andy has it right. Follow his advice.
After digesting the replies that were posted from my last message re: pre-flop raises in PL Omaha, I have come to the following conclusion.
If I intend to do ANY initial raising pre-flop I should not limit myself to just AAxx suited as to not give away my hand. I must raise with other strong holdings also, if I intend to any raising at all. An argument can be made for not raising at all pre-flop.
My next quandary is what do when already facing one raise (or more) and callers when holding AAxxs. The conventional wisdom seems to suggest that I should come over the top pre-flop in an attempt to get the pot heads-up. This provides several interesting dilemmas.
1. Occasionally the game I play in gets completely crazy and a large re-raise sometimes has little effect on limiting the number of pre-flop callers. Should I re-raise in this scenario with AAxxss? Or abandon this approach and just flat call hoping for the best.
2. When I have made a substantial re-raise pre-flop and have gotten the pot heads-up I am faced with other problems. Ideally I try and make a large pre-flop re-raise only if it will get me all-in or close to it. Is my thinking correct here? Should I even consider making a large re-raise when I have a substantial stack left?
I have observed players who do a lot of aggressive pre-flop raising who are very successful and on the other side of the coin players who do NO pre-flop raising who are also very successful. Which approach is the best?
The players who seem to be the least successful are those who ONLY raise with AAxx as they have given away most of their hand and are susceptible to being outplayed from the flop on if they have any chips left.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Derek
As for lots of raising vs. little or no raising preflop, you should pick the style that suits you best.
I don't get to play this game much, so it's hard for me to generalize about my standards. However, I raise very little preflop. Sometimes it's with AA, sometimes it's with 5678. I'm most likely to raise when doing so will get it heads-up or short-handed, and I will have position. Actually, I might raise whenever I have a hand that is worth calling a raise, and by raising I can likely buy the button.
Acting last in PL Omaha is important. More so, I believe, than in any other form of poker I've played.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My favorite casino game is 7 stud 8 or better and I play it quite a bit online(free tables at paradise). I'm gradually getting to the point where I fold any starting hand with an 8, IE 872, 863, etc..unless say they're all the same suit.
One problem I do have though is playing any live pairs. 44Q, J3J, 656 etc...Not really paying attention to if the pair and third card are suited or not.
I do have Hi/Lo for advanced players(great book), I guess I need to read it a few more times. I'm just wondering how bad of a play it is to start with any pair any kicker. And am I losing any money by not playing an 8 if there aren't too many low cards out?
TIA
in those loose games those pairs you talk about are folding hands. also the hands with eights without an ace or straight or flush working also will do poorly. thanks for buying the book but do study it some more.
nt
I have to second Ray. Having read his O/8, 7s8 book many times (thanks again for writing it, Ray!), and from my playing experiences, I can state the following:
1) those pairs are nothing but trouble for the most part, unless you can get heads up (and iffy then).. ESPECIALLY if you can't get a low draw (only one i'd even think about with more than 1 person is the 665, and then only if everyone is showing 8 or higher) to escape with if high falls apart.
You're going to run into someone catching higher cards too many times, much less someone else backdooring weak lows to split the pot, to make them worthwhile.
2) Those 8-lows and high pairs need perfect 4th-street cards (i mean PERFECT, as in two pair or better with high pair higher than anyone else.. or 6 or lower non-matching for a lower low to draw to) to be worth playing, unless everyone catches obvious bricks... so since I'm guessing you'll dump 80%+ of those hands on 4th, why even start with them on 3rd street?
And even suited, as Ray said, the Ace is almost required (to escape with high pair, block lower flushes from winning, etc.. as well as to remove an Ace from any low draws)
If you're gonna play them at all, play them VERRRRYY carefully and as cheap as possible. I don't remember for sure, but I don't know if, heads-up, a three-card 8 is a dog to a mediocure high hand... but i wouldn't be surprised..
go back to Omaha/Stud8 for Advanced Players.
depends on the high hand but a 3 card eight is close to a higher pair hand head up. but the low hand should outplay the high hand if he is a good player. if the high hand is buried then the high hand will do better in this instance.
Ok I'll really like to understand this. Could Ray or any other experts out there help. If you're playing a big pair say against what you believe to be a low draw and the low develops into 3 to a low on 5th do you just check and fold. I mean of course it depends if the board is straighty or flushy but it seems too many times even good players trick themselves by saying well he's probaby paired I call. But even still a low draw with a pair and with an Ace kicker would seem to be a nice favorite against say a pair of Kings. So basically I'm just asking do you just fold??? Oh and Ray I've got your book its great.
Seat 10 is the button. Watching on PaPo OL. 8 players. Seat 2-8 absent.
Seat 4 Sq calls (10), seat 5 ht calls, seat 6&7 fold, seat 9 raises (20), seat 10,1 fold. bb, 4,5 call.
4 players see the flop. (Tc,6d,8h)
bb bets (10), call, call, 9 raises, all call.
Turn (Tc,6d,8h)(3d)
bb bets (20), call, call, 9 raises, all call.
River (Tc,6d,8h,3d)(Qc)
bb checks,check, check, 9 bets, bb raises,call,call,9 raises, all call.
Question who do you think has high hand??
And with what?
Will post results later!!
Paul
Seat 9 floped a ten high stright for high. BB has a low.
Doesn't make sense, Scott. What possible hand could #9 have that he would raise pre-flop in O/8 that contains a 9 and a 7 to give him the flopped str8? Only possible hand would be A-A-9-7 double suited, but it's much more likely a power high/low hand like A-A-2-3 with at least one Ace suited, IMO. Results should be interesting.
I see your point and am now taking notice that this is a 10/20 game. Last weekend in my 3/6 game some people were raising pre-flop blind (and i made almost $400)
Here's my take. BB has something like A-2-T-Q. Bets the flop with nut low draw and top pair. Gets raised by Seat 9, who raised with A-2-3-5 type hand, or A-A-2-3 double suited type.
Turn card brings the low. BB bets out again, trapping the 4 and 5 seats between him and 9, who raises with nut low, and probably the nut diamond draw. He's not too worried about counterfeiting his low, he's got outs for the high, and MAYBE his AA have value for high as well. Raise can't hurt if #9's getting quartered because there are still 4 players in the hand, unless A2 is only worth a sixth.
River brings new nut hand for high, J-9, taking over from the 9-7 str8 on the flop. No one SHOULD have a 9 and a 7 in their hands playing O/8 unless it's the BB, but if that's the case, why didn't he re-raise the flop? Smooth call to suck in the 4 and 5 seat overcalls? Stop and go strategy depending on what the turn brings?
Maybe BB's hand was something like Q-J-9-7, and he called a raise pre-flop because he was already half in? I'm still leaning towards my first guess, the A-2-T-Q type of thing. River check-raise is an attempt by BB to win 3/4 of the pot with his nut low, 2 pair hand. Puts a lot of pressure on the middle two hands if they have a non-nut high hand. However, one of 4 or 5 has flopped a set, won't lay it down even in the face of all the heat. The other 4 or 5 player without the set also has A-2, and BB, #9, and the other A2 get a sixth,while the calling station with the set gets half. Just a guess, but a possible scenario given this betting.
I basically agree with your analysis, but I wonder if there really is any kind of high here.
If this is a reasonable game at all, #9 has to be on a strong low. AA23 is certainly possible, and may be a the high, too. A245 might be possible, too. Any A2 may be pushing here with 4 players in the hand, especially with some kind of outs for high.
BB has a strange betting pattern ... he may be trying to buy 3/4 as you suggested, possibly even with a hand like A2Qx.
The limpers are the real mysteries. Certainly either one could be drawing to a set, figuring that there are no 79's in the field. A2 is possible for both. The real question here is, what is the actual level of the game. Even 10/20 can be bizarre sometimes. Perhaps one of them has been tagging along with something as weak as A368, and ends up with the high half when everyone else is low. Of course, A279 is possible, but I doubt it. I think you would get a raise on the flop from any nut low, nut high, even a dangerous nut high, if only to try limit the field.
