![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
yes, these sites are illegal in the USA. Ratso is intelligent in suspecting problems.
Why is it illigal in the USA?
Playing any-any (hi-lo stud, no qualifier...75-150), I'm the high card with a queen, so i bring in. 3d raises to 75, Ac calls, Ah reraises. I look down and i'm rolled up. I call...maybe i should have folded??? I rarely play a rolled up hand in this game but i figured this was a good time since we had 4 people for 2 bets on 3rd street. I thought about 3-betting it and hoping everyone calls to build a pot early. The other players call and 4th street the Ah catches the 4h, the other 2 catch bricks. Ah4h bets, all call. 5th street Ah4h catches the 2h, the others catch bricks. I figure I'm in horrible shape here, but I call and the other 2 fold. (Right now I'm wishing i had folded on 3rd street....Maybe I should have folded here???). Anyway, I catch quads on 6th street and split the pot against his wheel.
This was the first time i had played a rolled up hand beyond 3rd street in any-any. Of course I wouldn't play it if the pot were heads up. The game at times is absolutely great when people raise with hands like a pair of jacks on 3rd street and such, plenty of opportunities for freerolls.
I hate playing for half the pot in this game (it's gotta be the biggest sucker play in any form of poker), but this was the first hand i've had where i believed it was profitable. With me calling 3rd street there's 4 people in for 2 bets.
Anyone who has played this game extensively, what would be your preferred move in this situation?
In my opinion, the play of this hand depends on whether or not the trips are small. If they're small trips and you catch any kind of low companion cards, you have one of the best situations possible. Trap second best high hands, put pressure on the low hands. Of course, the low heart flush in your example deserves respect.
I was 1 right of the button in a loose 15/30 Omaha 8 or better game. Started with KK23. Raised before it got to me, I called, button raised (which is common for him, even with trash) 6 players call including me. Flop was AK8. Wow trips! Ace scared me, so when large blind bet I just called, button raised, 5 callers including me. Turn is another A, giving me a full house. Checked to me, I check,scared of the button I guess. He bets, 3 callers before me, I just call. River is 9 or 10, I forget which. Checked to me, I check, Button bets, fold to me and I call. He has pocket Aces. Did I play it right or should I have been more aggresive? The game is very aggresive, lots of raises and calls, so it is hard to read the players. The Button player will raise to try and buy a pot often enough that you cannot be sure what he has (he has huge swings up and down because of his style of play).
4 other players play for two bets after the flop? You've got the Kings covered, your buddy's got the aces covered? What's everybody else playing? Probably 23 or 234. When the second A hits on the turn, I think I fold this hand. Your 23 is probably going to quarter if it hits.
Vince,
Not familiar with WTFO. Tell me about it yourself---don't have others elaborate.
Congrats on your 7CS tournament high finish.
Abe
Thanks Abe,
Truth is I'd be embarrassed to spell out WTFO now. wish I hadn't made the comment now. when they say "No Brainer" I think they are referring to me.
Vince
A heated debate arose in a home game I play in regarding which hand would win low between a hand with a pair of aces and a hand with a pair of deuces. Vociferous arguing ensued. I'm sure there must be a universally accepted rule regarding this situation, but I not only need the ruling, but also someplace I can go to PROVE this, other than "some guys I know from the Internet said so."
Thanks.
PS - I contended that the aces would be both hi and lo. I was roundly rebuffed by all at the table. Am I crazy?
Aplogoies in advance if I am wrong but it also may be the case that both of these hands would not qualify for the low pot as in Omaha8. Straights and flushes do count for the low but not pairs.
At home poker you have to have some sort of house rules to prevent these kinds of arguments. When you sit down for the first time you should ask a series of common sense questions about the structure of the game or games. As to your question, there is no convention that I know of. House rules. Logically though, it doesn't seem right that the same pair could win high and low. Put a qualifier on that low, it makes the game better.
X
First, Ben: If straights and flushes can be used, so can a pair. What you didn't say, but I assume you meant, is that there is a QUALIFIER in place (usually 8-low, sometimes 9-low). THAT would exclude pairs but allow lower straight and flushes (Broadway wouldn't be a low).
As to the A vs. 2- can't answer this, depends on the game and what is considered lowest card. In low-only games, there are 3 "professional" variations (I may have razz and lowball backwards)
Razz- Wheel is low A2345. A is low and high (not that high matters) Lowball- perfect low is 6432A. Again, A is low Kansas City Lowball- 72 low (23457) is perfect. A is high, deuce is low.
My general understanding of pairs (in hi/low games) is that AA is ALWAYS high (be tough to argue that a pair of deuces beats a pair of bullets if there WASN'T a high-low, wouldn't it?) and can't be low.
One of the Aces BY ITSELF would be the lowest card- when paired, cannot be lowest pair. Aces are so powerful already that to make them even MORE powerful implies that you should fold every time without an Ace.
But... you have to set that rule beforehand for your game, since logic is not always king.
Hope that helps.
Here's a play I watched while sitting in a $40-$80 stud game at The Mirage last night.
After the bring-in came in for $10 (with a 3c up), a weak player with a 4c called, a moderately aggressive player who plays okay called with a Kh, and then a player with an As raised. Only these three players went to fourth street.
On fourth street, everyone caught blanks. The player with the As in the door bet, and the player with the king in the door called, and the other player folded.
On fifth street it appeared that both players caught blanks. The player with the ace bet and got raised by the player with a king whose board was now Kh6c2s. (Note: all his cards were live.)
The player with the ace called the raise. Checked and called on sixth street, but checked and folded on the river.
My question is this. What could the player (with the king) who raised on fifth street have, and was the other player (with the ace) correct to call him?
Without peaking at anyone else's answers and setting myself up for a big fall,
Unless he improved to a fullhouse on the river, which Mason might not be in a position to know, the standard kingsup vs aces is eliminated due to the bet by the king on the river. I don't think he's as likely to take a pair of deuces up against a 4 and a 3 as he would be a possible pair of sixes, so I'm gonna guess he made trip 6s. One thing I have a little trouble with is why an aggressive player limps into the ace and calls the raise. One possibility is a setup for a completely naked steal, tho that is only possible if the opponent will give him credit for starting with 6s which given the subsequent calls is unlikely. So I doubt this. If I'm right about the 6s, then the ace was probably drawing to a two-outer, but didn't realize it. Had he made two-pair, he would've cost himself another $80. At least that's the FToP way of looking at it. An argument could be made that given the distribution of his opponents hands/ plays at him, that he's obligated to call him down with as little as aces. One would need more information about the opponent to make this determination tho.
JG
Your analysis is good except most aggressive players will bet out Kings up on the river in that type of game. Also, in this game, any live pair plays, I tend to discount the 6's because many players would raise coming in over the 4 that called. I vote for 3K, 2pair 6's and 2's or rolloed up.
There is one way to have 6's up, 2 ways to be rolled up, and two ways to have trip 2's. This makes trips a 4/5 favorite. I don't want to run the EV here all the way, but a fold is probably in order, although very few players ever make that lay down as it is a tough one in the heat of battle and this analysis has given 0 probability to a tricky play with 2 dry K's or K's up or a naked steal or a tilt play. Only Mason knows this answer for certain.
The player with the K up probably had nothing and decided to take the pot away from the A who was probably on a flush draw.
Here's my opinion. But first, I put this hand up because I see this type of situation all the time and I think that many people play it wrong.
First, we can eliminate a pair of kings (to start) because the player would have raised coming in. We can also eliminate a hand like three big cards (which includes a three-straight) because of the cards that he caught on fourth and fifth street.
This leaves three choices. The first is rolled up kings. The hand is played consistently with it.
The second is a small pair in the hole -- either deuces or sixes. I believe that this is a distinct possiblility since the player would be less inclined to raise because (1) someone has already limped in, and (2) the mistaken belief that many people have that hidden small pairs play best multiway. Furthermore, when the ace raises, many players also overvalue a small hidden pair and would thus call. This means that we are again looking at trips on fifth street.
The third possibility is starting with a three flush that consists of a king up and a 6 and a 2 in the hole. The problem with this is that many players, even those who are somewhat aggressive, are reluctant to raise what appears to be an obvious pair of aces on fifth street with two small pair. So I would say that sixes-up is less likely than what the mathematics of the hand would indicate. (This is an important point.)
(Note that I am not saying that calling with sixes-up is correct. If, for instance, the raiser doesn't have aces -- perhaps he has the small pair in the hole -- and would now fold to your raise, failing to raise is a mistake. However, I am saying that this is the way some people play.)
So my conclusion is that it is overwhelming that the player in question has made a set or started with one. If this is the case the player with the probable aces should fold.
All comments are welcome.
Mason,
Your analysis is very good and folding is probably the correct play. However, I think that you are downplaying the chances of sixes and deuces. The Mirage 40-80 games are quite aggressive and players tend not to hold back at all. So I think we should discount the probability of hidden sixes slightly (because he might have raised that hand) and INCREASE the probability of sixes up because almost all (unless the game has changed a lot lately) players will play that hand very aggressively and a good number will even bet out on the end. (Probably between 50 and 60% of the players.) Also, most players in that game will not fold for another 30 with 3 way action and no possible raise behind ($180 already in the pot)with ANY playing hand.
Your analysis is certainly more exact for a 15-30 type game with regulars. 40-80 at the Mirage tends to bring out the wild side of players and tilt happens more quickly as the swings are huge. I have not done a careful pot odds calculation, but if it comes close with a distribution such as this:
3K = 2/7
trip 6's = 2/7
trip 2's = 2/7
6's + 2's = 1/7
I would definitely play if the pot odds of this distribution were anywhere close to break even because I would discount the probability of 3 sixes and also enter a non-zero probability for a hand like 2 kings only, kings up, gut shot, etc. You never know (for sure) what people are thinking at a particular time. Maybe this player saw a lot of weak hands played and wants to sit on 2 kings because he thinks they are a monster. Maybe tilt is involved. Maybe he has seen the Ace player fold before and makes a move with a hidden pair. Maybe he has the other two aces and just loves to sit on buried aces. I don't think these are likely scenarios but they do not have a zero probability. Additionally, if I called on 5 with aces, I would call with dry acea on the end also because if I called on 5, it would be with the hope that the opponent did not have trips. With the low probability of kings as a starting hand, if he doesn't have trips on 5, there is a fair chance of only one pair in that hand (not too high, but worth the large pot odds on the end)
Russ:
I was hoping that you would answer my post since you have a fair amount of experience in this game. Obviously the "best" answer hinges on the particular player in question, not necessarily the general player who plays this game.
Mason,
You described the player with the king as aggressive and said he plays ok. Therefore, I made him the average player in that game. I have seen so many players that fit that description tilt in that limit that anything is possible. That particular limit seems to tilt even the most rational people. Even if they are not tilted, they seem to get wild thoughts like slow playing kings or believing no one ever has a good hand and raising on 5th because they give the other player nothing. That being said, it only moves the odds a little. I think if the player is aggresive and plays ok and is not tilted, then I will make the distribution even for 3 twos, 3 kings and 6's up. [6's up has only half the chance of the others because there is only one way to have K26h vs two ways for the other hands]. I discount 3 sixes because that would have been a raising hand. If I was playing, you can distribute the probabilities as I have described because I would not have reraised with 3 kings in a 3 way pot (usually want 4 or more to reraise), would have raised with kings or sixes and would not have raised with twos or 3 flush. I also would not try to make a move because I don't think Ace would try a steal once two players and low have come in. Tell me what you think and what he had (the latter only if you think it would be good for the site)
Russ
All of your observations are excellent. I think the $10 ante is driving most players out of their minds good and bad alike. I was just in a $10 ante 40-80 game this weekend. There is little chance that I would have folded in a situation described in this game(there are always exceptions of course). There were all kinds of desparate moves being made. Also as you said most were on tilt. Moves and tilt seems to prevail every time this game takes off. Because of this I think you should look at what hands are possible to start with:
pocket:
KK = 3
22 = 3
66 = 3
K6 = 9
K2 = 9
26h = 1
AA/K = 1
It is true that kings to begin are a little more unlikely in this case but if you substitute some of two pair hands by busted straights and flushes (maybe semibusted such as Ah2h/Kh26 or even totally busted) you have an easy call just as you did before. The only thing that is different now is you have to be prepared to call the river.
And for all of you trips fans I have this to say. You think you can rule out two pair which would leave you most likely with trips. But this game has a big ante and very aggressive play to it. My point being with some players you can rule out 2's and 6's as well. Why? Because it is a raising hand to most.
Good analysis although I strongly discount 66, or Kx or AA (two ways, not one to have this hand) as I think there is a very strong possibility that these hands would have been raised early. Thus, we are really down to 22, kk, or 26h, or some wild hand. Given the description, trips is an 80%favorite. This can be discounted some due to uncertainty but unless we put the player on slow playing to build a pot with kings (very rare given the game and description)its hard to imagine other hands with that board. I don't have time to run the numbers but does anyone know what probability of trips is the break even call on 5. Assume 6's up in the other most likely hand with a small (around 5%) chance of less than two pair.
The latter percentage is the key to this hand.
I'm a little lazy today(well I'm always lazy) so I won't run numbers today but when I ran numbers before I came up that it was not even close (favor a call). Now substitute(take away) some of those 2 pair hands by some busted hands and take away maybe 6's in a pocket and I believe a call will still be in order.
Maybe something like this:
trips = 6 combos
Kings up = only 2
2h6h = 1
Ah2hKh26 = 1 + 2 other hands such as this and it looks to me without doing any simulations as a call again. Anyway it should not be far off. And if it is not far off I think continuation is in order because I don't think you want to get noticed folding here especially if people believe you really do have Aces.
And why would Mason hope he responded?
CV
.
Chris
Stop asking such tough questions, I can't answer them. It makes us even because I don't know anyone else either except Mason.
Russ
Russ,
However, I think that you are downplaying the chances of sixes and deuces. The Mirage 40-80 games are quite aggressive and players tend not to hold back at all.
Russ your saying that he started with K62h I'm assuming since your post didn't state that and then caught a 6 then a 2. He might as well raise to see if the A caught. OK I see it now thanks for pointing this out.
Paul
Mason et. al.,
I see your point, but I still believe the King up had 2 pair and the Ace never improved his aces. Here’s why:
On 3rd st., with one player showing a 4 in early position and realizing he will have to deal with a King and Ace and probably a raise and calling, he must have either a straight or flush draw or a medium pair possibly with an Ace/King kicker (or he is an idiot). The King if he has only a pair might just call because of his position and the possibility of the ace raising. I feel if he has Kings wired, he might want to raise hoping the ace is a pair and might re-raise, or he might want to get some money in the pot and tie some players in. Aces would call an early raise by a King in front. Personally, I would raise with trip Kings in a tight game, and I think this is a tight game. If the Ace raises (which he did) I will figure him for Aces. If I re-raise (trip Kings), I will give away my hand, so here I simply call.
4th st., the ace bets--consistant with split aces. King only calls consistant with a pair of kings, or 2 pair concerned with aces up. If he had trips, I would expect him to raise; the ace will come along. He will loose the limper unless he has caught a flush draw or trips. Get the money while you can. If the Kings (assuming only a pair) calls the aces, it is only because all the King’s cards are live, and he lives dangerously. Why call Aces with only Kings??? I think he has 2 pair with live draws to a boat.
5th st., Ace bets and gets a test raise from the Kings. If the Ace reraises, the King is dead and probably folds the 2 pr. If the Ace just calls, I figure he is bare and has seen some of his cards on board. He sees 6th street intending to get a card for a single bet.--He checks, consistant with bare aces.