The problem is that no one has really been pushing the betting except #9, and he should be the low. I agree that a limper set is a possible high, but it might even be a small 2 pair with an A2, or even the AA23 in the 9 seat.
Assuming all players follow logic and no foolish betting mistakes were made, the winning high hand has J-9. Perhaps more than one player has J-9.
Seat 9 could have J-9-2-A. At first I thought seat 9 would not have a logical pre-flop raise holding a mediocre hand like J-9-2-A. However, seat 9 might have made a tactical pre-flop raise to force out seat 10 and thus gain position. If so, after the flop seat 9, if holding J-9-2-A, has excellent prospects. Four queens give him the nut high. Four sevens give him the nut high and the nut low. Eighteen low cards give him the nut low. After the flop there are more good cards than bad cards in the deck for seat 9 if he is holding J-9-2-A. (There would be only 136/990 truly dreadful draws with two cards yet to come). With J-9-A-2, seat 9 would be (and was) jamming the betting all the way.
At first I suspected seat 9 had a premium hand like A-2-3-4 with the ace suited, maybe in diamonds. However, that leaves BB with something like J-9-A-2. With J-9-2-A, I think BB should cap it on the river. With all those bets in the pot either seat 4 or 5 (maybe both) would probably call the double bet, and seat 9 would also call. Thus capping it on the river with J-9-2-A would be a money winning bet.
In addition, it looks like A-2 is going to get quartered here. With A-2-3-4, seat 9 might not raise on the river, because if either seat 4 or seat 5 folds, seat 9, if quartered, will then lose money on the bet.
With J-9 either seat 4 or seat 5 might be expected to raise on the river. Seat 4 could have been going for a check-raise on the river, expecting seat 9 to raise, and then backing down after BB beats him to the punch by check raising first. At that point in time seat 9 might be leery of getting quartered by BB, and fear that a double raise might knock out seat 5 and thus be a losing proposition. Thus, with the winning high hand, seat 4 might just call the check-raise rather than following through on his planned check-raise.
Seat 5 has A-2-X-X, maybe something like A-2-8-8.
The check raise on the end by BB without J-9 is puzzling. It would seem as though with 9-7 BB would re-raise on the flop, in an attempt to knock out seat 4 and/or seat 5. The lack of a re-raise on the flop would indicate that BB wants to keep seats 4 and 5 in the hand. With a nice low draw, BB might want to keep seats 4 and 5 in the hand after the flop. BB could have 9-7-A-2. If so, BB might bet the flop and then, after the raise by seat 9, fear getting quartered for high by seat 9. With a vulnerable low draw (no escape hatch), BB might decide to not re-raise the flop.
Therefore I think seat 9 has J-9-A-2. Seat 4 might have something like J-T-T-9 and thus share the high side.
Looks like the low side might get split three ways, with the high side perhaps splitting two ways.
Buzz
Everyone Thanks
"Looks like the low side might get split three ways, with the high side perhaps splitting two ways."
You were all thinking along the lines that I was thinking.
It ended up a three way split low with the BB grabbing the high with 8's & T's two pair. The three lows all had A2, it was interesting to me because for every bet that was put in by the three lows it cost them money. I had no clue to how they played it was the only hand I watched as I was playing another game at the time. I will post the final exact hands when I get home. There was A-flush going in Diamonds going by one of the limpers also.
Paul
Well, I wasn't too far off, Paul. The BB did check-raise the river with nut low and 2 pair, I just had the wrong 2 pair down in my first analysis. One of the middle limpers did indeed have A2, and I presume this was also the nut diamond draw hand as well. But what does this leave the other limper with?
Surely, he didn't take all this heat in 10-20 with a non-nut low draw, unless HE picked up the diamond draw on the turn,and then stuck it out for the river. But even so, when he missed the flush draw, what could he possibly have had to call a check-raise at the river without at least an A2 or str8? And I thought some of the 4-8 O/8 players here played poorly at times.
Dunc,
The two limpers and the raiser had A2 and BB had the high only with two pairs. So it was 1/2 to the bb and split three ways with the other three players. I know I just thought it was an interesting hand. I thought there had to be a straight out there, but everyone pointed out that 7-9-J didn't seem too realistic unless it was the bb who just stayed in for the raise before the flop. He paid the price to stay in with two pair against a flush and the other straight possibities and checked raise on the end. I'll post his hand later with the others.
thanks Dunc
BB=(3h,8d,Ts,Jc)=(+151)
#4=(Ad,2d,4c,9d)=(-49.50)
#5=(Ac,2h,6c,7c)=(-49.75)
#9=(As,2s,Ah,5d)=(-49.75)
Board = (6d,Tc,8h,3d,Qc)
Paul
plz comment if you wish??
Seat #9's play up through the turn is somewhat understandable. However, on the river, he should have recognized that there are too many players still around for him to take high with just a pair of aces, and that it is pretty likely that he is getting quartered (as it turns out, it was worse than that). Therefore he should check on the river and his overall loss would have been minimal.
Unbelievable that the BB would CHECK-RAISE on the river with only two pair! (When I read your original post, I put him on a set of 10's; still not all that strong vs. the board, but somewhat more understandable) Maybe the straight isn't out there, but one of those low draws could easily have had a baby set. On the other hand, the BB was the big winner, so ... #^)
Very few players are capable of laying down A-2, so difficult to criticise the play of seats #4 and #5, especially the one which turned the flush draw.
What's your analysis of their play?
AX,
BB=(3h,8d,Ts,Jc)=(+151)
#4=(Ad,2d,4c,9d)=(-49.50)
#5=(Ac,2h,6c,7c)=(-49.75)
#9=(As,2s,Ah,5d)=(-49.75)
Board = (6d,Tc,8h,3d,Qc)
I thought #9 overplayed his hand especially with four players in the hand. I was stunned to find out that BB checked raise with only T's & 8's. I put him on a straight being in the BB or a set as you stated. I would of just called with two pair, but it worked out this time for him.
"Very few players are capable of laying down A-2, so difficult to criticise the play of seats #4 and #5, especially the one which turned the flush draw."
This is what I was trying to show that A2 can cost you money and to pay attention to the betting to figure out if more than one person has A2. When middle rainbow cards fall in this type of game and people are jamming they probably have A2 and should think of throwing it in unless you have a definite chance of getting both. The flush needed runner, runner, and the other A2 needed another 6 to have a chance at both. The BB bet well and deserves credit for his two pair bets. #9 made the pot which I believe his playing was worst than 4 or 5 plays.
paul
this may seem like a simple question, but I don't know what is better heads up, three to a low, or a high pair? What if the low hand is 2-3-8 compared to 2-3-6 or A-7-8?
Aaron
Reverse the order and ask yourself which is higher in value 871>832>632>543>432>321. 1 being the A but you knew that.
Paul
According to Zee, in a post below, they are about even heads-up. However, he also says that the low hand should be able to outplay the pair. But, if the pair is buried, then they may be able to outplay the low.
Which you would rather have is irrelevant, as you're only dealt one at a time, right? Just play whichever one you have the best you can.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A high pair may win it all with out improvement. Low may not get there even with 3 good starting cards.cards
the high has almost no shot at the low, while even the weakest low gets 1/2 and may catch pairs or better to scoop....
As Ray said in earlier post, as well as his book, is that high often gets outplayed by low, unless high hand is good player.
I'd rather have the low, given a choice, but heads up it depends on the players and what's showing (I'd almost require an Ace, or straight/flush possibilities, if going heads-up against a high hand)
I'm not sure where everyone is getting their informatin, but a solid *high* pair is a significant favorite over a random low only hand.