6th st. and river are consistant with Kings up and bare aces
I have seen enough players slow play wired trips and either get beat by a flush or have so little money in the pot that others just fold on 4th st, only to have the wired guy complain that no one ever calls him whan he has great cards. I think big trips wired in early position calls for an aggressive forceful almost boasting bet to lure in those players who “just do not believe you”. Remember too that a raise (really just a completed bet to $40) on 3rd st is a cheap raise, and in early position might be a steal.
comments please
.
I think for the majority of opponents this is sound advice. However, if i could find an opponent who would lay down aces after I raise on 5th street when I have a non-threatening board, I would go crazy with all sorts of hands.
There is also a small possibility that the K started with 2 Aces and elected to slow play them because he saw another Ace out.
"If this is the case the player with the probable aces should fold."
I suppose that all I would have to do is raise you in situations like this with my 2 Kings and you would fold. I think I'll give it a go next time. Sometimes we just think too much! vince.
The aces should definitely NOT fold if the king has hidden aces.
The major point of concern is how likely it is that the K started with a pair of kings or buried high pair. It's just that so many players at that limit NEVER play that way, so I put that probability at somewhere between 0 and 2.5%. If you think that probability is higher, then a call is in order.
You can't raise me on 5 and get me to fold because I am assigning nil probability to the chance that you started with kings.
Russ wrote:
"The major point of concern is how likely it is that the K started with a pair of kings.. "
Then Russ justified his estimate with:
"It's just that so many players at that limit NEVER play that way, "
This is a very misleading statement. I can make a similar statement that is just as true and contradicts yours. That is: It's just that so many players at that limit ALWAYS play that way.
This is especailly true in a tough game.
Vince.
..AND having no experience at 40-80 7S, I have to say I like the idea of hero having AA/K the best; esp. w/ that position and dependent on the recent 'history' of the game plus hero's take on A (and hero's take on A's take on hero). I think hero raises with 22/K, 66/K, and _62/K_; and I think he waits 'til 6th to raise w/ KK/K.
I think that rolled-up Kings w/ an Ace behind is a MONSTER in 40-80, and hero can be hoping for five bets minimum from Aces/Aces-up on 6th & 7th. If A catches another A and hero doesn't improve, he can just check-call; A doesn't have to have ?A/A, esp. since hero didn't raise on 3rd. If A makes a canoe(underfull) against Kings full... Isn't this the sort of situation high limit Stud players wait weeks/months for?
Also, just to be REAL goosey, how about a ~steal~ w/ _45(or 3)/K_62?
Russ, I know a guy who plays 40-80 Stud when he's in LV and he definitely fits your description of this game's 'tempermant'.
He had Rolled up Kings!
Yes the player with the Ace was correct in calling and probably should have called the river.
Vince.
This is a very interesting forum as two thoughts seem to be prevalent among the responses:
1) The K is most likely to have trips (around 75%)
2) The A should call.
[Disclaimer: These odds are off the top of my head, please improve upon them if you have the desire] These are mutually exclusive as if King has trips, Ace is around a 9-1 dog on 5 and 16-1 on six to improve to trips, which can easily be beat by King's full house. If K does have two pair, then Ace is still an underdog and Ace is a solid favorite over 1 pair but most people think that is unlikely. I guess the moral of the story is that most of us are pretty good card readers but hate to get bluffed out ever. Therefore, we imagine how terrible the future is if we allow ourselves to get bluffed out. Well, we could fold with a comment like "how did you know I was stealing" and reserve judgement about this player and other players making moves on us for the next time it occurs. It is true you really don't want 7cs players making too many moves on you but they make far less moves than you think and if you haven't seen this player play wildly in the past, give him the benefit of the doubt, THIS TIME but be aware of possible future moves.
Also, don't give away any information about how smart you are. On one of my first trips to Vegas, I was in a high limit game, playing mostly ABC poker because the game was fairly wild and I lost a hand to a regular. It was a tough beat and I had a strong hand. I mentioned that I was glad I didn't raise on the river and he replied "if you would have raised, I would have mucked my flush in a NY minute, you are so tight." Well, the next hand we played, he triple bet the pot with Aces, I played as 3rd man in with 456s. Caught a random 7 on 5 and raised him when the 3rd player folded. Bet on 6 and 7 and when he folded I told him he should have known better, as of course I was rolled up. He showed me aces and a straight draw and said he would not even have called with two pair. Goes to show you how a big mouth can get you in trouble.
PS: I hope I never play against any of you guys as you all seem to be very knowledgeable players. I try not to play with anyone that even tries to think. Then I don't have to either.
If you play high limit you probably won't be playing against me anytime soon. Your good fortune too. I am ass.
vince.
Your hand is only good if an A falls on the flop, so you need to look at the odds of an A hitting, which is a little over 20%. You also need a second low card to fall, which reduces your odds to about 13%. However, this does not take into account the implied odds - you will only lose one small bet if you miss the flop, but will make a lot more if you actually hit.
You will flop a nut low about 6% of the time. You will flop a low draw and hit about 5% of the time. You will flop a low draw and miss about 2% of the time. You will miss the flop 87% of the time.
So, 87% of the time, you will lose only 1sb. The 2% of the time you miss on the river, you lose maybe 2-4bb. The 8% of the time that you win, you will get half the pot, which we'll say, is approximately equal to Xbb, where X is the number of players seeing the flop (not actually a horrible estimate for a loose game). I didn't take into account getting quartered or making a straight, but perhaps these effects cancel each other out.
This all translates into needing about 6 players to see the flop to have a positive EV. So, if you feel like you'll get 5 other callers, you should go ahead and call one small bet.
(I hope I did these calculations roughly correctly) ~DjTj
Funny...I'm sure your calculations are correct but I find myself thinking (out loud...)"the more players that have called before I act, the less likely to see an ace hit the board." (which I need to even think about putting any more chips in the pot). Am I giving these other players too much credit?
Hmm...that is a good point...it almost makes 2-3-4-X completely unplayable unless you're the small blind or something.
Perhaps we should wait for Ray Zee to get back from California so he can give his expert opinion.
Zee discusses the hands 2345 and 23XX on page 188 of the Second Edition of his great book on High-Low Poker. The hand in question, 234X, is not discussed directly but maybe we can read between the lines.
Pot-limit ring game (dealers choice) with 3 blinds 5/5/10. 7CS Hi-Lo is called.
I'm in 3rd position with 6Q/Q and raise to 100 after 2 opponents have called with 2 low cards. It's passed to the most agressive player of the table in the 1rst blind who re-raises all-in to 250 with an A.
2nd blind folds, BB (loose player) calls with a 7 showing and the 2 initial limpers now fold. At this point I have 800 in chips and BB has a bigger stack. I call since I prefer too see what happens on 4th street before committing my whole stack.
1rst question: should I have reraised all-in to try to push out the BB and his low hand and play for no more money against 2 aces or a good low ?
4th street: I 6Q/QA, 1rst blind xx/A2, BB xx/73, all offsuit. I bet all-in for the following reasons:
- since I catch an A, 1rst blind is less likely to have 2 aces; so he must have a very good low and perhaps the 2 paired him
- BB has now likely a 4-low but perhaps with very small chances to back in high
2nd question: is it a check and call (or fold) situation ?
Anyway BB calls and I loose both the main and side pots with 6Q/QA47/9 (pair Q / no low) against 3A/A265/2 (2-pair A 2 and 6-5 low) and 56/7358/3 (2-pair 5 3 and 8-7 low).
I think I made 2 bad decisions on 3th and 4th street but would like to hear the comments from both the 7CS 8 or better and the pot-limit experts.
On 3rd street I would have called at best with open queens. With the A behind me, I probably fold. After the betting, I believe that both other players have obvious hands. Would the 1 blind jam with a low draw? Would the bb call with less that 56/7 (or 55/5 dream hand)? After you've wandered into the fray, on 4th street I would check/call. And this is why I rarely play big OPEN pairs in 8 or better: you're rarely in a position to drive the action. More than likely, you're sucking along while the low players take shots at you. For me to enter a pot with a high hand it has to be: 1. Disguised ex. 55/5 or qq/3 2. Definitely has to be the best high hand showing
ex. no A showing, no overcards have entered before me. 3. I have to be reasonably sure that 2 or 3 quality low draws will not enter the pot. Just my two cents worth. These hands have lost me a lot of money over the years, and when they've won, they've won little.
Without looking at the other responses, I have to say that 6Q/Q is garbage; esp. with the Q up, 2 low limpers in, and an aggressive Ace yet too act. You can't steal, and no one's going to put you on a set. I can't imagine this was a hand you wanted to risk your whole stack on. 4th street just made things worse; the best you could hope for was that the 3 paired up BB and you could get heads-up against a hand you were going to be a big dog to get even a split with.
I am fairly convinced this a marginal play due to the discussions I have been having with scott, but I think I'd like some input.
1) In a 1-5 no ante situation, how incorrect is it to try and steal the $1 bring in from late position w/ a marginal hand? I can understand that $1 is not a lot, but if I put in a five bet with live overcards, I'm not too upset getting called so long as I get to see 5th street for under five dollars. I think the math ends up saying this a pretty bad play, but what about when there's $3 in the pot, is this still a bad play? In the 1-5 at the mirage the early callers have a pretty good chance of folding to the five bet. Coming from L.A. I was just suprised to see that people were actually folding when I bet, but I think they folded correctly: there was no money in the pot.
2.) Same game, how important is it to narrow the feild. If I have wired tens, do I raise the bring in to three for 2 callers, or let 5 (including myself) limp in with the hope of getting a few more bets in later? I think it's a simple issue of a "made" hand prefering fewer callers even if their calls are incorrect (these calls coming from those who would have folded their hands had I bet).
James:
1.) This can go three ways. You are constanly stealing from the same player. (a)He can let you steal all night and not come back at you. (b) He can start steaming and call/raise with all kinds of junk. (c) Or he can wait for a decent hand and play back at you. What you do depends on who sits at your left. Actually if this situation comes up very often, you probably need a table change.
2.) I don't like tens. raise with a premium upcard in late position. otherwise limp and hope for help.
Fred M.
Greetings:
In my opinion, those folks who throw 5$ at 1$ are making themselves look like major tight asses and wimpish. If there's a 1$ in the pot and I have a premium pair, I will raise in the third round to set the stage, making it a two-pair rundown on average. If I carry the 1$, so be it. Yes, I'll be the first one to agree that it's better to win a 1$ than to lose 15$, but at the same time have a little latitude. Bet the 3$, and make it a 2 or 3 horse race (which often happens), pop'em again for 4$ or 5$ on fourth street at which will often carry the pot or go heads up, which is where you want to be and take it from there. However, as a word of advice to all reading, if one of your opponents pairs his door card after your original raise, there is a very strong chance your looking at trips NO MATTER the fact that the up card is lower than the high pair you've already defined. At this level, lower pairs often get held onto even when they should not (even their kicker will be lower than your defined pair)... As a worst case example, and if somebody knows the odds of this, please tell, I was playing 1-5 stud at the Bellagio, started with trip 8's with the other 8 already on the board, raised (though normally I'll wait to 4th, don't ask me why I raised in this case) and was called by two people. Fourth street rolls around and one guy pairs his 4 upcard and bets, the other guy folds, and I'm happy because I know this SOB has motivated trips and I'm on top of him. Well, you know my other 8 is already gone, but what you don't know is that the SOB is betting into me every street, I pop him for a raise on 5th of which he calls as expected. And then on 6th, the SOB catches another 4, and I juuuusssttt know I'm looking at quads in my gut, but for the blank of it called to 7th hoping to pair up and possibly have a higher boat. Well, that didn't happen, and he had the quads.... So what were the odd's, a lower pair overcoming higher trips on third street?
All the best,
JPN in Madison
James H. - I believe the first situation you mention is one of the few times position really matters in 7cs. I put in the raise with the overcard about 70% of the time and I'll win from 1 to 4 bucks about 70% of the time. However, where you really make out is when you bet $5 on fourth and they all fold, you are stealing. I firmly believe even with a big pair you need to get the fewest callers. In these 1-5 games they will play any pair and I've seen people call $5 bets on 4th thru 6th streets with nothing more than high cards. You have to make it expensive for them, make 'em pay to see those extra cards. IN situation 2 I think you take your one shot at getting them out either on third or fourth and if they're still there sit back and hope for improvement. I don't like tens either, so try to win it NOW and if the board turns against you get out quick. When i have a marginal hand I want them out of there and I'll take my few bucks which makes up for when i'm force bet. THE KOUNT
Saturday 1/29 at Sands AC 1-5 7CS. 25 cent ante puts $2 in the pot. I get a split pair of treys with K kicker and I am the force bet 3 callers ($6 pot). Its checked around on fourth street. On fifth street I get a trey (trips), an old man who has acted strange all the time he was on the table (thought he had a flush at showdown but didn't, making weird bets and was arogant to boot) gets an ace to go with two blanks on board and a guy we'll call small pair man (SPM), never saw a pair he didn't like, pairs his 4th ST 5 and bets $3, next player folds, I raise to $8 and the old man reraises to $13, of course SPM calls. Now I'm thinking the old man may only have aces up and think he is in command, SPM probably has two small pairs. I know they both we call to the river. Before I act there is $35 in the pot. I'm figuring it will take $5 on 6th and 7th streets so I will have to risk $15 to win a pot which would be $65 in the end ($15 on 6th and again on 7th) so implied odds are 4.33 to 1. My kickers are all live none out, SPM's 5's are dead both were out, no aces seen. I call the bet and it goes to 7th as I figured $5 each street from the three of us. My trey goes to SPM on sixth. The old guy shows Aces full of tens. He shows his down cards are 2 aces and a ten, he got a ten on sixth street, so he may have got an ace on the end. SPM shows 2 pair: 9's and 5's (yes he called all the way). I never improve. I figured it was 3.5 to 1 to get a full house with trips on 5th St and live kickers and I was getting 4.33. Should I have folded then or when my trey went out on 6th. If the old man was a strong player and not showing signs of being senile, I believe I would have folded when he reraised. Was my implied odds calculation correct? Was it a good call in the circumstances? If not, when should I have folded? Appreciate this great groups opinions, thank you. The Kount
Kount, Since the Senile Old Guy (SOG) let a free round go by on fourth, it's pretty hard to belive he started with pocket aces. So, on fifth street, you could figure he had either Aces paired, Aces up, or started with rolled up trips. Only if he started rolled up (presumably with something higher than your threes) are you in trouble. If both SOG and SPM (with two dead fives) have two pair it's still more than even money that they will both miss (5/6 times 2/3 = 5/9) and you are getting two bets for one of yours. If he has (as it turned out) only Aces, you are a two to one favorite. I'd have made it $18 on fifth street. If the SOG raises on 6th, it will probably cost you ten to see the river for a pot of $85.
DJ
Kount:
I see nothing wrong in the way you played the hand. You can't laydown trip 3's in light of your competition. I'm not a math person, so I will leave that to my friend DJ.
Fred M.
I recently (last saturday) saw something in a cardroom i was left w/the impression would never happen.
At the showdown several people showed down their hands. the dealer mucked the winner (and even announced the hand). And then realized she mucked ( the best hand after looking at a few more, she said something about being tired and then gave the pot to the person who 's hand she mucked!
Comments!?