There's also the question of whether you are head's-up at a full table, or you are playing head-to-head. I'll take a pair of kings any day over a three low which don't form three cards to a straight or a flush. Having the Ace can make up for an otherwise zero-potential low, but if I KNEW my opponent had kings, I'm still gonna have to fold on 4th street when I blank out most of the time.
One of the *best* hands heads-up is (xx)X, where (xx) are two GOOD low cards, preferably babies, and X is a strong high card, like a king, queen or jack. This hand let's you represent a high pair, but still gives you a *very* playable hand if you hit a low and your opponent hits a brick on 4th. This is a hand that has to be played carefully, but even better it is hard to play against someone who plays these hands heads-up regularly. They often lead on the high end, and one turn of the cards can give them the lead on the low end.
Of course, as with all hi/lo games, you want to make sure you have a very good chance of getting one way or the other by 5th street.
- Andrew
Andrew Significant favorite? Define significant...
Sure, it's stronger if the high pair KNOWS for sure that a 3-low is there, but don't you think the low card showing can outplay the high pair most of the time? Could have a hidden high pair, a strong low and high draw, etc, which will force the obvious high hand to eat a lot of raises, for probably at best 1/2 the pot....
Heads up adds strength to the high hand, but s/he better be DARN sure of the player that s/he's up against....
How about a 2-to-1 favorite. THIS IS what a high pair has heads up over a 3 card low, 2,3,8 or 2,4,6 even A,6,7, the low has to catch perfect on fourth street to continue on later streets. Me personally I look for multi-way action, with scoop potentional cards meaning playing the " babies" , suited cards all the better. REMEMBER the low is not completed until 5th street most of the time. THIS IS WHERE the made low starts to freeroll the high pair. A four card low at fourth street has a 80% chance to complete at the river or 4-to-1. In my book 2-to-1 is a favorite 4-to-1 heads up.
Low card outplay a high pair? You're kidding right. In the grand scheme of things, if you have a small pair, you are fundamentally crushed. You may outplay me the few times you get lucky, but that's it. If you have a 3 low, then good luck. You are about 50/50 to make the low and much worse to make the straight or flush.
If you think you are going to fold my pair of kings when I attack your low card bring-in, then it is you who are being outplayed. Heck, I won't even fold if you show a 4 flush. I might fold if you show a 4 straight AND you've shown early aggression, and then only if I don't have two pair.
The high hand RULES in h2h stud/8. The only thing that makes the low draws playable in a h2h situation is the ante, and the possibility that the high card is raising without a pair.
- Andrew
High pair heads-up over 3 card low is no different than a High pair versus a drawing hand heads-up in 7 card-stud high. These type of hands need multi-way action to show profit in the long run. When heads up against a high pair I almost need to catch perfect on fourth and fifth streets to justify going into later streets, and by then have straight or flush potential with my made low or even pair on sixth street hoping to catch trips on the river or another pair.
This is exactly the kind of play that will get you destroyed by someone who plays (xx)X heads up with you.
- Andrew
could you explain that? like if (K3)K gets heads up with (AA)2, hes dogmeat?
brad
Kibbles and Bits.
No improvement = AA2 wins. Pairing kicker = AA2 wins. Pairing big card = AA2 wins. Catching any middle pair = AA2 wins.
Each of the above hands has an equal probability of happening to either hand. i.e. AA2 will catch a 2 or A as often as K3K will catch a 3 or K respectively and both hands will catch say a pair of 6's with equal probabilty.
AA2 also has a somewhat decent chance of catching a low where the K3K has to catch 4/4 perfect to make a low.
Disguised hands are a great thing to have in 7cs/8.
I don't think you understood what I was talking about. I was talking about holding two babies with a paint card for your up door VERSUS a three low. Not a split pair versus a higher hidden pair. I agree that the hidden higher pair will always have an advantage over the split pair.
- Andrew
the low hand will generally outplay the high hand. the low hand is a big favorite( about 8 to 5) each card to catch a low card. when he catches any low card it becomes very hard for the high pair to bet into him. if he has three low cards showing on 5th street(around a third of the time) many of the high hands must fold. unless other conditions warrant playing on. the high hand is not a 2 to one favorite most times, actually most times the high pair will be from about three to two favorite down to about even money depending on the hands. most times closer to 1.15 to one. the high hand not aces, has a terrible time playing whenever the low card catches an ace or an adjacent card to its first upcard. still the right high hands can do well headup when played by the best player.
4-8 O/8 game last night. Game was a dream and a nightmare all at the same time. Dream -lots of players looking at every flop, and playing all sorts of horrid hands. Nightmare- I can't get arrested for hands. Sit there for over 2 hours patiently waiting, waiting, waiting. Want to mix it up with these guys, but can't go to a gunfight with a knife, right?
FINALLY - Middle position, I pick up Ah-2s-3c-5h. Nice low draws and re-draws, plus a nut flush draw. I love this type of hand in multi-way pots. One early limper to me, I raise. I'm seated in Seat #2 at the table. The SB (seat#8) and BB (#9) have been joking it up, raising on all sorts of garbage like K-J-8-8, and K-Q-5-4 ("I was double suited!"). Hands I wouldn't play for 1 bet, never mind raise with. But that's OK, they're burning up chips left and right, and I'm sitting on the sidelines waiting for a better opportunity.
Anyway, everyone folds to my raise around to the button, a guy who plays often in the O/8 game, but who plays way too many hands. SB, BB, and early limper all call. Now the SB starts making a running commentary before the flop along the lines of, "Acey-deucey down there. Watch out for Acey-deucy!" I was going to tell him to keep his trap shut during the hand, but thought the better of it. Hell, I could play my good hands face-up with these guys half the time, and still get callers, but what's with the Dennis Miller act? Flop comes down 8d-6d-2c. I would rather have seen a couple of hearts out there rather than the diamonds, but I did flop nut low, even if it was partially counterfieted with the deuce. I've still got a bit of a backup with the A-5 and if an Ace hits, maybe my 2 pair would have high value.
They check to me, and I bet. Button calls, SB calls, BB calls, and limper folds. Turn card is the 6s. Check, check, I bet, Button calls, Sb folds, BB calls. River is the 9d. Boom. BB has the $8 on the table in a flash. I do not normally raise the low with only 3 players left in, so I call. I put the BB on either diamonds, or he made his full house. I've played with him enough to know that if he had an A-3 with nut diamond draw, that either he would have come out betting the flop, or I would have got check-raised.
Now the button raises. BB just calls. I now readjust my thinking a bit. Very unlikely BB has a full house, or at least a good one, or he would re-raise. He's got diamonds, I'm thinking. Button should not have a nut low, diamond hand, or HE should have been raising earlier after that flop, you would think. So I figure I have the only low, and decide to limp re-raise. If I'm wrong, my $8 extra raise costs me $2, and if I'm right, I make an extra $4. No huge deal either way.
Well, the BB did indeed have diamonds. His hand was Ad-Qd and two middling cards like a 7 and a 4, I think. The Button had called my raise with As-3h-Kd-5d, and now at the river, he raises with nut low and 2nd nut flush into a paired board. We get quartered and the nut flush gets the half.
Questions:
1. Any problems with raising with my hand pre-flop?
2. How do you like the button's play on the river?
3. Is my limp re-raise worthy, or just greedy?
As per the title of this post, I think the button missed a chance for an interesting turn play. Instead of being a calling station, what about RAISING the turn? It doesn't look like the BB has much at this point, but look at the effect of a turn raise on the BB's hand. The button still has the low to fall back on, and if he can drive out the BB, he can free-roll me for 3/4 of the pot. On the other hand, I might get 3/4 if a diamond doesn't come with my pair of 2's if the BB folds, but the button has to know that he's at best getting a 1/4, given my pre-flop raise and betting so far, so why not give it a shot? I'm finding that just sitting there in O/8 waiting for the showdown is no way to play. There are all sorts of these little opportunities for picking up extra pieces of pots if you look for them. Thoughts?
Dunc,
Questions:
1. Any problems with raising with my hand pre-flop?
(either way call or raise)
2. How do you like the button's play on the river?
(He had the only chance of getting both.)
3. Is my limp re-raise worthy, or just greedy?
(I would of called)
paul
1. Don't raise early with this hand in this game. You want players, especially players with drek. Better still if they are the raisers with drek ... they will build your pot for you.
2. Button is very aggressive, isn't he. I don't think he should raise here, even with nut low, bad high. BB looks like nut flush, and you look like nut low.
3. Limp re-raise? This is Omaha. Everyone has the nuts. It's good to put people on hands and play your ideas, but next time consider that button might have a 2-way hand for his raise. However, your play cost little, and in the long run good ideas will make you a profit. I think it's more important to try an idea like this than just play on autopilot.
Incidentally, what did the button have to say about your raise? I frequently get chastised for overplaying nut lows, and I just mark down my critic as a desireable opponet.
Yeah, he made a comment about it being a 'terrible play'. It's not like it cost him (or me for that matter) anything significant in terms of dollars. I was going to volley back with something about him calling my raise with the cheese he had (to be honest, I'm not sure his fourth card was even as good as a 5), and then making a raise on the river with 2nd nut flush into a paired board, but I thought the better of it. Why get into educational discussions with the opponents at the table?
I wouldn't have raised preflop, if the result you got is expected. You raised after 1 limper, and only the button called behind. With a hand like yours that either makes the nuts or nothing, I'd rather let everyone in for 1 bet and see the flop. If it's a good flop, you want to have them ALL chasing you. If it's a bad flop, there will still be too many callers for you to bluff your way to a win.
The button's play sucked unless the BB would call (and have bet out) with any and all flushes, OR if the BB would fold a small house or nut flush to the raise. I doubt either of these are true. Therefore, the button's chances of having or getting the high are slim, as is also true for the only nut low.
Your limp re-raise is good, in the sense that it shows that you were thinking about all the possibilities. And since you really didn't expect either of them to have the same nut low, it was a good play. As you said, you're getting 4:2 on the play. Unless you think that there's better than a 2/3 chance that one of them has A3, it's a good play.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FredTheShark made the same comment about raising in early position with this type of hand. True, you would prefer several callers, but you've got to understand, these are not generally the knowledgeable O/8 players you guys usually run into. It is nothing to see several callers to a raise with hands like 9-8-7-5, Q-Q-4-2, or A-J-9-4. For that reason, I sometimes play less attention to position that may be warranted by the 'book' play with good hands, and just jam it up when I feel I have the best of it.
In these games, when I get bad cards like last night, I lose a little or break even because I hardly play any hands. With average cards, I can book a nice win. If I'm hitting, it's the Lotto.
You're right, Greg, the chances of the BB folding a flush or small full to a raise are less than zero. Maybe a turn raise by the button would be a little hyper-aggressive, but I thought the hand had a couple of little nuances that were worth discussing.
If they will call just as often (or almost so) even when you raise, then yes, raise with your best hands to build a pot. However, like happened here, if they will fold, even a couple of them, I'd be more inclined to limp and keep them in. This is especially true if they'll pay off your nut hands with much less than the nuts later.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Even the bad players notice when the rook raises after not playing a hand for a hour.
I have this problem in my game so i only raise in late pos. with good hands otherwise I will get less action.
Dunc - if you are in Seat#2 at the table. Button is seat#7, SB(seat#8) and BB (#9) then the pre-flop limper (seat#1) was the only possible limper between you and the BB. In a nine handed game, I prefer four players between me and the BB before I would raise. I feel you raised way too early. With your "excellent starting hand" and a loose game, I would have given seats #3,#4,#5,#6, and Button-#7 an opportunity to call "limp" or raise. If any of these players after you raised, you then have a great opportunity to re-raise.
As we all know, the SB's comment, "Acey-deucey down there" is common among some OM/8 players "usually weak players." It is essentially impossible to stop table talk like this. If you would have not raised preflop: (a) the SB would have been in the dark, and (b) if more players came in to play after you just called and the pot got raised and you re-raised -- you would have a great pot going and you wouldn't care what the SB does or says.
Carl
5/10 7CS with an ante of 2$ and the forced bet 3$ ; the ante comes to 20% of the big bet. That is more than in the highest limits, no?
I have been playing Low LimiHoldem moderately successful for about one year and I have been studying quite a lot. According to everything I have read and to what I have learned from the posts on this forum, the above structure MUST be unplayable.
But I live in a small town in Europe where there exists only one cardroom. Besides the 4/8 Holdem table where I use to play there are two or three 7CS tables. One of these tables harbours the unplayable game, while the other games are at limits which might be dangerous to my bankroll.
Unfortunatly the lonesome holdem table is being deserted by most of the losing players in favour of the unplayable 7CS game.If Iwant to continue playing, I´ve got to learn 7CS.
Should I take a shot at the 10/20 game or is there (unconceivable for me) any strategy to survive at this structure sufficiently long to gain the experience necessary for stepping up the limit?
All suggestions are welcome.
Lasse
That 5/10 plays like a 10/20. I could live with it; no problem. Most 5/10 are .50 ante and $2 forced bet. I like the rake in the 10/20 better. It is still $4 but after $80. In 5/10 it is $4 after 40. It makes a difference.
Just have a decent bankroll for the 10/20. I would not buy in with less than $300 in chips and have a few !)) bills under the chips. Playing with a short stack will induce bluffs.
With an ante *that* high, unless the opponents are terrible it will be difficult to have much of an advantage. At an early point in the hand, the pots can often become large enough for any reasonable hand to call to the river. (A situation which occurs in many home games I've played in.) Note that the ideal opponents are overly tight. If they are loose-passive, they are playing close to correct for this structure. If you can steal at all or narrow the field early, they are almost certainly making major errors and you should have a decent edge. Also make sure you're taking advantage of passive play - given the huge ante many very weak hands will be playable in an unraised pot. If you can, pressure the cardroom to reduce the ante - preferably to .50, .75, or at most $1. An ante of 20% of the *small* bet is about the maximum for a reasonable game. Also keep in mind that 10-20 with a $1 ante is a very low variance game. If that game has players of at least mediocre skill, it may actually have smaller swings than the crazy high-ante 5-10 game.
You didn't tell us how the house gets its drop. If this is a pot-raked game, with a typical maximum of $3 or $4 per pot, then my opinion is that this game is probably unbeatable. In order to counteract a high percentage rake (and a typical rake is still high at the 5-10 level), you need to play tight and win fewer, bigger, and more certain pots. But the very high ante forces you to play more hands, steal small pots, etc. ... just the behavior you want to avoid to beat the rake.
If instead there is a time payment, then there probably is a winning strategy just like Dan posted above ... play lots more hands, steal more, etc. But you still lose your (my?) greatest advantage over poor players, because in more normal games, they are too loose, but here they are not.
Dick
Thanks all of you for your responses.
The gist of your posts confirms what I thought, because firstly the players are indeed very loose (ante stealing is almost impossible) and the edge I have over them when playing Holdem - playing better starting hands than they do - doesn´t exist in this 7CS game. Secondly the game has a drop-collection of about 5% with an maximum of 4$.
Thanks again
lasse
In this game, you are playing with a very large ante in relation to the size of the opening bet. With 8 players at the table, you have 16$ + the 3$ bring in makes for 19$ in the pot before any betting occurs. You have to loosen up considerably in this game or you will be anted out quickly. This is much different than the typical 5-10 structure of a 50 cent ante with a 2$ bring in, which puts 6$ into the pot before the betting gets started. Here you could afford to be much tighter than in the first structure.. In AC 10-20, there is a 1$ ante with a 3$ bring in, which makes for 11$ in the pot to begin with. The key here is the ratio of $$ in the pot to the opening bet size.
your structure = 19$ to 5$, which is close to 4:1
typical 5/10 = 6$ to 5$, close to 1:1
typical 10-20 = 11:10, close to 1:1
as you can see, you should be much more inclined to play in the first structure than the second or third, because there is so much more $$ in the pot relative to your bet size. You must therefore play much looser in the first structure.