I remember posting something about the dealer mucking someone's "nuts", as the player didn't realize he had the "nut straight" and some other player took dwon the pot w.trips. But it seems that post is nowhere to be found!
Curious:
It shouldn't have happened and it should have been a floor decision, but there was no apparent controversy over who had the best hand, so as they say in sports "no harm, no foul".
Fred M
It may vary from casino to casino or even state to state but I believe the dealer did the right thing. The hand in question was face up, seen by all as well as by the dealer. Under these conditions, I don't believe that it is mucked has any bearing on the awarding of the pot. At least this is what I have seen in the casino.
A couple of questions regarding the value of starting hands for open-raising the pot in double-limit lowball:
1) Is there a rule of thumb I can use for comparing the value of pat hands with the joker versus without the joker? For example, is an 8-6 without the joker approximately equivalent to an 8-7 with the joker? What pat-with-joker hand would be equivalent to an 8-7?
2) Same question for drawing hands. For example, a one-card draw to an 8-7 without the joker would be equivalent to what draw-with-joker hand?
Thanks
When drawing to eights and eight-sevens, the biggest value in having the joker in your hand is that you know it isn't in an opponent's hand. Drawing to a "big" hand with the joker is much more valuable because it gives you four more cards that make you a "big" hand. If you draw to 8-7-4-2, or 8-7-4-jkr, the joker gives you four more cards (the 2's) to make a so-so hand. If you draw to A-2-3-4, only 13 cards make you a 7-4 or better. Drawing to A-2-3-Jkr., you have 16 cards that make you a 7-4 or better, 12 cards that make you a 6-4 or better, and 8 cards that give you a "wheel".
Pat hands with the joker are worth more the better they are. A pat 9-7 with the Jkr is worth about the same as a 9-6. 8-7 with Jkr. about 8-5 without. 7-6 with Jkr. equivalent to 7-4 without. Straight six with the Jkr equivalent to 6-5-3-2-A.
These are my values based on many hours of playing experience. I haven't run any simulations to arrive at them. I generally play all my hands stronger if the Jkr. is present, but I'm not going to reraise with 7-5-4-3-Jkr. after I bet it and got raised after the draw. If I have the same hand and someone bets into me after the draw, I'll be more likely to raise them than if I didn't have it.
One mistake a lot of players seem to make is in thinking that the Jkr. in their hand makes them a favorite to make a good draw. I'll take my pat 9-8 against your A-2-3-Jkr. everytime if I can 3 bet you before the draw.
Do you have an opinion regarding the pat-with-joker equivalent of an 8-7? In his "how to play lowball" series of Card Player articles, Wiesenberg says you can open the pot with a pat 8-7 or better from middle position, but he did not specify the minimum pat-with-joker hand for opening in middle position.
In the games I frequent, I would open for a raise, UTG with any pat 8 that contained the joker. A pat 8-7, UTG, without the joker, would probably be brought in for a raise as well. If someone 3 bet me, I might have to break the hand against certain opponents. Normally, I'd stand pat and regret having gotten into the hand.
If someone had come in for a raise in front of me, I'd call when I had the joker working and fold the 8-7 without a joker. It is an unfortunate fact that you stand to lose the bigger pots when you start out with a mediocre hand that is difficult to improve upon. In truth, the play of marginal hands is so player dependant that your decision usually comes down to who you are playing rather than what you are playing. If you can find a game with weak opponents, pat 8-7's go way up in value. Against strong, aggressive competition, pat 8-7's are probably going to cost you money when played out of position.
Would you open with 9-8-7-6-Joker against 5 solid (not overly aggressive) players who have not yet acted (you're in middle position)?
No. The hand is too rough to try to jam through. If you get any play with it from behind, you are giving up post draw position and you have to throw it away if anyone sends a bet out there. I think rough hands into three people with position, and the blinds, is simply asking for trouble. The only exception would be if players were showing my bets and raises too much respect before the draw.
Makes sense. Would 9854-Joker be close to the minimum pat-with-joker hand with which to open in that position? (assuming reasonably good players, no special circumstances)
I have never played any PL games before. I am an accomplished middle-limit HE player, and I am learning stud from 7CSFAP. I may soon hve the opportunity to play some small PL stud high.
What are the best references to prepare me for this game?
Thanks! Dennis
.
The chapter on PL stud is pretty bad though. Reuben is really unclear, and the chapter consists mostly of anecdotes and obvious concepts.
True, but more than you can find anywhere else. Is there anything relevant in SuperSystem?
The closest thing in Super/System seems to talk only about limit Stud High.
Any other thoughts? I have Ciaffone/Reuben, and I am looking for more ammo.
Thanks! Dennis
Hi,
I am a big fan of the game 333, i dont know if any of you here have heard of it, but for those of you who have, I have a question about a situation that happened to me yesterday.
I am in the last position to open, and i am holding 8,3,8,K,J. I am about to say that i can open, as the guy to my left announces he only got 4 cards, another card is dealt, and two of his cards were stuck together, but he later admitted that it happened AFTER he was dealt. There was about $20 in the pot at this point (i am only 15, and this was the first hand, which would have meant that i'd have had the first leg.)
A few hands later, no action since, no one had any legs, as the player to my left (THE SAME GUY) is being dealt his cards, one of the cards being dealt hits his hand, and flips over, which means a misdeal. I look at my cards anyways, and am holding 6,7,8,9,10.
By the time the second insodent occured, i was fuming. I lost a near sure chance to win a good $50 pot.
My question is, what should be done in these instances of utter stupidity which cost me a leg? should be penilaze the idiot a leg? any suggestion are appreciated.
no idea how the game is played.
couple of comments though- buy a new deck of cards :). when a card is dealt up accidentally, it should not constitute a misdeal...burn the card and deal another to the player in question.
A popular game in my home games is 7-27 (closest to 7 and 27 split the pot - Aces are 1 or 11 and face cards are a half). Anyone out there play this game? I am curious if you have any basic strategies that you could discuss.
Unless you're sure you're the only one going for it, never go for 27. 6 1/2 is sometimes ok for seven, but anything less than 8 should be avoided. If you have a natural seven, give a few free cards to keep people in so that you'll have more of a freeroll. To make the pots gigantic try the variant where all red cards are worth zero, since it can take the bad players over 20 cards to get near 27.
That should read "anything further than 7 1/2 should be avoided"
Unless you're sure you're the only one going for it, never go for 27. 6 1/2 is sometimes ok for seven, but anything further than 7 1/2 should be avoided. If you have a natural seven, give a few free cards to keep people in so that you'll have more of a freeroll. To make the pots gigantic try the variant where all red cards are worth zero, since it can take the bad players over 20 cards to get near 27.
The key to this game is getting 7's or 27's or playing position to be the only player left going low. I think I read one poker luminary comment that the correct way to play this game is to only continue when you start perfect. Competing with close but not perfect hands is generally not profitable except with the poorest of players (many of whom I have played this game with in the past thankfully :).
There are many starting formats for this game which make game play and hand values very different. I have played versions where players get 1 down, 2 down, 1 down and 1 up, and 2 down and 1 up.
Obviously it is far easier to get a perfect hand with only one card dealt (7.7% for a 7, 0% for 27). As you add cards, it becomes less and less likely to start perfect. With two cards (3.6% for 7, 0% for 27). With three cards (.55% for 7, .27% for 27...and .036% for that ever-elusive AA5 hand).
I think the key to deciding whether to play is how many people regularly continue after the start and whether you have live cards that you can draw to perfect. In my home game, players rarely fold after the initial deal and usually not until they are over 27 or are clearly chasing a made hand. In this loose game I will usually take a card off if I have three or more outs to 7 or 27. I also make it a habit to draw early in a hand from 6.5 or 26.5 if there are more than one going clearly in my direction. Make the hand or fold.
Never draw needing two cards to get perfect. Example, you have 22 and draw for a five..pull a facecard..now you have 22.5 and fours are very live...rarely is it ever worth it to try for this unless you are the only player contending for high.
If the game is tighter, so should you be.
Hope this helps. Sorry if my math is wrong...I'm not as analytically savvy as most of the other posters!
We play the 1 down, 1 up version. The predominant strategy among my players is to sit and represent 7 (if they can) as long as possible to get others to go high. Then it is a pretty simple task to make the low hand (We play that you HAVE to be 7 or over when the game ends and you bust at 27.5).
I am going to dump that technique. It gets very expensive against made hands and when you later decide to go high.
I have come to the conclusion (as you have) that either I am going to play if (1) I have a made seven, or A5 -- for the chance of making AA5; (2) I have a big initial hand that should require only one or two cards to make a good high hand. Otherwise, I am going to fold.
here's an interesting twist for your loose gambling types: Any player who can hit 26.5 or less in 10 cards sweeps the pot. Keep in mind that each card carries an average point count of 4.35 (226/52) when A's are counted as 1. Most players will never realize this and will draw cards with any low looking hand.
Here are some other twists to 7-27 I have seen used at various times.
1) "Outsides" win. That is 6.5 beats 7.5 and 27.5 beats 26.5. Cuts down on splits.
2) "Five-Ace-Ace" rule. If your 1st three cards are 5AA, you win the whole pot, regardless of whether you declare high or low, and regardless of whether anybody ties you.
3) All three cards are dealt facedown and you roll your own doorcard.
4) Stop-and-start rule / 3 pass rule. Once you stop taking cards and/or once you pass 3 times your hand is frozen. [Huge advantage to dealer].
If someone is able to get to 27 or under with a total of 10 cards they win the whole pot. My advice for regular 7-27 is to hit right away until you can get 6.5 or 7, and as for the high you need to hit big # cards and get to 26.5+ fast, and fold 28's....
I'm going to play in a 10-20-30 Omaha Hi game this weekend and was wondering what are good starting hands for this game. I've played Omaha 8 before but I've never played just Hi. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated. Just found out about two plus two and I'm so impressed that I'm taking rpg off of my favorites. Thanks in advance for the advice.
The key is to have (1) high cards (2) that are connected to each other for pairs, straights, and flushes. Ideal hands are KcQdJcTd (a four high card, no-gap, double-suited straight run), AsAhJsTh, AdQdQcJh (an ace suited to a high pair), KsKdQsQh, AdJhTd9c (an ace suited to a high no-gap straight run). It also makes a big difference how high a pair is - you try to make the nuts in this game, so middle and lower pairs are worth next to nothing, as are middle and lower flush draws. Suited aces add significant value to a hand, as do AA, KK, and QQ. Straight runs are significantly weakened by gaps - QJT9 is far better than QT87. In late position of an unraised pot with many players in you can play hands like 8765, which can make the nuts although they do so infrequently. Omaha High is *very* positional unless the game is loose-passive. You should play very tight in early position. Don't play hands that aren't connected or that don't have a nut draw, except for steals. If you are stealing the blinds in late position, you want a hand with high cards. A hand like AsKhJd4c is normally unplayable, but is a good steal hand due to the high cards.
Thanks for the advice Dan!
me and my friends got drunk the other night, and came up with this great game called "down in the delta" the way it works is, each player gets 2 cards in their hands, and two showing, then there is a 5 card board like in HE.
betting after first 2, then after 2nd 2, then just like in HE, after flop, turn, and river
watch out for it in your local casino! its the game of the millenium.
i won a $9000+ pot on this game
I recently moved and the only game in town is 3-6-12 dealers choice - omaha, hi/lo. I have been playing for about a year and a half. I consider myself to be an average player, not as aggressive as I could be. I have mostly played in a good 5-10 holdem game and now I find myself playing in this bingo game.
The players are super loose and not very aggressive. No word of a lie, there are an average of 8 callers, pre-flop.
My game plan has been to raise whenever I enter a pot, but all that does is build the pot and keep them in until the river.
I don't know what to do? You have to show down the nuts or you lose. I have been playing here for a month and have made a little, but there is a lot more that I'm not getting.
Any comments on hand selection or betting strategy or any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Any good readings on hi/lo and hi?
Db
Db
You are in a dream game. Read Ray Zee's and Shane Smith's book and check this forum out. Also check old forum archives (the forum was split about two months ago so Omaha stuff will be in the poker archives). I would also search rgp using www.deja.com power search and look for anything with Omaha and (Steve) Badger in it. You can take his advice to the bank.
In short, loose Omaha H/L is a game of good hand selection (which means you need to be patient). Recognize that big draws to the nuts (preferably to both sides) are the best hands versus a vulnerable made hand (even if it is the current nuts). Gamble it up on your big draws. They will be a money favorite. Note that a good made hand with redraws to the nuts is very powerful. With this structure you will do very well as you will be getting paid off on the river and showing them the nuts at least in one direction. Stay away from one way hands unless you are getting a great price.
Regards,
Rick
You may not know it Dean, but you are in poker heaven. I play in one of these friendly brawls. Omaha 8, pineapple hi-lo, 7stud8. 9-10 players. 5-10 with kill and double kill. AT LEAST 5 players call every flop, more like 7-8. Drinking, jokes, and lots of loose gambling!
Sounds similar to your game Dean. It just doesn't get any better than this! Aggressiveness is not rewarded in these games, in fact hard nosed poker can kill the golden goose if you start to piss everybody off. They like to lose their money slowly to friendly players. Raising before the flop is pretty much useless with 8 players and 4 cards apiece. Wait and see what the flop brings before you committ a lot of cash. My hand selecton before the flop is rather loose (but still tighter than my opponents') for these types of games. I see flops with hands I wouldn't dream of playing in a casino. Others may disagree with this loose limping strategy.
Your main money maker is loose calling/drawing AFTER THE FLOP by other players. Now if you have the scooping nuts WITH DRAWS TO BETTER HANDS, raising is appropriate. My experience is that your raises will be called once loose players see a second or third nut draw. What is a nut hand can be decieving though. Don't think bare trip 7's with a flop like 247 is a good hand. redraws redraws redraws.
Yes you have to show down the nuts. Yes your chips may swing wildly. Its a game of bad beats and miracle cards. But it's pretty simple really. If you can read the flop and make better decisions after the flop than your opponents, you should be a winner.
five hours into my worst session yet at a loose 3-6 stud in San Manuel indian casino I limp in with AQ4, with the A and Q live overcards. The guy at the end of the table is a toothless maniac, super loose, but still up about $500, $100 of it mine. Everyone limps and fourth street comes, I pair my queen. I bet it the max and four people call, a two flush on my left, everyone else catches rags. Fifth comes and I make aces up. I'm excited, and the super loose guy picks up a king. I go for the check raise, the loose guy bets and I raise with the flush draw calling. On sixth, the loose guy picks up another king and he bets. I call figuring him for kings up, thinking he has me on queens up. (A raise won't get him out, and he might have trips so I call him then and on the river) He has trip kings and takes down a huge pot. This was one of four hands I played all night, and at this point I can't tell if I just got a bad beat, or if I was playing terrible. Any input would be appreciated.
My thoughts:
AQ4 looks like a weak hand. If you only played four hands all night, and this was one of your best, then you had a really cold night.
On sixth street, when you have aces up agaist toothless's likely pair of kings or kings up, and when the other opponent looks like he has a 4 to 1 shot at a flush, you should be raising. Why fear trip kings when toothless can have anything in the hole. I don't like your reasoning, "A raise won't get him out". You should be collecting money from your opponents when you are the favorite.
I'm surprised a "super loose maniac" won't reraise you again if he makes kings on fifth. Maybe he made trips on 7th...
--- Chris Callahan
Trips on seventh is certainly a possibility.
(The word super-loose maniac is probably an exageration. he bet/raised every hand he was in (about 4/5 of them) until 5th when he folded about 1/3 of those.)