As for whether the game is beatable, it may very well be closer to a crap shoot than the other structures. If you have sufficient bankroll, I would consider the 10-20 game as a possible alternative to this game.
If you are going to play it, you are going to have to loosen up and play it similarly to high $$ stud games. See Mason's essay on the two types of stud for more discussion on strategy for high ante stud games.
dave in cali
Lasse,
I have played a 2-5 spread limit with $1 ante and $2 bring in which seems like it should be similar. I loved this game. Many palyers think that a high ante means never fold. I played moderately tight and very aggressive, using semi-bluffs quite often. Ante stealing from late position is impossible, but from early position seemed to work well.
good luck, DJ
I would like comments on how to beat this game. Since it's the only one within 2 hrs of me I thought it should be a good step in learning poker better. Making a plan and carrying it out. There are a bunch of one-table tourneys. 9 players, $40 each, play 25-hands of limit Omaha8. If I recall correctly, after 25 hands the payout to the chip-leaders goes as follows: 1st 125, 2nd 75, and 3rd 50. Not very pretty... the house gets 110/360, but the skill level is so poor even to a novice like myself. Probabaly half don't even half HS diplomas. Anyway, each player starts with 500 in chips and the limits are 10-20 (5-10 blinds). As is typical with low stakes, the play is very loose, almost everyone always pays full price to see the flop, and after that I can expect many to showdown, especially with the low possible. So my question is this. What type of stategy should I employ here. Play my starters very selectively and choose to only see a few flops. Or possibly see a lot of flops but commit to not chasing anything other than nut draws or playing out made hands. Suggestions would be appreciated. Also can someone direct me to where I can find rankings of starters for Omaha Hilo so I can make better evaluations of my early holdings.
Also, rankings of the 1st 3 cards in 7stud (hi only)would be helpful. Because of gambling restrictiopns the only other game is .25-.50 7stud where the pots are always capped at 10 bucks because of law. So basically I can see 3 cards for a quarter and maybe a 4th for another .25 or .50 and I am guaranteed a $10 pot everytime I win because of the looseness of play there as everyone always stays in. In other words another reason for me to learn which holdings I should play in multi-way pots.
thanks russ
Russ - It takes less than an hour to play 25 hands of Omaha high/low. I don't think you're going to learn how to play Omaha high/low in any meaningful sense with this (horrid) tournament structure.
Are there locals who frequent the casino and who know each other? If so, aren't you a little worried that they'll bet so as to transfer chips from one person to another when you are not in the pot? They don't need high school diplomas to out-fox you by helping their cousins and good pals. This game structure (because there are only 25 hands dealt) is set up for collusion.
Even assuming an honest game, in this tournament structure you can't afford to be very selective about your starting hands.
On the last several hands, maybe even starting with deal number 20 or maybe even earlier, assuming an honest game, everyone who is not in first, second, or third place will surely endeavor to bet all their chips in a wild attempt to make first second or third. You will need (1) 2255 chips to be assured of a win, (2) 1505 chips to be assured of placing second, and (3) 1130 chips to be assured of third place money.
Your goal should be to get to one of those chip milestones (2255, 1505, or 1130). If you get to one of those chip milestones, don't allow your stack to dribble away. If you get to 2255 chips in the final round and are not due to post a blind, by folding every hand you are assured of first place.
As you can see, the strategy for playing in the 25 hand tournament has little to do with the strategy for playing Omaha high/low in any other context.
My advice is to skip this tournament. It has "sucker" written all over it.
Buzz
You are in Florida. The 40$ buy in in tampa is played 10 handed and the pay outs are 150, 90, 50 with 30 hands dealt. The house rake is 27%. These games are unbeatable. I know i deal there.
This will give you a slight idea on how to play O/8 but not much.
The trick is to play tight untill you get down to aboout 10 hands then start seeing every flop.
If you get over a 1000 units fold for a place. if you do not make sure you keep enough chips to play the last hand. that is where 1st is ussually won.
The tourney structure is very luck-oriented. Since it's over in 25 hands, you can't play tight, and since there are only 25 hands, you can't make great laydowns and manage to win that way either. You have to win a couple (or more) of the big pots, and to do so you have to be in there more than 4 times (which is all I would normally see in a ring game of 25 hands). Because of all of this, coupled with the high rake, it is my opinion that no one in the world can have a positive expectation in this game. NOBODY. Not even Ray Zee.
The ring games are even worse. Even though the pot is capped at $10, I've heard they still rake $3 or $4 per pot. Unbeatable.
The only reason to go and play in these games is to meet people and get invited to their home games. Or, start your own home game and invite the worst players from this casino. However, doing so is probably illegal, so don't blame me if you do it and get arrested. I'm telling you how to win money at poker, not how to avoid jail. If you want to do both, leave Florida.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the 10$ max pot games you anty .25 and the house takes all the antyes there in no rake per-say. The house rake is close to 20% with a .50 jack pot drop, the pot only gets maxed out about 75% of the time.
PokerPL, I played at two locations in the Orlando area with similar rules/rakes, etc. about 5 years ago.
Are they still shrinking the pot when it's too high, back below the $10 level? That is, if they can't split the chips evenly to get to the $10 cap, they make EVERYONE in that betting round take their bets back?
That was the biggest waste of time I'd ever seen... and those tourneys weren't much better...
Does anyone know if there are any PL Omaha games spread in Lake Tahoe. I'm going there on vacation. Sorry if this is the wrong spot to post this.
no there are not. and it should go on the exchange forum.
Ray:
By "exchange forum" do you mean General Theory menu? If not, what then?
Thanks!
Ivan
z
Thanks, Ray!
Big game this past weekend. A monster $1000-2000 game with 5 -6 players. I have seen them at Taj in the past. Some big stacks of Franklins. The std 7CS-HE-Hi/Lo trilogy made for interesting viewing while waiting for my meager 5/10 and 10/20 7CS.
When I was in Las Vegas I saw a $3000-$6000 trilogy game at the bellagio. Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese and Huck Seed were in that one. kind of makes you feel insignificant in a 5-10 game doesnt it?
Pat
Saw that the Trop...
Is there anything tuffer that a 1-5 7cs with 5> octogeneraians at the table and who have personified the Great White and are unemotionally disembowing one or two players who play >75% of their hands????
2 out of my 3 games in AC this weekend were like that.
Brudder Andrusha
Here is a worse one
I must add, that each 80+ person should be hard of hearing, have his wife sitting next to him with a table and 2 containers of soup, and in addition to looking at his hole card on every street (did they change?) and of course he must squeeze out the river card.
How can you beat a guy who looks at his river card, sits up in his chair, makes a big show about shuffling his hole cards up, squeezes out one more time to make sure, raises it up and triumphantly rolls out three duexs in the hole?
He's a pinhead. You have to get someone else at the table to bust his balls.
I've heard Netprofit Casino made big $$$ pay-offs on August. Rumorz or truth?..
Good grief. Apparently the morons at Netprofit think poker players are too stupid to see through this blatant advertisement. I only wonder how long it takes Mason to delete this sort of junk.
Excellent! Haven't heard/used "nimrod" in a looonngg time. Luved it.
i think nimrod was a hunter from the bible from babylon. there is a train station up the road from my middle fork of the flathead river cabin thats called that name. the station is long gone and now its a put in for rafting the river along the southern boundary of glacier national park..
If anyone knows these numbers, could you tell me or show me how to calculate them myself?
What is the probability of receiving on 3rd street:
1. rolled up trips 2. pair tt and up 3. pair 99-22 with overcard kicker (this is the one i have fits with) 4. 3 flush with less than 3 of suit out (ditto this one) 5. 3-straight with bottom card no lower than 8 6. 3 overcards 7. 2 overcards.
1 and 2 i can figure out easily, but don't know how to figure the overcard bit and suited cards on board. Basically, I'm looking for a percentage for each time you'd get each hand which i can then add together and perform all kinds of novice calculations on...
thanks for any help.
why are these numbers so important?
they're pretty close to roy west's low limit 3rd street recommendations. I have a good grasp of the numbers after 3rd street (ie, what hands are favored by how much over what other hands by how much, odds to the various draws, etc.), but i have verified them, rather than figured them out. Initially, I'm simply looking for the percentage range of hands that you get dealt in various types of games and how often you'd play them, then what you'd add and subtract in looser/tighter games.
These aren't hard but you need to be more specfic: viz when you say 22-99 and an overcards do you mean an overcard to your pair? or to the board?
If its just an overcard to your pair the number of combinations are 6((12x4) + (11x4)+ ...+ (5x4)).
For the flush ex Find the number of 10 card combos that have 5-3 of a particular suit out w/ you have 3. Divide this by the number of 10 card combos.
For the 3 straights (that aren't 3 flushes) that are over 8. there are 5(60) of them.
Ill try and post some of the rest later.
I can explain how i got htese numbers if you like.
sorry, i meant 99-22 and overcards to the board. overcards to my pair seem easier to figure out, there are (ranks above my pair*4)/(number of cards left in the deck. it's where there are 7 other upcards that confuses me.
I am a very new O8 player with a very basic question:
Should I *always* raise pre-flop if I have A2?
Why or why not?
Do my other cards matter? Does is matter if my A2 is suited?
Thanks,
KJS
in small stakes loose games you will play it almost all the time but raise only in appropiate spots. your other cards determine everything.
You want lots of players, so if it will make people fold you may not want to raise. Of course in the long run it depends on the table and the other cards in your hand, but basically "no", don't always raise.
you should almost always play with A2, but you shouldn't usually raise if A2 is the only thing going for your hand - some counterfeit protection, suitedness, or another ace might warrant a raise in some situations.
These sorts of raises should usually come when you are in late position. With low draw type hands, you usually don't want to fold out a lot of players, as their value decreases against few opponents. An early position raise should only be considered if you have A2 along with some good high outs (double-suited, pocket-aces, etc.)
~DjTj
No,
Like Ray said your other 2 cards determine whether or not it is worth raising. Also, the more people that call the flop, the more valueable the hand is. If there are only a couple of people seeing the flop and I have A-2-7-10 rainbow, I would probably fold. There is a ~60% of there being a low board. This includes low boards with an A or 2. It also includes boards that have to go runner, runner low. You are playing for half the pot. I don't think the odds are always there.
The more callers there are, the more likely I am to play the hand.
Derrick
KJS -
I think raises before the flop depend on the situation (your cards, your perception of your opponents, your opponent’s perception of you, your seating position relative to the button, etc.). Sometimes, especially in early position, you raise so as to make it more difficult for you opponents to call. Other times, especially in late position you raise to get more money in the pot or to buy a free card after the flop. Other times you raise to steal the blind(s). Still other times you raise to intimidate your opponents.
Omaha high/low is a drawing game. All hands before the flop are drawing hands and most hands after the flop are still drawing hands. In general you don’t want to lose opponents when you have drawing hands, because the more opponents contributing to the pot, the better are your implied odds. On the other hand, if your opponents will probably stand for a raise, and if you have a good hand, you want to get more money into the pot.
As per your specific questions:
“Should I *always* raise pre-flop if I have A2?”
Ray Zee has already answered this. My answer would have been, “Absolutely not.”
"Why or why not?"
1. I don’t think you should *always* do the same thing (for obvious reasons).
2. When you raise pre-flop in Omaha high/low, your opponents tend to suspect that you have either AAXX or A2XX.
3. A2 is probably the best two card combination in Omaha high/low, but A2 by itself is not a very good holding. Ray Zee addresses this in his excellent book, and, if there was any doubt, a few sessions in a real game make you a believer in his wisdom. The main thing is that a hand such as A2JT ends up as the lock low only about 25% of the time, and then roughly one hand out of three in a nine player game, when your A2XX is the lock low, another player will also have A2XX. Keep in mind that A2 generally gets you only half the pot.
4. Raises pre-flop, depending on your position, tend to cause at least some of your opponents to fold, especially those with marginal hands (the very ones you want to keep playing when you have A2), yet hardly anyone is going to fold A2XX before the flop (except in certain situations in a tournament). Thus raising with A2XX tends to drive out the very players you want calling, while having little or no effect on the players you want to eliminate from the hand.
“Do my other cards matter?“ Yes, as already answered by other posters in this thread.
“Does is matter if my A2 is suited?“ Yes. The main reason, as I see it, is that pre-flop you always want to play for scoopers in Omaha high/low. Even though A2 suited doesn’t make a flush very often, when it does, you usually have a scooper. Thus when you play A2 (suited), you're going for the scoop, whereas when you play A2 in a rainbow hand, you're mainly going for only half the pot.
Buzz
z
thoroughly enjoy you hi-lo book.It has vastly improved my game.I feel I have a big advantage at my 1-5 omaha/8 home game.I deal it exclusively when it comes to me.However when others deal they chose a 6 card hi-lo stud version (two down four up)which does not have an 8 or better qualifier for low.There is one (optional)buy after the first three cards have been dealt and another (optional) buy on the end, then a declare.There is a 3 dollar ante and the low brings it in for a buck.Would my starting hand requirements remain close to the same as 7 cs hi-lo as per your book? or would they be even tighter since you have a chance to pay a buck and improve your 3 card staring hand?Any other thoughts concerning strategies in this game would be greatly appreciated.Thanks in advance.
3 dollar ante from each person? That is pretty big for a $1-5 game. Play loose.
If it is $3 total, play tightish.
Even if it's three dollars total, that's a pretty big starting pot for the size of the game.
the dealer antes 3 dollars and the forced one dollar bring in makes it 4 total ( he can drop to a raise of course) but as a general rule often 4 or 5 players will pay a buck to trade one card to try to improve there hand so often at least 8-10 dollars in the pot before the 3 rd street betting round begins.For example, I get 238 offsuit., do I try to dump the 8 for a buck and try to improve? (and if I don't, just muck it?). If I'm dealt 469 or some such trash I just save a buck and fold when the action gets to me.(Or is it worth a buck to throw the 9 and try to pull an ace or a 2 for a good low hand?)What about A,2,10 suited?(throw the 10 or play the flush? Now you can see why I asked Ray about the starting hand dilemma as there is a lot of variables.Also with the declare on the end there is a lot of manuvering and bluffing situations.For example last week the person to my left correctly assumed three others were going high (two flushes and one two pair) and he went lo unchallenged with a trash hand that either of the flushes could have beaten.So I know I need to improve my hand reading skills, and would also like to hear any ideas about improving my card memory skills.
rather than try to figure your exact game out, id just say--
play only for low since there is no qualifier and work only towards 2 way hands. position yourself in the seat that takes advantage of position on the most active players. this is your best edge in this game. the money is made on the declare. aces are big. especially when headup. they go both ways. in the right spots you may play pairs in the hole but must know how to manuver the hand. its not my kind of game as everyone has an easy time starting with 3 good ones.
thanks Ray for your advice concerning this game.
Hi all,
I have used Turbo O8 to try to learn O8 and I like the point count systems used to determine whether to see the flop; since the poor player will see too many flops and since it is easy to convince oneself that KK82 can win if KK or KQ775 hit -- and can win a monster-- but is really junk that should be thrown away....