4:1 shot at a flush? A two flush is not a three flush is not a four flush. She cold called my check-raise, so I have to put her on a pair, maybe two (and yes she would be calling a check raise with an underpair and three flush). I never saw her hand, she folded to the pair of kings.
What does a raise here buy me? I have to call him to the river, I raise, he'll probably still bet it out. The trouble was that I couldn't put him on a hand. In this scenario, what are the odds he has trips. In a heads up situation, if they are lower than 1/2, I should be betting.
You're right about the raise not getting him out being meaningless reasoning. If he has kings up, then I should be raising because I want him in. If he has trip kings, then I should be calling (80$ pot, I am close to having odds to the full house once you add in the raise on the river.) I just couldn't put him on a hand and that's that.
I don't have pot odds to call his trip kings. His odds of filling up are better than mine.
Have to agree with Chris here. With a very loose player after me and bad position, I would not play the hand. If I had better position and only 2-3 players, I might play for the bring-in. You will be in the lead with a lot of players and you will not be in a position to raise.
I would not have played the hand.
Not playing the hand has to be incorrect. The ante is one dollar, if i wait around for the three straights/three flushes that play best against all the callers that will be out there regardless of how I play, then I lose all of my money to the ante. Maybe the game is unbeatable, but sitting around and waiting for those "premium hands" costs too much. You don't win often enough even with those premium hands to beat the ante. The impled odds on the bring in are huge, why not play anything that has a chance? Does this hand win 1 in 100 times? If so then I should play it every time.
Greetings:
There are three reasons why you lost money on that hand, and avoiding any and all of these in the future will save you allot of money:
1) First of all, the 3 cards you described do not constitute a starting hand, especially against many players. Moreover, when you caught that queen sucking you in, it was salt to the wound. This is what you want, and overpair when your up against one or two other players, but against many players you still have an overall worthless hand.
2) You said you received only 4 playable hands in 5 hours. This too is very bad, even though it's not in your control. By not getting playable hands, there's a double effect. One, not catching hands has a cumlative irritating effect to you and as time passes, it becomes a greater and greater distraction. Secondly, although you think this may enhance your "semi-bluffing" abilities because obviously if your finally in a hand you must have something good, in reality it actually has a lesser effect in that the other players are going to make you post a win before they start recognizing your cards, which just aren't coming that evening. So in essence, you've got no momentum to speak of.
3) Loose maniac calling stations are something I seriously try to avoid. That's the nice thing about low limit stud in Vegas in that if I don't like a game, I'll get up and hit another casino. When your rather stuck at one place, like when I play at the Iowa riverboats, your more forced "to play the cards that are dealt", aka, you have to put up with calling stations. They can be (and have been) very, very annoying and have taken pots I normally would have won had they respected my up cards like the smarter ones. Of course, it seems it's those hands you never quite hit the flush or they make trips on 7th and beat your Aces up. To beat a calling station requires time and patience and bit of strategy change, while at the same time not drifting too far from your guns because by focusing too much on the calling station, the other players can sneak up and bite you on the ass. Essentially, what you want to with high pairs is to bet max on 3rd and 4th limiting the field to as few people as possible, and then make 1$ (assuming a 1-5$) on 5th 6th and 7th streets under normal times, only bringing your bet up when your in serious "striking zone". Moreover, I will play allot more starting low pairs with one on the door, because there's nothing more beautiful than watch than some dumb ass paying of your pair door card at 5$ a hit all the way to 7th street. All in all, you have to let time and math eat away at the calling station, and although time seems to last forever while your playing against them, you'll find that a calling station will go up and then go broke all in a few hours. Where I play, everyone will start tightening up allot and only playing sure quality against the calling station and then betting higher when their on, so it essentially becomes 7 against 1, and then it's just a matter of time.......
1. What are your requirement for a starting hand? In a low-limit games I prefer to go with a strategy to consider fourth street as third and play any hand that can improve on fourth unless there is a raise on third. It works for me really well. Many hands form only on 4th, and it costs only $2extra in $5-10.
2. Why do you consider QQA4 a folding hand? I would understand this on 5th but why on 4th?
Greetings:
In a nutshell, read Roy West's book and that will answer your starting hands questions. Secondly, the eventual Queens up will lost to either a flush or straight.
JPN in Madison
On fifth you've got AQ showing, he bets his K into you and calls your checkraise. What hand do you think he put you on? You said you thought he put you on queens up. That means he's a good bet to have at least a pair of K's, and probably hoping you don't have A's up. Then he pairs his K and bets into you. Ouch. It is a bad night when A's up get outdrawn.
On fifth you've got AQ showing, he bets his K into you and calls your checkraise. What hand do you think he put you on? You said you thought he put you on queens up. That means he's a good bet to have at least a pair of K's, and probably hoping you don't have A's up. Then he pairs his K and bets into you. Ouch.
This might be the case if we are dealing with a reasonable player. Here we are talking about a "super loose maniac". He does not have to have much to play, and he is likely not thinking a lot about his opponents' hands. I would not bet on him having a king in the hole on sixth. Moreover, you need to collect from the person in the hand that probably does not have anything yet. If it is more than a 1/3 chance that the maniac has trip kings or better, then IMO he is in fact not a maniac.
Maybe the original poster exaggerated the style of the player in question. In fact, in this hand he is not making the number of raises I would expect from such a player.
--- Chris Callahan
James H.
"I limp in with AQ/4" You don't have a 2flush, you don't have a scare card up, your in the game with a maniac. You did exactly what you were supposed to do with this hand LOSE!!!
paul
I had the qeeen up. Sorry about the notation. I check raised with the pair of queens showing and an ace. He calls this.
I came into the night pretty unsure about how to play against these guys. The pots get to be about $100 on a regular basis due to the calling stations. I figure that the large size of the pot allows me to pay 4$ to see fifth street with live overcards. I'm not sure that this is a losing play, maybe it is. 4 times out of a hundred I have to make something decent by fifth. The implied odds are increadible, and that makes marginal hands like this playable. I'd rather have a 3 flush or an overpair, but with a $1 ante, I lost a lot of money waiting for those hands. The ante and the implied odds force me to play more hands.
James H,
This type of hand A4/QQ is great if you have knowledgeable players who will drop when you pair your door card, but you said you have a maniac in the game who isn't going to drop if you make A4/QQQ these type hands go way down in value. It helps the reader if you put in the suits xx/KcTc then it makes it easier to read what is going on. Hang in there you really have to almost play multiway hands with these stakes. If you can move up to 5-10 you might have better luck.
Good Luck Paul
Jim: Let us go to square one. Where do you need to be seated from the maniac? If he is not close to your right, you will have to leave the game. You must know what he is going to do on a hand, before you act. Secondly, you must wait for a hand in which you think you have him beat, and I'm talking 3rd street. Put in the full max raise to attempt to get heads up with him. When you start better on 3rd street than he does, he cannot buck the odds forever. If you and him go to the river, heads up, do not throw in your hand if his board cannot beat your hand. Got it?
This is a question to which I think I know the answer from experience and intuition. I believe, however, that it is also very suitable for mathematical analysis, and I have neither the education nor the tools to do it myself.
Everyone who has played PLO knows that four running cards is a good hand. KQJT is a great hand, and lots of people say that, double-suited, it is "their favourite"/"the best" (how they are able to tell, I don't know, since you can't expect to get it more than once in a blue moon).
Now, I think that AQJT (suited ace) is actually a better hand in PLO, on the basis that the nut flush draw outweighs the one gap (put another way, KQJT carries the substantially increased risk of making the second nuts, which can of course be horrible in PLO!). Although a gap at the top end of a sequence can be a bad flaw (e.g. with 678T), because if the flop fills the gap you will or may be drawing to the wrong end of the straight, that does not apply much or at all with the top cards, I believe.
But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. A lot of people say that the lack of a ten in a hand of high running cards is a bad flaw, and from experience I agree. But is it really true, as a matter of mathematics? Some say that although you cannot make a straight unless a ten comes, if it _does_ then the chances to make a straight go up enormously, and these factors cancel out.
What are people's reactions to this (a) instinctively and from experience, and (b) based on mathematics?
I guess expressed mathematically, my questions are (generally) how important to making a straight is a ten in a hand of high running cards, and more specifically, given a flop with two or more different cards 9 or above (say), how many more straights does KQJT make when compared with, e.g. AKQJ. Finally, how often do AKQJ suited and KQJT suited respectively make the nuts following a flop with two or three cards 9 or above, AND a flush draw (including backdoor draw) in the suit in which the AKQJ has the nut draw?
I apologise for not being more exact about the questions. Obviously other examples could also be used.
Finally, you might ask if this really matters? Aren't these all really good hands and won't one play them anyway? My own feeling is that if you are going to get involved in a raised pot which looks like it could get really big, the lack of a ten is sometimes the deciding factor in playing or not, depending also on whether you think someone else has a similar hand or not.
Sorry for the very long question, but this bugs me!
Richard Meade.
"Everyone who has played PLO knows that four running cards is a good hand. KQJT is a great hand, and lots of people say that, double-suited, it is "their favourite"/"the best" (how they are able to tell, I don't know, since you can't expect to get it more than once in a blue moon). Now, I think that AQJT (suited ace) is actually a better hand in PLO, on the basis that the nut flush draw outweighs the one gap (put another way, KQJT carries the substantially increased risk of making the second nuts, which can of course be horrible in PLO!). Although a gap at the top end of a sequence can be a bad flaw (e.g. with 678T), because if the flop fills the gap you will or may be drawing to the wrong end of the straight, that does not apply much or at all with the top cards, I believe."
I agree that AQJT double suited is the better hand. Gaps at the top don't matter for broadway cards (ace through ten), since they only make the nut straight in any case. The suited ace is worth a lot.
"But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. A lot of people say that the lack of a ten in a hand of high running cards is a bad flaw, and from experience I agree. But is it really true, as a matter of mathematics? Some say that although you cannot make a straight unless a ten comes, if it _does_ then the chances to make a straight go up enormously, and these factors cancel out."
If you have AKJT, you can only make *one* straight when there is no queen on board. So it isn't that huge a difference.
"What are people's reactions to this (a) instinctively and from experience, and (b) based on mathematics? I guess expressed mathematically, my questions are (generally) how important to making a straight is a ten in a hand of high running cards, and more specifically, given a flop with two or more different cards 9 or above (say), how many more straights does KQJT make when compared with, e.g. AKQJ. Finally, how often do AKQJ suited and KQJT suited respectively make the nuts following a flop with two or three cards 9 or above, AND a flush draw (including backdoor draw) in the suit in which the AKQJ has the nut draw?"
Can't answer the mathematical questions offhand. There are programs that do that I think.
In *pot-limit* Omaha, more important than making the nuts is considering what redraws you'll have when you make the nuts, and what action you'll get when you make that nuts. Having the nut flush draw when you flop the nut straight is *huge*. Flopping a dry nut straight will often trap you, and flopping the nut flush will usually win you a tiny pot.
"Finally, you might ask if this really matters? Aren't these all really good hands and won't one play them anyway?"
Yes, almost always. Precise differences in starting hand values don't matter much. The important thing is that these are all very good hands. How you play them will depend on the opponents, your position, and how deep the money is. Note that when the money isn't deep, these hands do very well due to their high card strength.
"My own feeling is that if you are going to get involved in a raised pot which looks like it could get really big, the lack of a ten is sometimes the deciding factor in playing or not, depending also on whether you think someone else has a similar hand or not."
The important factor for me is how big the pot will get. I don't want to go all-in with these against likely aces. If there is a lot of money left to bet, these hands are ideal even if the pot is raised. If a player makes a high set that also gives you a straight and flush draw, you can easily have the best of the situation (especially considering bluff equity, and that he'll have to pay off some scare cards).
"But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. "
D.Rubenstein's response pretty much covered most of your comments, but I thought I would add a minor point: AKQT is no different from AKQJ. The former requires a J for a straight, the latter requires a T.
AX wrote:
"I thought I would add a minor point: AKQT is no different from AKQJ. The former requires a J for a straight, the latter requires a T."
Is this really true? This is rather what I was getting at. While your statement is superficially seductive, I think it is probably _not_ true. While AKQT needs a J and AKQJ needs a T, in the former case the result of getting the key card for the hand is likely to be an _up_and_down_ wrap, while in the latter case your straight draw only goes up. You might be right, but it is not obvious, is it?
While Dan Rubinstein said in his post that what really matters in PLO is the re-draws you have when you make the nuts, I think that cases where you get the nuts (they are not easy to find in themselves!) _and_ redraws are very few and far between. If you play AKJT or similar, much more often than flopping 9TQ with a flush draw (we can all dream ...), you will be faced with a flop like Q94 no flush draw. Still a big hand, but a _drawing_ hand. Since a lot of the value of the hand is therefore in flopping a big wrap, my question is still: how important is a ten?
As a matter of interest (I meant to mention this in my original post and forgot), I wonder if others joining this discussion would mind including in their posts a general indication of how much high-only omaha, especially PLO, they have played. The reason is that when I have discussed this with people in the past, their views have always seemed to depend quite a bit on their (poker) background.
Richard Meade
"Is this really true? This is rather what I was getting at. While your statement is superficially seductive, I think it is probably _not_ true. While AKQT needs a J and AKQJ needs a T, in the former case the result of getting the key card for the hand is likely to be an _up_and_down_ wrap, while in the latter case your straight draw only goes up. You might be right, but it is not obvious, is it?"
If you have AKQT against a board of J92 or AKQJ against a board of T92, you have 13 nut outs in either case. In this case, the two wraps are equivalent. The factor you mention makes a difference only when some of the "down" outs aren't the nuts - 9654 against K87 - you have 16 straight outs but only 6 are the nuts, while QJT9 has 13 outs that are all nut outs.
"While Dan Rubinstein said in his post that what really matters in PLO is the re-draws you have when you make the nuts, I think that cases where you get the nuts (they are not easy to find in themselves!) _and_ redraws are very few and far between."
You flop the nuts infrequently. Your objective is to make the nuts at some point in the hand, and on the flop you want at least a strong draw to the nuts. Then if you do make your straight on the turn, you have a decent chance to have flush and/or higher straight redraws over another player who just has the straight.
"If you play AKJT or similar, much more often than flopping 9TQ with a flush draw (we can all dream ...), you will be faced with a flop like Q94 no flush draw. Still a big hand, but a _drawing_ hand. Since a lot of the value of the hand is therefore in flopping a big wrap, my question is still: how important is a ten?"
AKQJ double suited is clearly a playable hand. The key is how the hand as a whole works together. There are many ways to get a good flop with AKQJ double suited. The fraction of flops you hit is of secondary importance in pot-limit Omaha, it's the strength of what you'll have when you do hit that really matters; in pot-limit holdem it's much better to have 88 than KJo.
Dan suggests:
"If you have AKQT against a board of J92 or AKQJ against a board of T92, you have 13 nut outs in either case. In this case, the two wraps are equivalent. The factor you mention makes a difference only when some of the "down" outs aren't the nuts - 9654 against K87 - you have 16 straight outs but only 6 are the nuts, while QJT9 has 13 outs that are all nut outs."