...does anyone else use this in real like? I can count these up pretty quickly and correctly in my head, but I wonder: Are winning pro players using this method?
If anyone else is, can you tell me what changes you make, or what variant of the Wilson Turbo count you use?
(I know that you better also be good AFTER the flop, but that's not my question).
thanx,
Mark
it may give you an idea of what may be a good hand, but the situation changes so much because of variables that no point count system can hold a candle to understanding hand values in relation to your position to the action. those that try to simplify something not simple are doomed to failure for sure. if you are going to gamble your hard earned money why not first learn the game.
Ray,
Thanks for the advice, and for your book on the topic, which I like very much.
Here's the funny thing, and the crux of my question though: I played O8 for years (off and on, but whenever I could) at the Orleans mostly, and I know how to play and I am a winning O8 player, I would simply like to go up one level. I find though that the count system in Turbo, using correct penalties for early vs. late and other 'rules' PLUS taking the game and players into account too, has helped my game a lot, since I play much tighter (preflop) than i would by just looking at the cards; in fact, I try to play tighter (I fold sometimes when the count indicates a call which might be incorrect in my opinion, due to hand texture) than the counts imply.
I simply wonder if others used the count in everyday play.
By the way, this strikes me as I write this: O8 is so complex, I wonder about a 'point count' system for nuts, draw to the nuts, second nuts, draw to second nuts, both on flop and turn. This would sure help me in evaluating my play, and I sure do this empirically while I play...sorry if I am rambling, but I program computers, and rules, counts, odds, etc all appeal to me. And I successfully used point count at BJ for many years too...
Mark
the best way to go up one level is to increase your hand reading abilities. then you can apply what you hold to that information. if your point count takes in account each players probable hand and gives you the range of hands to play against them , then maybe it will work. but i suspect it mostly will give you the discipline to play tight. if it works use it. in bj its works as there are few variables. in poker it could only help on starting hands anyway and that is the foundation but not where the profit is.
Ray, thanks.
I think you are saying something which I do when I play well and do not do when I play poorly: Know pretty well what the other player has, or likely has. And you are right of course: The profits are after the flop...
Mark
I'll be in Vegas for about a week towards the end of November, staying at Harrah's.
Are there any good stud games anywhere on the Strip at about the 5-10 level? [I admit that I live on the East Coast and am spoiled by an abundance of game selection at FW and M. Sun.] Or, is it tougher to get a good selection?
It's been awhile since I've been, but the Mirage used to offer 5-10, 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40 stud.
There's no question that - these days - the only place to play in Vegas is the Bellagio. Happy hunting.
I live in Champaign and drive 2.5 hours to East Chicago, IN on the weekend to play at Harrah's cardroom. I would like to start/join a home game closer to Champaign - maybe one hour drive at most. I'll play whatever - low or medium limits. If anyone is interested, please contact me.
Thanks.
I go to school in champaign and we have home games often. We usually can't get the stakes past 1-2 but we might be able to get like 6 for up to five ten. Email me at oneputtjv@aol.com
email me at oneputtjv@aol.com
JV,
I emailed you a MS Word file outlining the game I have in mind. If you haven't received it yet, let me know and I will re-send.
Bruce K.
This might not work out, but if you guys will be in Champaign during the week around Christmas I'll probably be in town visiting my parents and I'd love to get in a game. I grew up there and went to UI (class of '94). If another friend of mine is in town he'd want to play as well.
I also wouldn't mind sharing a ride up to East Chicago to play if there's no game in Champaign.
Paul Talbot
Small S/8, 8 handed, fairly weak. I am the bring in with 7c 6c 5c. No clubs showing.
Ad behind me completes, J calls, 8 calls, I call instead of re-raising.
4th street boards:
A4 rainbow
J9
86
(me) 5c 2c (with 6c 7c burried)
A4 bets, J9 folds, 86 calls (what is he doing in here), I raise (instead of calling). All call.
5th street boards:
A48
86Q
(me) 5c 2c 6d (6c 7c burried)
All check to me, I bet, all fold. OK, I won 7 small bets with what is now just a great draw and a busted low.
Whould it have been better to play for a bigger pot by checking instead of raising the turn, even if it means risking losing everything if I miss?
No.
Your result is fine, and probably better than what you would average if you had just called on 4th and played it out to the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
winning the pot on 5th street is usually a great result in Stud/8. More often than not, you would have to split that pot if it went to the river and that half-pot would've been worth less profit than the pot you got to drag down.
~DjTj
Isn't playing correct strategy for low limit o/8 pretty boring? Play extremely tight preflop (basically you are the ONLY player at the table who is not in every hand) and only draw to the nuts (basically you are the only one at the table that does this as well).
The type of game I play in averages around 8 players on every flop and they continue post flop with marginal holding. They play lows that are 3rd 4th and 5th nuts without any problem. They will even draw to these lows. They draw to bad high hands as well, like ignorant end straights and such.
Basically, in this game the nuts is out there for high and low every hand (this is a slight exageration). I have deviated from the aforementioned strategy to try and play more hands and win more postflop. My results have been poorer. I am going to revert back to my old strategy, but it is a real grind. I wish I didn't have to play this game, it's so incredibly slow, and my strategy makes for a pretty boring game, but I have no choice it's the only game available to me. With the speed of the game I bet we are getting no more than 25 hands per hour, probably closer to 20 hands, and with the preflop play recommended in Ciaffone's and Zee's books I'm only seeing the flop like once a round, not counting the blind. So I play 2 hands an hour if I am playing correctly preflop. Woo hoo.
Mark - Exactly.
Even if you could play one hand a round in addition to your blind it wouldn't be so bad. Trouble is, if you have a bad run of cards it can be more than several rounds around the table until you have a playable hand, exclusive of your blind(s). And all the while, all around you people are playing every hand, so that you have to have the nuts to win.
That (tight, playing for the nuts) low limit Omaha high/low strategy works for someone whose goal is only to make money. However, using that (correct) strategy it's sooooooo boring that it really isn't any fun, even when you do make money.
Most of us could honestly make more money doing something other than playing low limit Omaha high/low. When the game ceases to be fun because it's sooooooo boring, even when you are winning, you have to wonder why you're playing.
I've recently switched to Crazy Pineapple high/low with an 8 qualifier. You can play at least twice as many hands, still play as correctly and as tight as you do in Omaha high/low, and not stand out like such a sore thumb. For me, at least, it's much more fun to be able to legitimately play more hands.
But be careful. It's not Omaha high/low. Interesting how many people pick up A23 and think they have a great hand - but then they have to throw away a card after the flop, and there goes their "emergency low," making them fully vulnerable to getting counterfeited. And boy oh boy, does it (getting counterfeited) happen a lot (just as much as playing a bare A2 in Omaha high/low). Because of the counterfeiting factor there are many more scoops than in Omaha high/low. If you like scoops and know how to play for them, Crazy Pineapple is the game for you.
Buzz
That's what my problem has been lately. I've gotten so bored that I am playing marginal hands and then I've caught myself talking myself into playing a hand out even though I've "read" my opponent as having me beat. Leaks that are easy to plug.
The problem with me is that in my small local casino the only game I can play is a 5-10 Dealer's Choice game. Out of 10 people at the table 6 play split usually, a couple play Omaha High and one or two play holdem. As far as poker goes it sucks living in northern Alberta. If I wasn't worried about my bankroll (I've recently started playing in the 20-40 half hour holdem half hour Omaha high game that my casino spreads once a week and I don't have correct bank roll for it, I have around 100 BB's) I would put some of it online and play at paradise poker. At least then, if I wanted to play O/8 I could get in 30-40 hands per hour.