And I still wonder. In this situation, the draws are the same, I agree. But that does not answer the general question. Also, even if I were wrong about this instance (AKQT v. AKQJ), and I gladly admit that I might be, there are many others to consider. What about AQJT v. AKQJ, as I mentioned previously? I think Dan in his first response accepted that there was _some_ difference between AKJT and AKQJ (because the former but not the latter can hit 789). Also, so far we have only mentioned hands with a A at the top. Although one of my suggestions was that the suited A was important, it is not the only factor. Which is better: KJT9 or KQJ9, and how much does the answer depend on the presence of a T, if at all? KQJJ v. QJTT?
I don't think we disagree much if at all about the general principles of having a top wrap and whether or not AKQJ KQJT and so on are playable, (although I still would like to have the nuts _and_ redraws as much as Dan obviously does).
My (I fear really mathematical question) is still this: any top straight must have a T in it. Intuitively, one therefore feels that hands which depend a lot for their strength on making a top straight but which _do_not_have_a_T_ are at a disadvantage compared with ones which do (although there may be other factors). Because they can _only_ make a straight if a T comes on the flop at some stage. Is this intuitive view correct or not?
Genuinely uncertain,
Richard Meade.
"What about AQJT v. AKQJ, as I mentioned previously?"
Even needing a ten, AKQJ still makes a lot of straights. You can make one with a ten and two cards A-J, or with T9 and any of KQJ8. Without a nine, AQJT can only make straights with a king and two broadway cards, so it isn't that huge a difference. The important thing is that AKQJ does have significant straight potential; just because it doesn't have as much as some other hands doesn't make it unplayable.
"I think Dan in his first response accepted that there was _some_ difference between AKJT and AKQJ (because the former but not the latter can hit 789). Also, so far we have only mentioned hands with a A at the top. Although one of my suggestions was that the suited A was important, it is not the only factor."
Suited aces are very important in all forms of Omaha. In pot-limit, it's also important that hands without aces be double suited. There are many situations where you'll have the same straight as someone else, and a non-nut flush draw will give you a massive redraw.
"Which is better: KJT9 or KQJ9, and how much does the answer depend on the presence of a T, if at all?"
Both are excellent hands, and the precise difference in value doesn't really matter. My guess would be that the KQJ9 is slightly better, due to the higher cards and lower placement of the gap.
"KQJJ v. QJTT?"
KQJJ easily. Pairs decline sharply in value as you move down, and JJ is much weaker than KK. 99 is worth next to nothing.
"I don't think we disagree much if at all about the general principles of having a top wrap and whether or not AKQJ KQJT and so on are playable, (although I still would like to have the nuts _and_ redraws as much as Dan obviously does)."
My point is that the nuts and redraws are what you play for in this game. When the money is deep, you're not concerned with how often your hand will hit as you are with how strong it can potentially hit. You only want drawing hands that can flop those 13+ out draws, and that won't be on the wrong end of a freeroll when you make your hand before the river.
"My (I fear really mathematical question) is still this: any top straight must have a T in it. Intuitively, one therefore feels that hands which depend a lot for their strength on making a top straight but which _do_not_have_a_T_ are at a disadvantage compared with ones which do (although there may be other factors). Because they can _only_ make a straight if a T comes on the flop at some stage. Is this intuitive view correct or not?"
Your intuitive view is looking at the game the wrong way. There is a major difference between pot-limit Omaha and limit Omaha. In limit Omaha, it is very important how often a hand will connect. You can't play a hand that makes the nuts if it does so too infrequently, since it won't earn enough to pay for the times it doesn't. And the penalty for a second-best hand is much smaller, so it often pays to go to the river when there's some chance your hand is best. In pot-limit, that "some chance" will quickly get you broke. Since the potential win is so large compared to the investment, you look for hands that have the ability to win someone's entire stack, even if that chance is quite small. As long as a hand can hit some flops, that hand becomes playable when the implied odds permit.
Wow! You must spend ages responding to every point I suggest. Thank you for your patience.
In your latest:
'"KQJJ v. QJTT?"
KQJJ easily. Pairs decline sharply in value as you move down, and JJ is much weaker than KK. 99 is worth next to nothing.'
I'm not sure I get this, since neither of the hands mentioned has a pair of Ks _or_ a pair of 9s.
KQJJ has only a pair of Js. QJTT has only a pair of Ts. The respective values of the pairs for flopping trips is small in each case, since it is rather unlikely that either will make top set _and_ no serious straight danger on the flop (contrast KK). Both are exposed to the danger of an overcard making someone else bigger trips later in the hand. We seem to agree about this.
Since the hands are not worth much in respect of making trips, their value must come from straights (and flushes).
But QJTT makes it very hard for anyone else to make a straight, since they will find it extremely hard to get a T on the board, no? Obviously, it will be a bit worse than KQJJ in respect of flush draws, but neither will be drawing to the nut flush very often.
I know you think my question is not very important, or even misconceived, but what is the answer to it? How significant, mathematically, is a holding a T to a hand's prospects of making the nut straight?
We still do not really disagree about one's objectives in PLO, and if you look at Badger's posts, he says that a problem with top straights is when you make them early in the hand and put in a lot of money when someone is free-rolling on you. OK, I agree. But when I am evaluating a hand pre-flop, is it a factor that it does or does not contain a T?
Incidentally, I only can only appreciate your comparison between limit and pot limit Omaha at a theoretical level since I have never played limit high-only Omaha. But I have played PLO for quite a few years. What is your perspective, Dan?
Richard Meade.
"But QJTT makes it very hard for anyone else to make a straight, since they will find it extremely hard to get a T on the board, no?"
What if you're facing 8765? And much of the time you do play beyond the flop there *will* be a T on board.
"How significant, mathematically, is a holding a T to a hand's prospects of making the nut straight?"
AKQJ flops the nut straight with a ten and two Broadway cards, or T9 and one card K/Q/J/8. There are 216 ways for the former, and 208 ways for the latter.
KQJT flops the nut straight with an ace and two K-T, a nine and two K-T, or 98 and one Q/J/T/7. There are 216 ways for the first, 216 ways for the second, and 208 ways for the third. So KQJT is only about 50% more likely to flop the nut straight.
AKQJ flops a strong draw with T-K/Q/J/9, and an okay draw with AT. KQJT flops a strong draw with 9-Q/J/T/8, and an okay draw with K9 or A-K/Q/J/T. So again it isn't a major difference, and it will be even smaller if you add in the nut flush draw outs that AKQJ will often have.
"But when I am evaluating a hand pre-flop, is it a factor that it does or does not contain a T?"
No.
The biggest money losers in the game are when a bad player holds the nuts with no redraws and overcommits to a pot against a player also holding the nuts but with redraws. Like Badger, I think hoping for the Broadway straight is a bad play. You won't get too much action from good players unless you are in really bad shape.
Dear Mr Badger,
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the T question is immensely important. It is a curiosity, mostly, although when I have a hand like QJ98 and I am considering entering a contested pot, I do sometimes think "Ooh I wish I had a T". I would just like to know whether this is _exactly_ the same as thinking "Ooh I wish I didn't have a gap right in the middle", or is the T a special case?
On another probably more interesting note I find your suggestion that one should not look to make Broadway straights in pot-limit Omaha very surprising. I would be very interested to know your reasons, since your view seems at variance with what most players and writers think. Do you mean that AQJT or KQJT double suited are not playable hands, or rather that they are playable but that their strength does not lie in their ability to make a straight?
Also, if we are not to aim at making these straights, should we forget all straights? I mean, the great thing (I think) about these straights is that you end up with the ignorant end much less frequently (indeed with AKQJ or AKQT it is impossible, I think). Do you think that 5678 double suited is better than KQJT? Generally, or only when chasing aces (in the latter case I think a lot of people would probably be more likely to agree with you)?
Is your point something to do with sharing the pot, or finding an opponent with top trips, or the problem of having AKQJ against AAKQ? These are factors of course, but do they justify your rather sweeping statement?
Also, as a matter of interest, how much PLO do you play? This is not a snide question at all, but you are probably best known for hi-lo Omaha, and I wonder if PLO is also part of your "beat". I would also like to avoid any games in which you play, since I would not like to be against people for whom the biggest money loser is trying to make top straights (I assume that you did not mean that last sentence too literally).
Richard Meade.
A couple of the 40-80 7 stud players who responded to this post said that this game due to the high ante had most players, good and bad, either on tilt or making a lot of wild moves.
How applicable are the strategies outlined in 7SFAP applicable to these high ante games? Is a solid approach just not good enough to get the money in the end? Do you just have to have the innate natural ability to make the correct "wild" or "flashy" move at the right time consistently to enable you to win?
There is a great deal of discussion in SCSFAP-21 on correct hand evaluation. You are looking for the right spots to add in a few extra hands that are now profitable (in these particular spots). Being able to do this is crucial in these high ante games.
In addition, in stud, as discussed in the book, your hand is very sensitive to the cards that are out and the number of players in the pot. Thus you should frequently play your hand differently than what at first glance seems correct. As above, in these high ante games, being able to do this well is absolutely essential to your long term success.
Even adjusting perfectly, how much of an edge can an expert have in a game with that high an ante?
A lot depends on your opponents. I am convinced that a high ante does two things. First, it increases your fluctuations, and second it handicaps the better players.
This second concept is very important since it helps to keep the balance of luck and skill that all poker games require to thrive. This is very important in stud since the great players have the ability to put a tremendous gap between themselves and typical players (when it comes to skill). It is also -- I believe -- the reason why stud thrives at the very highest limits where hold 'em seems to choke itself off.
However, with this being said, I question that the structure in the $40-$80 game (with the $10 ante) or the $80-$160 game (with the $20 ante) has now gone to far. I have recommended to cardrooms that they quit spreading this structure and go to a $50-$100 game with a $10 ante and $15 bring-in. But so far no one is listening.
Mason,
I agree, the 8-1 ratio is just too high. The problem is, most of the players love it. You and I may not like it, but most players can sit in enjoyable games, with a lot of action, and not be giving too much away to the experts. It's a really tough sell to get them to change. I can't come up with a compelling argument against it for the casinos. I know the local Vegas rooms depend on regulars, but how many of those regulars are losing players and now will not be giving up so much of an edge to the better everyday players? Plus, tourists love it. You can come to Vegas for the weekend with 5-7,000 and have loads of action for the weekend. Before 40-80, there was either 75-150 (way big) or 30-60 with a bunch of tight players waiting for the 1 or 2 live ones. The action was not great and the live ones rarely stayed.
Please help me with this one, I would love to see 50-100 instead of 40-80 but I can't think of a compelling argument.
On another topic here, I think most regulars over adjust way too much to the larger ante. Many players natural tendency is to play too many hands and this just feeds the frenzy. You can never get the ace in the hole crowd out with this added justification to play (who wants them out anyway). I think a key is to move the hand somewhere down the line and limit the number of opponents with a double sized raise rather than having the whole table chase your big pair.
This being said, I don't know for how much this structure is beatable if you are playing against wild players who like to play many hands but play reasonably well. What do you think.
Russ
Card rooms need to understand that they need regular players to start games and keep games going. Without regular players, card rooms collapse.
What this means is that their poker games need to have a proper balance of luck and skill. Enough luck so that bad players will have enough winning nights, but enough skill so that the better players will do well enough in the long run to show up and play on those slow nights.
Most card room managers do understand that the $40-$80 game with the $10 ante does increase the luck factor. What they don't understand is that the exceptionally high ante has the effect of handicapping the better players too much putting them in jeapordy of remaining as card room regulars.
When the Bellagio poker room opened I stressed this point to Maury Eskan who essentially made the decision to spread $80-$160 (with a $20 ante as opposed to the $75-$150 (with a $15 ante) that had been successful for years. He would not accept the fact that a higher ante handicaps the better players, and the rest is now history.
In Las Vegas the $40-$80 stud game hardly gets spread anymore since only The Mirage offers it and they don't have the demand for that limit very much. (It does go on occasion, and the $40-$80 hold 'em goes more often.)
So the key to all of this is to convince the card room managers that it is in their best long run interest to spread $50-$100 stud (with a $10 ante) instead of $40-$80.
Good points. The other factor here is that 8-1 ratio games have such high variance, that many players either go broke because they were unaware/didn't care about the variance, or get on a good run, move up and then go broke. Either way, most end up broke.
This being said, there has been a fantastic 80-160 going for quite some time in L.A. Who knows? But it's too bad Vegas stud has broken down.
I think saying that Vegas stud has broken down is a little too strong. If I implied that I went to far. It is, however, definitely damaged.
I'm a ways away from these stakes, but Wouldn't this imply that the standard $30-60 game is more profitable than a $40-80 game for a highly skilled stud player?
With the same group of players, 30-60 is probably every bit as profitable as 40-80 with a lot less variance. Of course, the players that run good in 40-80 think it's because of their skill but. . .what can I say about that one.
Thanks for your answer. I think we more or less agree that if you flop the nut (Broadway) straight and there is a lot of action you can be in a lot of trouble, either because one player has you tied and another has top set, or (worse) because a single player has both those holdings. Part of the skill in PLO is identifying and escaping from these situations, no? However, with these holdings you can also flop the nut straight (to the K or Q ot J) and be free-rolling yourself. It's on of those cases where you really want to make your second or third best hand early on, rather than your best, and then improve.
As to your comment that you would rather flop QQJ than AKT to KQJT, who could disagree? If only we could choose!
Richard Meade.
Who the hell is this guy Richard Meade, he sure seems to me like a terrier with a bone. This guy worries if he has a ten in his hand and also when he don't have no ten. Maybe he just likes to worry. As for me, I just like to play my own cards. Most of the guys I play with seem to be obsessed with marrying their cards to the flop. Me, I think life's too short for that kind of phonus balonus. So what if you got a ten or you ain't got one, life was never meant to be perfect. By the ways, what does PLO mean? Is this a new terrorist group?
5-10 7CS.
Low card (forget what it was) brings in
Qc calls,
I raise with Kh showing and Ah,Qh under (after about 5 prior successful ante steals with the high up card, I was caught so I decided to raise with 3 suited high cards hoping to get some callers and build the pot.
Small card folds
J calls,
9 calls
bring in calls. No hearts showing
4th st. --Queen gets a 4 off suit, I get 6 h, Jack gets a 9, the 9 gets a suited card, the bring in gets garbage. I bet--the J9 calls; the 9 suited calls, Queen 4 calls. Others fold.
5th st: 4 players. I get a 10h (a flush with a draw to a straight flush--my 2nd of the night). Queen makes a pair of 4’s. jack gets a close card --an 8 I think. Queen bets, I raise, Jack calls 9 folds, queen calls.
6th st: Queen gets a blank. I get a 4c. Jack gets a 10 -possible straight. I bet, J poss-straight raises, queen calls. I re-raise, J-poss straight puts on his glasses looks for a few seconds and reluctantly calls. Queen calls
It seems pretty clear to me that the straight has exactly that, possibly with a queen high. I figure the Q (person to my right) with either Queens up or Aces up, yet he has not raised. I hold a queen and a 4. --have not seen any aces.
7th street: Queen --pair of 4’s bets, I raise. Jack high straight throws his cards in cursing. The Queen re-raises (what???). I crying call (did he get the case Queen or 4? Has he been calling raises with 2 lower pair and against a flush which might have included his Q?). The answer is, “Yes”. Queens full takes a very nice pot away from my AK flush on 5th street. That sucked.
I figure I made a costly error, but where did I go wrong. Help.
Similar hands cost me a lot last night. I lost 3 more hands over 6hrs with early A high flushes to full houses. How can you push people out of 2 pair draws? Do you point out to them that their cards are essentially dead hoping they fold on 6th street, or do you let them chase?
ratso,
"How can you push people out of 2 pair draws?" I don't think you can showing a flush, because they know they win if they catch.
Do you point out to them that their cards are essentially dead hoping they fold on 6th street, or do you let them chase? Even though he thought he just missed with the 4 he was probably locked into the Q for his full house. He doesn't know you have a Q in the hole so he hangs in. He knows if he catches he gets a monster pot with his full house against a flush and a straight. He also kept improving his hand started with Q's on three, 4 on 4th, 4 on 5th, blank on sixth and Q on 7th. Had he not hit the second 4 on 5th you're up against the straight because I believe he would of dropped.
The only thing I would of done differently was when he bet on 7th street I would of called.
Tomorrow you will be the full house.
Good Luck Ratso
When he bet into you on the river you should have just called and I'm not just saying that because you lost the pot.
When he bet into me, I raised to get another bet out of the straight who was a calling station. I miscalculated, of course, but it was the first time the calling station did not call me. I should have looked at his stack. He only had about $60-70 left and I supposed he wanted to save it for the next round.
Since the guy was a calling station and you fully expected him to call 2 bets then your raise is not as bad. Assuming the guy behind you will call 100% then it looks something like this.
40% of the time when you can beat the bettor you will collect 2 from the caller with a straight and 1 from the bettor 40 x 3 = 120
60% when the bettor beats you it will cost you 2 more for the same total of 120.
So it would seem you should raise when you think you have the bettor beat more than 40%. Of course the guy behind might not always call and he might not always have a straight.
It does make things much better though.
By the time it gets to the river it's pretty obvious that you have a flush. It's strange that he didn't try for a checkraise on the end. (You would have bet if he checked....wouldn't you?)
Anyway, even though it looks like I'm beat when he leads on the river I'd just call him for the size of the pot...I would not raise on the river.
TY to all. The river raise seems not to be wise. The winner of the pot acknowledged he got the queen on the river. I probably should have paid more attention to him when he looked at his river card. He did shuffle them.
One other question here is, "when does it become unwise to continue a draw to a full house when (1) you know the other person has at least a flush early with a possible draw to a st flush and (2) 2 of your 4 cards needed to complete the full house are dead, and possibly one other of your cards is dead based on another player's hand.
Putting it another way
Assume: Someone almost certainly has a relatively high flush on 5th or 6th street (only 1 suited card showing on the board (except for the 3 or 4 in the hand of the flush holder) and he has been betting strongly from 4th street.
You hold 2 pair on 5th street; with your highest pair lower than the flush guy's board and no kicker higher. You see 2 of 4 of your nut cards on board. There is a real good chance another one of your cards is "in use" leaving you only the case card to complete the full house against 2 players. Pot contains about $230
At what point do you abandon the draw to the full house, or do you play it to the river.
25,000 hands simulation using Turbo 7CS showed the hand with the 4 flush draw beat the draw to a full house 2:1 when there was only 1 live card for him and 1.5:1 when there were 2 live cards. I still think 2 pair with one of them lower than the showing flush card vs a live flush draw should be abandonded on 5th street
What is more probable in five random cards on board (1) any board that contains a pair (I calculate 48% for this) or (2) a board that has three of a suit but WITH NO PAIR PRESENT ?
If (1) is more probable than (2) then full houses may win a higher percent of the hands than flushes (or at best about an equal number) in low limit, loose OMAHA/8 games where most players see the flop with almost any pair. My limited experience indicates that this anolomy may be the case.
O.K. Maurice, I bombed out of the Omaha-8 tournament early tonight so I decided to do your math for you. (The hand that caused my demise tonight was so good that it would bring tears to your eyes if I reproduced it for you here, so I will spare you that pain).
If I’ve done the math correctly (always a good question), then there are 429000 combos with three suited cards and no pairs, 77220 combos with four suited cards and no pairs, and 1287 combos with five suited cards and no pairs.
The total of these is 507507.
507507/2598960 = 0.195
Nineteen and a half per cent of the time there are three (or more) suited cards on the board with no pairs.
Roughly one time out of five a flush is enabled by the board in Omaha and there also is no pair on the board enabling a full house.
However, I don’t see how that gets you anywhere.
Buzz
Buzz, well, er, if we assume that:
(1) a full house is present 75% of the time that the board is paired in a ten man, loose game ( a set or two pair is flopped most of the time) then a full house is made 0.48 X 0.75 = 36 % of the time and
(2) that a flush is the nut hand 20% of the time (plus a few times when the flush is made with a pair on board but there is no full house).
Then it looks to me that full houses are more common than flushes in full table, loose Omaha/8 games. If, indeed, flushes are really harder to get than the full houses thay lose to, dosn't that mean that maybe we should downgrade the value of our flush draws?
Good point, Maurice. (Depends on how much value one gives to a flush draw in the first place, I suppose). My thinking has been that flush draws to anything but the ace are, in general, poor investments. If flush draws (to the ace) pre-flop add about 3% to the value of a hand in straight high Omaha, then they must add about 2% to the value of a hand in Omaha high/low. Is that about where you rate them?
Buzz
15 30 pot was 3 handed whole way no raising except complete the bring in.
i had kings up with one K and one 8 dead. one opponent showed 89TJ and bet (after i checked??).
i mucked. ( he won with 2 pair.)
i felt that with only 2 outs i had a clear fold , as even if he didnt have the straight, he had eight outs to beat me.
advice??
brad
I think you did the right thing here. Your opponent made a good bet. Had you bet, do you think he would have raised?
Did he have Kings-up beaten?
I was in a similar position (see post below) and was beaten by a full house over my flush. I think I would have folded in your position too. If he gets the straight an dyou do not fill, he wins. If he gets his full house, he wins.
Poker is easy when you have trips and above and mid to low pairs and below. It is those 2-pair hands that will make or break you. I think the play of 2 pair Kings-up and below is the most demanding decisions in poker.
he had like 9s and 7s.
yes, ive noticed that its the marginal hands you mentioned that are frustrating, and that (paradoxically ? i have no experience here really) theyre precisely the ones its often correct to raise with! ( just when i thought i found a game less amorphous than holdem ...)
of course i think the easiest hands to play are 3 flushes with all live. brad
Brad: I have a theory that you should never check (well not never but virtually never) on sixth. A bet would probably have told you what he had. You didn't mention whether you thought he would raise even without the straight, which is a good raise on his part but not too many will make it. If he raises, you would fold assuming the straight, but if he just calls I'd go right at him on seventh. Playing 15-30 I think he most likely folds, if not on sixth but on seventh when you bet. If I were lead on sixth with his scare cards showing I'm betting. But if you bet and I have 9's and 7's I fold. I see a lot of checking on sixth when I feel a bet will be more profitable, particularly when you come out betting on seventh. Would like others opinions on sixth street checks. I found I was losing a lot by checking on sixth, so I rarely check now and it seems very profitable. THE KOUNT
thanks. i showed major weakness by checking and let myself get bluffed out. on the other hand i saved 60 dollars.
brad
I don't understand how you can include his outs to a full house in your decision. I would look at his hand and see a four straight which he is semi-bluffing or a made straight. (when you say no raising (brad), who was betting?)
Second, brad only mentioned that he folded considering that the outside straight had 8 outs to beat him. However, in this case it is brad who has a "made" hand. If I knew that he had the two pair as well, then it might be different (I would still call, but this might be wrong, i don't really know for sure) but since I can only assume straight or semi bluff, I think you have to make the calls to the river, or maybe even a raise.
i was betting the whole way, checked to him when he had 4 to a straight and he bet and i folded. when i mentioned 8 outs i meant that even if he didnt have the straight , he could still easily get it.
brad
I did not consider a possible full house in my decision. I only bring it up because post hoc it was a possibility. Also, often what looks like a straight and does not get made turns out to be a 2 pair hand. My decision to fold would be based on the possible straight already made, so other cards showing would have a influence.
In stud, bigger hands are made more frequently than hold 'em. In addition, many of these hands are made by accident.
One thing that you should think about is how likely your opponent is to bet a hand like two pair again on the river if he does not improve. If he will automatically bet, it means that you will have to call twice to see if your hand is best. However, if he is unlikely to bet again on the river unless he has made the straight, then you should be more willing to call on sixth street and then fold on the river if he bets again.
There is no question that you are in a tough spot. But it is these extra things that you should be thinking about that can make the difference in the long run.
With 3 way action, kings up is getting at least 5-1 on calling twice (you can decide on the river to call again anyway). Getting 15-1 + back if you fill. If the third hand folded, or had a longshot draw to beat me, I would definitely fold. Straight draw is an auto bet in that spot so I have to call. I like betting in that spot, but ONLY against a very weak player. Strong players will certainly raise w/ draw and 2 pair or might even try to put you in the middle with 3 way. I used to like betting more before enough players played over agressively. Now, I like check call, bet on river (you probably won't be raised by a straight and will be called by 2 pair). If raised on end--fold.
Sorry, I mistakingly wrote I would fold if 3rd player folded or had longshot draw, I meant call. It would be very difficult for me to lay this hand down.
This hand is definetely a check call. Mason makes a good point about the likelyhood of this player betting again on the river but it doesn't really change anything. Most players will bet 2 pair with a straight draw in this situation and some will continue to bet if they miss the straight. Nothing is automatic but once you call sixth stree a call on the river with a pot this size cannot be that incorrect. I call both sixth and seventh.
Vince.
Vince,
I agree completely. I misstated in my previous email by erroneously writing fold instead of call. The only time I would not check call is if my opponent was very weak and predictible or if he was a complete maniac playing every hand.
In the former case, a raise would certainly indicate a straight and I could then fold on the end. If the player is uncapable of bluffing the river, I would check call on 6 and bet on the end. Many will just call even with a straight because they would figure the straight could be beat on the end when bet into.
In the latter case, I want to bet and don't care if I am raised. If the player plays almost every hand, he is an underdog to have the straight and I don't mind calling his raise and then calling him on the river. I won't bet into him at the end because he will bluff at me often.
Addendum: Depending on the situation, I would often call this hand on 6 (and then 7)with just 2 kings and certainly with 2 live under pair.
Russ,
I was just making a comment that I believe agreed with your position. I'm a little reluctant to bet into the s four card staight on the river. I like that play though. It's just the thought of folding if I'm raised that disturbs me, especially with a big pot. I much prefer to check and call and pick off the hopefully more than occaisional bluff. Of course agaist a very solid player the bet and fold to a raise is probably the best play. Gee, what do you know, a real live seven card stud discussion. Don't see that much around here!
Vince.
Vince,
I have to admit, I've often made the river bet into 4 str/flush, been raised and called anyway. I have to see my opponents reaction. Against a maniac, a call is in order. Vs many solid, especially cautious solid, a bet is good. Even a bluff (if you have a busted draw yourself) might work against this kind.
Russ,
"(if you have a busted draw yourself) "
Funny you should mention this. I don't know what I was thinking, I make this play all the time. Seems thaht Seven Stud can be just as situational dependent as Holdem.
Vince.
Great suggestion. I have experienced exactly what you allude to.
brad,
You might of thought of check raising him. I don't know if the third party dropped or not. Then check on the blind on 7th and decide what to do then. I assume your first to bet. It's a little unclear on the order of betting.
paul
Hello experts out there! I would truly appreciate if someone can verify exactly the following questions and answers I have about Hi/Lo poker. I really appreciate your help!
---
1. Is Omaha Hi/Lo, Omaha Hi/Lo 8, Omaha Hi/Lo 8 or Better, and Omaha 8 all the EXACT same game? I think they are. What is the official title?
2. In Omaha Hi/Lo(assuming the answer to the above is true) is the following true:
(a) To qualify for a low hand you can NOT have your highest card a 9 or higher. That means that if the board has three or more cards 9 or higher it is IMPOSSIBLE for a low to occur and the high hand will win 100% of the pot.
(b) When there is a hi and lo winner the pot is distributed 50/50.
(c) You can use any 2 cards from your hand for the high and any 2 for your low. They can be the same, different or 1 the same and 1 different.
(d) For your low hand straights and flushes do not impact your hand. For example A,3,4,6,8 of hearts is considered a low hand (no flush), and also a hi hand (flush).
(d) The best hand would be A,2,3,4,5 suited as it is the nut low and basically almost unbeatable high.
3. 7 Card Stud Hi/Lo:
(a) Does the "8 qualifier" apply, or the low always gets half the pot no matter what.
(b) You can use ANY 5 cards for your high and ANY 5 cards for your low in an attempt to win both pots.
-----
Thank you very much in advance for verifying my answers/questions. Please let me know if I am exactly right or if I did get something wrong.
Appreciate it!
Trevor
You are exactly right.
Omaha H/L could be played without a qualifier (although you don't see this in the casinos, I don't believe). Omaha H/L means no qualifier, so 10-low (or pair low, etc) is possible.
"Omaha H/L 8 or better" is the 'official' qualifier version (shortened to O/8, Omaha8, etc... including your versions.
Everything else is on target.
Mr Picky.
Thank you very much!!
What about Stud Hi/Lo that is typical in casinos. Is it with the 8 qualifier rule? And is it called Stud Hi/Lo 8?
OR is it usually played with no qualifier and the low hand is paid each game?
Thanks again for your great help!
Trevor
I doubt that this is a common occurence at higher limits, but in 2/4, 3/6, 1-5 games there is a tendency among the weak minded players to check their hands "blind" on the river. This seems to be a situation where opponents are playing far from optimally and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how to best take advantage of this.
I can think of only one situation where I can make money from this mistake. If I am heads up with a busted draw and I am "blind" checked to, it seems like a bet here will be +EV. The fold on the river is the only fold these low limit players are capable of, and so I can still win a decent pot 1/4 of the time. This example seems unlikely however, as I am rarely in a heads up situation with a flush draw, so I am hoping that some of you guys out there can help me find better ways to take advantage of this.
Thanks,
-james H.
james H,
Here's a hand I checked blind on. Not exact but close.
I'm in #8 seat with Qc9d/QsTcTh7d/Qh.
#1 Woman Rock(RW) has xx/Jd7c5dKs/x, she is just calling all the way.
#4 Good Player(GP) has xx/As6s3hJs/x, he raises my two pair on 6th street with apparent flush draw.
I call and #1 calls.
I'm thinking that the RW could have two pair drawing to a full house or she could be on a flush/straight draw. I was not sure about her.
The GP definitely has a flush in my mind so if I catch I beat him, and he always bet's on the river, and therefore I can raise him.
As it turned out RW caught a flush so she checked to the higher flush. GP bet and I raised. RW dropped and GP called.
The check raise I feel is a powerful tool to use in your arsenal whether it is done blind or looking. The GP and RW respected me and my raises the rest of the day and gave me more leeway to bluff a little bit more than normal.
paul
You trust GP to bet but not to raise? I guess it depends on what kind of image you have at the table, but why not bet and let GP raise you? If you don't catch then you can just check and lay down the hand, since you seem very sure you are up against a made flush. If he won't raise you, then go for a check raise. What I don't see is why you should check blind.
james H,
The reason I check blind is if RW doesn't bet I'm almost a guaranteed winner. I'm not sure if she has two pair going that developed off a three flush or is still on the flush draw. When she checks and GP bets and I catch my full house I'm 99% sure I have a winner.
Had I looked and bet RW who was hoping to catch Ad to possibly beat GP I guess or a higher diamond to go with her Ad probably would of dropped even though she caught her lower flush. She said she caught it yet I didn't see it. I don't believe GP would of raised figuring I caught the full house.