I just wanted to confirm that I was playing the correct strategy (or at least I knew what the correct strategy was for this crap shoot style game). I've heard that the gaming commision is supposed to be authorizing Pineapple (not sure which variations, ie. Crazy, or Crazy 8 or better, or what) the next time they publish there regulations or something, but for now I'm stuck playing this boring game.
I guess if I want to make money at it (and I do) then I play my boring game and get my enjoyment from socializing with the regulars (whom I like).
Sounds like you live in either Ft.Murray or Grande Prairie. If it's the Fort, you should be able to beat that game senseless with any sort of discipline, boring or not. I was up there back in June, and unless the locals have improved a bit, solid play should over time be a cash cow in that game.
If you're in Grande Prairie, it's about the same, from my experience. I know their 15-30 and 20-40 games require a little more bankroll, but the players aren't any better; they just like to play higher on occasion. Good luck.
Hey Dunc,
I'm up in GP. The game is brutal. I've been beating up on it pretty good but lately I've found myself playing too many hands and therefor I've been losing. But like Buzz said, a run of bad cards in Hi-Low can be terrible.
BTW, I played in the 4-8 half kill dealer's choice game at Baccarat about a month back. A real nice game for a decent O/8 player. They don't stick around with quite as bad of lows but I'm guessing it's still a pretty easy game to run over for a guy like you eh?
Anyways, I just felt like venting. I just got to get my discipline back, draw at the nuts and take home the money. Now... if only I can get my discipline back.
I want to recap. How does KKQ play against the following hands heads up.........
A23, A57, 234, 258. What if the pair was nines. Ray Zee suggests that it is easier to play the low hand. Is that assuming you will automatically give up the low if you brick on fourth street? Does the Ace overcard dramatically affect the situation? If anyone could post a hand they have played in this situation it would be helpful.
1. it plays not so well but you dont know they have that hand when you get in the pot. 2. pair of nines sucks 3.you give up on 4th street when the pot is small or the hand doesnt warrant going further. 4. ace is great
Omaha 8 or better, 3-6 game w/kill.
Killer early calls, total live one calls. I have Ah 2h 3h Kc in middle pos. and decide to just call, as my hand is good but not great and I want to encourage more callers. Anyone raise here? Tight button calls, blinds call. We see flop 6-handed.
Flop: 8c 7d 8h. Checked to live one who bets, I call with my nut low draw, button calls, SB folds, BB calls. We see flop 4-handed.
Turn: As. BB bets out, live one calls. I think and decide to raise. I have nut low and a high that could be good if the other players are all on lows (probably not). My feeling is I want to drive out the button, who will probably fold if he has just a low (maybe even the nut low). I also raise because the live one will call with anything, making my raise worthwhile in terms of value. The obvious big downside to my raise is that the river could counterfeit my low.
Anyway, button folds. BB thinks and says, "Oh boy, what have I got myself into". Then he calls. This makes me think that he probably has a full house but not the nut high. Live one calls another 12.
River: 5s. BB checks, live one checks, I bet, both call. BB has 7-8 for a full house, live one has nothing of consequence, so I win low.
QUESTION: Was my turn raise a good play? There were a few comments from the table when I showed my hand. And normally I don't raise on the turn with just a low and a weak high, but I felt like this was a special situation, mainly due to the live one and tight button. Comments?
Thanks,
Caddy
This is probably a good raise.
The downside occurs when someone else has the same nut low, and now your raise costs you money, since by thinning the field down to 3 you're getting quartered with less than 4 players in.
The upside is exactly what you describe. Maybe you can win high instead of just low. Maybe no one has a better high, and maybe the guy with trip 8s but no full will fold now or on the river (when you bet again).
Note that the upside is a lot bigger than the downside, so when you're weighing the likelihood of each outcome, you don't have to be anywhere near 50:50 for a raise to be correct.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Caddy - I agree with FossilMan.
In addition I think you absolutely must raise here - partly to protect yourself in future situations when you raise on a draw or with the nuts for high. Get them to mistakenly think you're a putz who always raises with acey deucy. Build the image!
Buzz
MANDATORY raise, IMO, for these reasons:
1. You do have the nut low, and maybe both of the other players are on weaker lows and/or high only hands. You therefore win more $ with this raise.
2. You possibly get the original bettor to lay down weak trips (yeah, right) if he thinks you must be raising on a nut high hand because conventional wisdom dictates that you do not raise on just a low hand with a small field because you are possibly(probably?) getting quartered. You then win more money because you will either scoop or get 3/4.
3. You try to get someone with 2-4 in their hand to lay it down now so that if a trey hits the river, you may still end up being the only low. If they want to chase with 2nd nut low, or they mistakenly feel they have the only low going, charge them full fare.
Winning play in O/8 is taking advantage of opportunities to scoop and/or take down 3/4 of pots. Recognizing opportunities like this to turn 50% of pots into 75% or 100% must be taken advantage of.
It is an 8 handed 5/10 dealer's choice game (O/8, Omaha High and Texas). The regular bunch of loose player's, most of whom choose to play O/8 because of the "big pots".
I'm in the big blind and am dealt AAxx (couple of rags, I think they were 96 or something, they were not suited). 6 People see the flop in an unraised pot. There is $30 in the pot.
Flop is A 3 8 rainbow. I bet out (I usually play straight up in this game, no tricky moves). 3 People call and the button raises. Small blind now folds and I reraise. Everyone calls and the button caps it. I call. The button is a fairly passive player. She usually won't pound anything until it is the nuts and then she usually waits till the river. Since I have AA I have to put her on the nut low, it's her only possible holding in my opinion. She would not pound this pot with middle or bottom set. Pot is $130 and one player is now all-in.
Turn is a 5, board is completely rainbow. I HATE this card. There is only one hand the button can have in my opinion and the 5 just gave her the wheel. I check, as does everyone else, and the button bets. I call (drawing to a full house now) as do the other two hanger ons (they probably have crappy high hands like bottom two pair, or 4th nut lows or something). There is $40 in the side pot.
Turn is a Ten. A blank. I have top set and the only thing that beats me is a bicycle. I check, the other two people check and the button bets. I think for a while and then I reluctantly release my set. One person calls behind me. The button turns over 24 for the bicycle and a complete scoop (the caller on the end turned over trip 3's and complained about the bad beat he suffered, typical in this game). All-in mucked his hand.
I want to know if this muck is correct. Top set on the end in a medium to large size pot and only one possible hand can beat me. When I started playing O/8 I used to trust my reads and toss these hands, then I read TOP and decided that if there was even a slim chance of me winning I should call (1 in 18 in this case), but now I think "This is Omaha, like Ciaffone says, 'If they bet like they got it, give them credit for having it and save your money.'" (Not a direct quote, but my interpretation of something that he says in his Omaha book).
I want to know what the experts say on this. Is it worth throwing in $10 on the end? In holdem I routinely throw in a crying call on the end when I think I'm beat, but is it worth it to make these crying calls in Omaha? This question refers to Omaha high as well as high-low.
Why, why bet the flop? Why raise the flop? You are playing now for only 1/2 the pot, and if you don't pair the board you are probably going to lose. There are a few combinations that don't make a straight possible, but in this kind of game, if any straight hits the board, no matter how silly, someone will have it.
In an earlier post, someone (I'd like to give credit but I forgot who), said that a set is a drawing hand in Omaha/8. Believe it.
As far as mucking on the river, you have a good read on the wheel, and with one player all-in, you may be facing 2 of them! Button must of had something like A245. Do you really think a solid player is buying on the river into several players? I would have to work out the odds pretty carefully to be sure it's not right to muck the turn.
Ok. I think you are missing a key factor. These are not solid players. Her hand could be something like 2489 or some rank specimen. They all play pretty much every hand. An average of 8 people see the flop if the game is ten handed.
I always bet and raise the top set on the flop. I am not drawing. They are drawing against me. If my opponents complete there hands, then so be it, but I HAVE to charge them. I would also have