Checking Blind or looking really doesn't matter if you catch. In this instance I gained some respect from the GP in future hands, and made a few extra bluffs. I also believe I got an extra bet from him. It's hard to give a tell when you don't see the card. Not that I think I give them, but without looking I'm positive I don't give one.
Either way you decide to play it mix it up is the best way. Bet out if you don't think your up against a made flush or straight whether you look or not.
You have to know the players. If you bet every time on the river after looking it wouldn't hurt you. I like to check blind sometimes, it's up to what you like.
Paul
People check dark on the river in stud often in order not to be raised by someone they perceive to be on a draw (if they have been betting) or because they are on a draw ( if they have been check calling.)
In the former case, i wouldn't bet into them as a bluff, since by checking dark they have announced that they intend to call but don't want to be raised, and in the latter case, I would only bet into them if you don't have any type of hand yourself and know that the odds of them having made their draw are low, but they probably would win in a showdown by default. They have a small open pair on board, or an Ace, and you were going for a King High Flush, for example.
In getting the best of it, David Sklansky addresses this topic thoroughly.
James;
A bet saved is a bet earned. It's the same players who "check blind" all the time. You know who they are, and they often check the best hand. They are afraid of the river and would like nothing better than check it down. These same players will not check raise either.
Fred M.
"I doubt that this is a common occurence at higher limits"
You'd be surprised how many people do this at limits as high as 100-200. Personally I think it's one of the worst plays you can make.
I haven't had a chance to skim the other posts, but my personal experience is that people "check dark" with calling hands and bluff catchers. Most of the time they are hoping to keep you from betting your flush, etc. for fear of their full house. This is silly. You know the odds. They have a random card sitting in front of them -- you no longer have to know the player, only the mathematics. Basically, you can't bluff, but you can bet much weaker hands for value.
I almost never check dark. If an opponent checks dark, my next move depends on the player, the game, the position and (very important) any "Tell" that I may have picked up. I hate to even bring this up to all you "dark checkers". It has been my observation in games from 15-30 down, players who check dark often have the best Tells. I can see it in their eyes, their hands and in the way they handle the chips. Caro is correct in assertion that some situations, Tells are very apparent. With that said, all you Dark Checkers think about it when "you check while you look".
The olny reason to check dark is if you think that looking will give your hand away (i.e. a Tell)
So, what Hansen did may have been a result of his picking up a Tell.
Steve,
I really see no advantage to checking blind, although I agree that it is usually stupid to bet into a blind river check because you should only be called if the other player makes the hand. There is one instance when it is profitable, and that is when the player may have 2 decent pair and misses his full house. You can elicit another bet by forceful almost challenging action that "tempts" the player who did not fill to call your small trips to "keep you honest". Every once in a while, you have to bet into a blind river check simply to let the player know that he cannot control the river simply by making a blind check.
ratso,
you say "it is usually stupid to bet into a blind river check because you should only be called if the other player makes the hand."
If this is true, and the player will fold anytime he doesn't make his hand, (whatever hand that is) then I would bet it. The case I outlined was a case in which I missed my draw and was likely beaten by the opponents missed draw. By betting into him, he folds when he doesn't make the hand, and I win a pot that I would have otherwise lost. I think this gives me pot odds for the bluff everytime.
Unfortunately players don't always fold their missed draws, so it is not as profitable as 3 in 4 (for a flush/straight) draw but the pot on the river is giving me HUGE odds.
It seems to me that the vast majority of dark checks happen on a somewhat strong made hand, and not when the person checking dark is drawing to a straight or flush. If you are going to check dark with a straight or flush draw, my feeling is that you are better off "checking dark in the light"...i.e. look at your last card but check no matter what it is. I would think a hand like 2 pair would be much more prone to bet into your draw if you check after you look, making this the more profitable play.
1530 im last to act for full bet , 2 others in, i have 77 in pocket and a 4 (2 flush). i decide to gamble a little ( i was bring in) and throw in another 10.
4th street i catch a diamond. high card bets and i call and a fold. im heads up.
5th i catch a 7 for trips . high card bets and i raise and he folds.
should i have waited to raise on 6th?
brad
ps. i was showing down a lot of high hands , like boats, and was playing tight.
Brad:
No. Take the money and run.
Fred M.
As long as you are satisfied that he will continue to bet into you on sixth street than you want to wait for sixth to make this raise.
It's much harder for him to give up on sixth street than on fifth if he has something...and if he was just bluffing on 5th with nothing he may continue this bluff on sixth.
Well, what did he have showing?
Did it seem like he was on some sort of draw, a high pair, or total junk?
If you could put him on some sort of hand, you might as well raise him here to make it expensive for him from to draw out on you.
If you're pretty sure he has junk - a low pair or a missed draw, you can wait until 6th and see if he'll bet into you and let you take that extra 2 bets.
~DjTj
It sounds like an easy call here. BET and/or RAISE and take the win on 5th street. If he has a pair >7, he could draw out. If he has less, let him pay to play. 5th street is a full bet opposed to 4th, so there is no difference between 5th and 6th except he may feel he has to stay to the river. Get the money when you can. I love to win "no showdown pots".
brad,
Maybe if you hadn't raised the bring-in, he may of hung around. When your displaying a tight image you catch a 7 and raise he assumed you had trips and was correct to fold. Without the raise of the bring-in he may of put you on two low pair or a straight. He may of had nothing and was trying to steal so it might not of mattered what you did he may of folded on 6th when you bet after he checked or when you raised.
paul
Jim:
I have to disagree with you here, somewhat. From a good player a blind check is indeed an invitaion to being check-raised. But the run of the mill low limit player checks the river because he is afraid of the unknown.
Fred M.
It basically gives away their hand. They might as well turn their cards over and show that they have a semi-strong hand (usually one big pair or 2 pair), but not one strong enough to beat your probable draw.
When someone checks blind I never bluff into them but find many situations to bet semi-strong hands (i.e. 2 medium pair) for value.
I have seen people check their straight/flush draws blind. This is often the case when they have been check-calling. I think that it is in this case that bluffing the river to the check blind becomes a profitable play.
Maybe a better way of stating it is that people have tendencies to check dark on certain hands. Most people check dark only when then have a high pair. Some people only do when they have a draw. Some do both. But if you watch people check dark a few times, you can begin to pick up on exactly what kind of hand they are checking to you.
I shouldn't say I never check dark, in fact I did it about a week ago in stud when I had 2 pair on board (I had a full house on 6th street). I bet 6th and got 2 callers, the first of which had 4 suited cards.
So I checked dark on the river knowing no one would raise if I bet but would bet if I checked. The flush bet, the other guy called, and I raised.
But I'm not really sure that the play wouldn't have worked had I checked after looking though.
I guarantee you the one thing that most players do horribly when they check dark is give their hand away. That's the main reason I try not to do it against competent players too often.
i play in a 2-4 w full kill(4-8) pineapple game.games get crazy with people often loosing 300 to $600 in a sitting. since its the only game in town do you have any insights as to best play.since one card will play with flushs etc. and with 3 cards there are lots of river rats. thanks
WE played pineapple in my home game in 1997, it has just made a RETURN in 2000 in my dealer's choice game $5-$10 (with full $10-$20 KILL). It a crazy game, since we are all use to hold'em and Omaha Hi (and Hi/LO). We play it 3 cards on the deal and discard ONE card after seeeing the flop. Then it's (high) hold'em. I have found BIG Pairs go way down in value. The best hands I've found are suited raps, preferably BIG...... Ac Kc Jh or Kh Qh 10d or even small suited connectors, late position...7.6h 5h. On the flop GO FOR BIG DRAWs, flushes or open ended straights multiway. Big pairs/trips heads-up. The flushes and straights tend to come up more often than hold'em. Good luck...you'll need it in Pineapple!
I think that if you don't have at least 2 pair after the flop..you should consider mucking unless you have huge draws, and a very good price.
ive come to the conclusion (tenative) that if a 3 flush on 3rd street is great with all live or 1 dead card(full bring in) , and if 2 or 3 are dead then only come in for bring in (and be sure it wont be full bet) and pray for 4th flush on 4th street.
what do you think?
ive found these hands are easy to play and pretty profitable.
brad
With 2 or 3 dead cards and 4 to a flush, it is ok to invest a full bet for a flush if you are getting odds (i.e. you are not heads up with 1 person and you do not have any high cards). It is important to consider the possibility of full house draws (i.e. paring door card for trips) and the knowledge that the opponent might bet in to you even when you appear to have the flush made if he has a better hand.
Brad:
I play any 3 suited cards in a loose game with no more than 2 of my suit showing. In a tight game or if the suit has >2 showing, it has to have 2+ premium cards in it.
Reminds me of a hand from last night. $2-$5 spread limit, loose game. Guy to my left raises $2 bringin to $7 with a Q and all fold to me. I have AhKh/8h and I like my hand so I call. I catch an A on 4th, I bet and he calls. Same on 5th and 6th. River is checked around and I show down AAKXX which beat his AAQXX. He had pocket aces and I caught the ONLY card that could beat him since my flush never materialized. Gotta get lucky sometimes.
Fred M
Other poker games forum! My god, it just hit me! Chuck Weinstok that quite possibly never even folded a pair of Aces on fourth street to an open pair of deuces lumped the mainstay, no the backbone of Casino Poker into a foru called OTHER POKER GAMES! Sacrilege! Seven Card stud just might be the most popular poker game in the world! In the World! Yeah, Holdem ranks up there in popularity but I will lay 2 to 1 that if you asked one hundred or more folks walking down Broadway if the played poker and they responded yes and then you asked them which games they played Seven Card stud would be utterd by greater than 90%. That's right > %90 (Math Weanies for you). So how can this game that is played by so many be just an "Other Poker Game". It's not! It is one of the toughest limiy poker games to play correctly. You must be more observan and more aware of your situation than in any other limit game or you are a goner. Holdem plays so fast and there are many different ways to play a hand that much discussion goes into which play is more correct. That doesn't happen very often in seven stud. Usually two experts will agree on the correct play once the situation is described to them. Russ Garber and Mason showed ud that here on a recent thread. That is the prime reason that stud is not discussed nearly as much as Holdem. No I'm not proposing a Seven Stud forum. Just letting everyone know that this great limit poker game is not just an "Other Poker Game". It just may be the best!
Vince.
Right on Vince. We should have our own forum!
I think a 7cs forum is needed. Of the six casinos in AC only 2, the big ones, spread hold-em. The others may have an occasional game but they are mainly stud. My initial impression of hold-em stays with me, it is more of a "gamblers" game. Betting seems to be the key, whereas in stud there is much more to think then what did he do preflop? I have only played hold-em three or four times and two times in free-rolls. You have to be alert in stud or you get killed. That's why I like to see a drunk sit down, unless they get extremely lucky you can have a feast on them. East Coast is mainly stud and I've found it is hard to find in Washington State but not in California. As far as being old, I'm 54 and never played poker until 4 years ago. BTW I feel 34. The Kount
Actually the drunk would have a better chance in 7 card stud. Although there is more to know in stud, skill counts for more in hold-em. The beginner has no chance in hold-em although it is easier to become a competent player in hold-em.
h
Brett:
The first time I went to Vegas was in 1965 when I was 23. Does that qualify me as an old timer? ;-).
Anyway, I used to watch my father play 7stud in home games when I was about 10. My first casino games in Vegas were $1-$3 stud. I didn't even know Holdem existed until about 8 years ago. I've played stud my whole adult life, and it will continue to be my favorite game as long as I am able to play poker. I *DO* play holdem (at a break even level) while waiting for a stud seat to open up.
Fred M
Why is there air?
Vince.
x
I am not too old (32) but the players that like stud don't like a game where you can play with a chart to start. Wanna use a chart, go play blackjack.
No limit or pot limit for holdem is fine but limit is a bore compared to stud.
Here are two hands which irritated me quite a bit in one it was obvious the hands were dead in another I was thie only one who knew.
The first i start w/ 4 (up) and A 7 all clubs. I call the bring it (it is a 1-5 gamew/no antes) for 1 as do 6 others. (2 clubs are out, as is a 7.) The 7 pairs his door card and bets 5 I call and no one else does (note when i made this call i thought a few more would come (should i have turned over my 7?) he bet and i called all the way and folded on the river when i couldn't beat a pair of 7's... should i have folded on 4th?
Here's another 3 dead q's are out I raise in last position w/a 4 up and pocket tens. One player calls and the Q reraises. I just call as does one other, The Q catches an A I a blank and the other player my T. AQ bets and I fold as does the other. The jerk w/ the AQ tells me (after the hand)i didn't seem sure raising on 3rd. shoudl I have reraised? (he wasn't a good players he chased my obvious pair of A's heads up to make a straight on the river w/no pair a few hands later). (yeah, yeah i suspect one might point to my previous post but a) my aces were not dead and i when i called i didn't think it would be heads up, while in the AA hand when he called he was the only one calling on 3rd street.)
Ok, so Im still a bit peeved, but all comments would be apprecaited!
Thanks
In the first hand, you didn't say what you caught on fourth. In many cases, it is correct to fold a 4-flush to a paired door card. In the game you describe, where seven people see fourth street, people are playing everything and aren't necessarily more likely to start with pairs. While you do have a seven, is this player capable of bluffing with total blanks in the hole? And even if he doesn't have three sevens, two pair is still a favorite over your hand. Also consider that there is only $7 in the pot, and that you'll have to call $5 bets all the way. In no-ante 1-5, whenever you're in doubt early in the hand, a fold is the best option.
By the way, you should *never* expose cards during the hand. In many cardrooms this will kill your hand, and in any case isn't fair to players who have already acted on that round.
In the second hand, your hand plays very poorly three-way. I would 3-bet it there if I thought that would knock out the third player and let me play just against the dead queen.
hand 1: What did you catch?
hand 2: I would have reraised the dead queen without a second thought even though it is 1-5 and there is no antes or very little antes.
curious;
First case: Unless the guy is brain-dead, he has another pair in the hole, or a 7. Either way, since you're heads-up against at least two pair, you need two more aces or two more clubs. Fours aren't going to help because you have to consider the possibility that he has the other 7 in the hole. If it's me, I don't play on 4th when he bets 5 unless I catch a club or an Ace. Even then the flush may be no good if he does have the case 7 and he fills. He's already showing strength so you won't know when that happens unless he backs off and then starts up again, which he didn't.
My point is this: It costs no money to just sit there and not play, and it costs you nothing to fold when he pairs his door card. Typically when someone shows strength in a game like this, you can afford to give them credit for strength, unless you have a very good read on the player. If you don't improve with him, with a quality draw to beat what you give him credit for, why continue? You will nearly always get paid off when you improve and they don't but they chase you to the river.
Second case: Maybe I'm too cautious, but I've got to give the guy credit for seeing his queens out already. Here, I might have called and hoped for a ten or a 4 to pair your door and slow him down. His Ace is the intangible. If he raised with a small pair in the hole, he now has the overcard to your potential two pair, and if he raised with a bigger pair in the hole it might be Aces. Either way you have no kicker and have not improved. Good fold.
Here's my bottom line. In this game I don't bluff unless I OWN my opponent. I also rarely assume that they're bluffing unless they are playing EVERY hand AND getting a run of very bad cards. You can afford to wait and pick spots in which you have the best of it. You can even try some fancy stuff every once in a while like reraising the Queen in the second case, but don't do it just for the heck of it. Have a plan and stick to it dispassionately if you want to come out ahead.
Large Luck,
David
Thanks for the notes,
In the first hand I caught a 4th suited card on 4th street but I dont remember the rank. (It wasn'ta face card).
I only started playing stud a 2 months ago, and I think I have a hard time laying down some "big" drawinghands.
Ill try and be more cautious in the future!
Curious:
First hand I would have played just as you did and for the same reasons. (you said you had a fourflush in a later message). Don't even think about exposing a 7. Totally unethical.
Second hand. With TT/4 I would have limped in. Take a card off for $1 and see what develops. I would not 3 bet with that hand. Hell, he would probably have capped it.
A random thought. Don't get irritated as that often leads to "tilt".
Fred M.
(Suits are not important in this hand) LL 7CS 3rd Street: rolled up 8s, late position, one of my 8s dead, ace in front limps in, I raise, everyone drops but the ace. On 4th I catch a queen, Ace bags a 5 offsuit. She bets; I raise…she calls. 5th brings me a blank and her a 2; she bets. Me: 88/8Q7 She:xx/A52 What do I do now and what does she have? (She: very loose/very passive, played with her for a couple of hours, 3 starting cards were poor, but not complete junk. Never saw her raise.)
Richard
NEWBIE !!!!!!! If you are a poker buff I am selling my library as I turned my poker hat in for good and I need shelf space. The Theory of Poker - DS (good cond) Winning big in Tourney Poker - Ken Buntjer (like new) Poker Essays -MM (good cond) Caro on gambling - MC (good cond) Winning Poker Systems - Norman Zaheh (good cond) Tourney Poker - McEvoy (like new) Gambling Theory - MM (good cond) Pot Limit & NL - Rueben Ciaffone (like new) High Low Split - Ray Zee (good cond) Super System - Dolye Brunson (good cond)
Lots of anecdotal books of gambling etc. prefer to ship it as a package (no piece deals) as I don't need the money that bad. Make me an offer for the whole thing !!!
Andras,
Keep the books. You'll need them when you decide to take another stab at the game!
vince
This is a first. Are you planning to die soon?
CV
CV,
Andras has threatened this before. Leave him alone, please.
vince
I get my action from other sources and that's plenty for me. So even if I go back to play whe I am 'an old fart' I don't need no stinking books. p.s. I got an offer already Cheers boys !!!
Since there is no "Used Book Forum", why don't you post this on the "Other Topics" Forum?
Better late than never,
WFM
Here's a hand -- along with some questions -- that I played the other night in a $20-$40 stud game that should prove interesting to some of you. Try to answer the questions as you come to them since this is what you must do in a game. That is try not to read ahead.
It was late at night and there were only four of us left in the game. The suits for this hand are not important.
A deuce brought it in. A trey folded. A player with a six up just called the $5 bring-in. (The ante is $3.) I had a pair of sixes and a ten with one of the sixes up. I raised. The bring-in folded and the other player with the six called. I would characterize him as someone who plays a little too loose and a little too aggressive, but definitely not a "live one."
On fourth street I caught an offsuit seven, my opponent caught an offsuit deuce. I bet and was raised. First question: Is my opponent trying for a free card?
On fifth street I caught a king, and my opponent caught a jack? I checked and he checked. Second question: What is his likely hand?
On sixth street I caught a seven giving me an open pair and my opponent caught a queen. I bet and he called. Third question: Again, what is his likely hand?
On the river, I caught another seven giving me a full house. Fourth question: What is my correct play?
I will tell you what I did shortly.
A few comments:
1) It's probably a good 3rd street raising hand but I hate it against an aggressive player because he is probably more willing than I am to invest double bets later with a weaker hand. I feel there will be a lot of better hands. My play might be to limp and hope to catch a 10 or just bet on 4 and win it if opponent catches bad.
2) Shorthanded is especially hard to read a players hand. Many players will play A-picture in the hole strong, as well as legitimate playing hands.
3) As you mentioned he is not a "live one" so I don't think he could have had a gut shot when he called on 6.
4) As the hand layed, he probably had 6-2-x suited to start with the x being a high card. He might have thought you had little since the six was dead. However, the 7 matches the 6 so a raise with deuces is strange. I guess he was trying for the free card, but it must be a player who does this often, because it's really hard to give him a free card. What did you put him on when he raised you? Was he capable of folding on 5 if you led again? The check raise is dangerous because you might 3 bet him with any hand better than 6's.
5) I must bet on the end with the full house. He can't imagine you will fold 7's on the river, so he won't bluff at you. Also, he can't have too much respect for your hand so you will get 3 bets (as compared to 2)if he makes any sort of hand. Short handed he puts you on not that strong a hand. He will probably raise with aces up or better (because of your king) or might even try a bluff raise as he might believe that could get two pair out if they are 7's up. Plus, you might (>50%) get a call with any hand that beats 7's. Again, this depends on how well he knows you and the pace of the game.
6) There are dozens of possible hands but given my limited info, but taking into account your story, let me offer the following distribution of starting hands:
1-- 6-2- Ace suited. 2-- 654- not really a rational call on 6 but this really fits rest of story. 3-- buried 3's, 4's or 5's. But he would have raised with this hand.
Say first is 55-40-5% over the others. There are many poss.Ihave an intuition the hand is one of the above. No aggressive player would check behind you with a buried pair > 6's.
Let me know what you think of my analysis.
A deuce brought it in. A trey folded. A player with a six up just called the $5 bring-in. (The ante is $3.) I had a pair of sixes and a ten with one of the sixes up. I raised. The bring-in folded and the other player with the six called. I would characterize him as someone who plays a little too loose and a little too aggressive, but definitely not a "live one."
On fourth street I caught an offsuit seven, my opponent caught an offsuit deuce. I bet and was raised. First question: Is my opponent trying for a free card? (No)
On fifth street I caught a king, and my opponent caught a jack? I checked and he checked. Second question: What is his likely hand? (6's & 2's)
On sixth street I caught a seven giving me an open pair and my opponent caught a queen. I bet and he called. Third question: Again, what is his likely hand? (6's & 2's)
On the river, I caught another seven giving me a full house. Fourth question: What is my correct play? (Bet)
Paul
At first ,I think his fourth street action indicates a big hand...he's not trying for a free card here. I put him on a "bigish" pocket pair...but it could be as small as "eights" to raise on fourth street, since my board is only 7,6.
When he checks behind me on fifth street I have to change my mind about a big pair in the hole...he would have bet here with any pair above sixes. I now judge his hand to be a single pair (either 2's or 6's) having started with a three flush...probably Ace high (A2)/6. Now, looking back on the fourth stret raise by a "little too loose" and "little to agressive" player still makes sense. He was trying for a free card after all!
If this assesment is correct than the sixth street bet and river bet is pretty much a no-brainer. (of course then why would Mason be posting such a boring problem?...so I'm probably wrong) ;-)
Jim Mogal
I'm posting this before reading any other post.
OK, missed the Free card question. I'll take a stab at what he has (A,Q)6,2,J,Q,(?)
Should you have bet on 5th when you showed (?,?)6,7,K ? Only, if you correctly figured that he was trying for a free card. He would assume that you caught your King for at least a Pair of Kings? Of course this is a lot easier to justify after the fact that he checked behind you.
CV
Without looking:
3rd st raise: definitely correct
4th st: looks like a pair bigger than your 6 or 1 or 2 big overcards
5th st.: I put him on a pair (K>his pair>6) or big overcards
6th st: Pr of Queens with a decent kicker or 2 pair
"A deuce brought it in. A trey folded. A player with a six up just called the $5 bring-in. (The ante is $3.) I had a pair of sixes and a ten with one of the sixes up. I raised. The bring-in folded and the other player with the six called. I would characterize him as someone who plays a little too loose and a little too aggressive, but definitely not a "live one."
I don't play a lot of stud but isn't your pair of sixes rather weak with your opponent already showing one of your sixes?
OK. Here's what I THINK the situation was and how I played it accordingly.
When my opponent raised on fourth street there is almost no way he is trying for a free card since there is a very good chance he will act first on the next round since both of our boards are so low. It looks to me that he has a bigger pair in the hole.
On fifth street it appears that my catching the king scares him out of betting for some reason. Also, he does not have three jacks since my catching the king would probably make me call him down and I believe that this player understands that.
When he calls my bet on sixth street it again appears that he has a buried pair. We can now narrow it down. It is larger than sevens but smaller than jacks. This is why he calls.
On the river, if I lead into him there he a good chance he will fold one pair (if he does not improve). If he makes two pair I'm pretty sure that he will only call because he is afraid that if I didn't fill up then I might have hit the king (giving me larger two pair).
If I check on the river, being an aggressive player he should bet anything better than sevens-up and he might bluff if he doesn't improve. This I did. He bet. I raised. He called the raise and threw his hand away when I turned over mine. So I never saw what he had and didn't ask.
All comments are welcome.
I just can't imagine that an aggressive player got scared of your king. Especially after you checked and given that the game was short handed, he was even less likely to be in a checking mood with a good pair in the hole.
Given that you checked on 5, I think he would call on the river with one pair. There is certainly a reasonable chance that you did not have another pair on 5 and that you might bet one pair on the end. By the way, what would you have done on the river if you did not improve your hand? If the answer is to check, then he was certainly correct in calling with one pair because you are either full (or better than 7's up) or have only one pair.
What he made on the end is uncertain. Probably two pair but any hand is possible but I strongly doubt a full house. Maybe even that inside straight. Jacks up is most likely but it is kind of random. If I had one guess though, it is Jacks and twos.
Any critiques of this analysis are welcome. I do think the trend in this message board is to overrate the hands and conservatism of most players. Strange plays get made in 4 handed action.
Russ
"I just can't imagine that an aggressive player got scared of your king. Especially after you checked and given that the game was short handed, he was even less likely to be in a checking mood with a good pair in the hole."
Why? In the 21st Century edition of our stud book we have a chapter called "Throwing Fast Balls" where we discuss why it is frequently correct to check in situations like this. (I know this player has read our books.)
I can't wait to read that section. You will have some convincing to do but if you wrote it in the book, I believe it must have validity, but it seems strange why I would check a pair on 5 when I could get you to fold if you have no pair. And, you might be afraid of my jack as being the card that hit the pair. All this and in a short handed situation. I can't let you get a free card if I have 6's beat but. . . I look forward to the explanation.
Russ
The explanation has to do with the following three ideas:
1. You might get raised and you don't like that.
2. Typical players will call in this spot with a hand that they are supposed to call with so your mathematical expectation in this spot is only a fraction of a bet.
3. The hands they fold are hands that you would not want them to fold. (For example: in this spot, suppose I only had a three flush along with the offsuit 7 and king.)
Thus, a bet in this spot, even though you may usually have the best hand, is often less profitable IN THE LONG RUN than a check.
Mason,
I have often thought about what you have written but I would like to offer the following retorts:
1. Point 1 about being raised is well taken but often a check raise will let you out of the hand cheap as compared to calling on 6 and 7. If the king check raises with any hand other than just making one pair of kings (or pocket aces), you are getting out of the hand cheaply for one bet (if you fold to the check raise). This is better than calling on 6 and 7 with little chance of winning.
2. Most players are unable to check raise that spot without a really big hand.
3. Regarding point 2 about correct calling situations; just because it is correct to call does not mean it is not correct to bet.
4. Point 3 is a bit unclear. If I only have one medium pair (say pocket 10's or even two little pair), why do I want you in with a couple of overcards. I can't think of too many hands that I would prefer an opponent in vs. out if I have dry 10's on 5th street.
I am certain your argument is a good one but I just wanted to add some things to think about.
Russ:
You are missing a major point. One of the reasons that you might like him to continue playing a bad hand that he would have otherwise folded is that you now may get him to bluff through the river thinking that your check showed great weakness on your part.
What you say about bluffing through to the end makes a lot of sense. It all depends on the player you are up against. Have you run simulations on this check on fifth street with a buried pair higher than 6's? How sensitive is this to the bluffing percentage of the opponent.
I am always afraid to give free cards with only a medium pair on fifth street. I would be more inclined to check two pair if I gave an aggressive player no pair on five. Then I could pick off his bluff or make him pay 2 or 3 bets if he makes an open pair.
This is a very interesting problem as there are a lot of things going on here. Lots to analyse--> That's the fun of the game!
Mason,
If he had a bigger pair on third why didn't he reraise you?
On fourth he decides to raise you with the same pair?
On fifth he checks with the same pair?
He calls on sixth with the same pair and your showing a pair?
Seventh he bets with same pair or maybe catches two pair against your pair showing?
Paul
Mason,
If you read my earlier post you will see that we thought alike on third and fourth street. You state that , "the King scares him out of betting for some reason"
I can't understand this, After you check on fifth street with 67K showing...he would have to be a weak player to check behind you with a pair bigger than sixes. This is why, in my analysis I REVISED my assesment of his hand and figured that he WAS trying for a free card after all...since he TOOK a free card after you show weakness by checking in front of him.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Looks like I am in the minority again. I would have played it just as Mason did. I know I would get called from 2 pair or if I check, he would bet. Everyone with 2 pair ALWAYS calls or bets the river (at least everyone who plays against me). Also, I think we tend to over value other player's hands especially heads up.
I still believe that the play of 2 medium to high pair is the single most important skill in 7CS. It seems that I have not yet mastered it, yet.
I think he was slowplaying pocket Queens on 3rd because of everybody else's rag doors. I think he would've re-raised on third with 10s thru 7s in the hole. I think he puts MM on A and/or K(or maybe 8s or 9s) in the hole, then further slowplays when he trips up. If he wouldn't have tripped, I think he'd've raised on 6th. Maybe he figured MM would check raise if he hit his big card but would bet out if caught the non-pairing big card.
I have to say this one threw me; I've played lots of shorthanded hold 'em and O8, as well as some 5-10 stud, but I've never played any kind of 20-40 stud. I just can't figure him playing (2,6)6,2 or (_A,2_)_6,2 the way he did. I'd've raised with both on third, considering there was a limper behind and two of my cards were dead.
I am a bit confused by the statement about slowplaying after tripping up.
I like your analysis about buried queens but threw that out when he checked on 5th, especially in light of that MM said he was aggressive. BUT, MM did not tell me that he just wrote about this play and that this player read the book.
I don't really give the person 662 and I don't give MM AK in the hole because it is not really MM's style to raise a loose limper with that hand. I think A62 suited, then raising with the pair on 4 is possible. He is hoping for an Ace or suited to continue betting, if not, he takes free card.
I don't like all this checking because it inspires players to make moves on you, and that is not good. You prefer that opponents only raise when they have strong hands so that you can escape traps. That more than makes up for the extra money won calling opponents wild raises.
Well, I still think he'd've raised on 3rd with (A,2)6 suited; no point in letting anybody catch; ("Take the G**** money!" - River's Edge).
If we give hero buried queens AND give him credit for thinking he might have a ~tell~ on MM's play in this situation vis. high cards in the hole/shorthanded/semi-steal, that would explain the check.
However, he WOULD probably want to raise Kings up on sixth with three Queens, esp. w/ two of his fill cards dead(What're the odds in this situation?), unless for whatever reason he felt like being tricky.
You're right about too much checking being no good. Very interesting problem, shorthanded and everybody's got rag doors, which is what made me think hero would just want to take the $17 and move on, unless he was very strong.
Maybe the real answer is that he forgot to bet on one of the streets, or maybe he threw in the wrong amount and did not say raise. 3rd, 4th, and 5th do not seem to coordinate so we will just have to work backwards on which mistake was most likely. But, according to MM, check on 5th with big buried pair may be correct, I'm not sure of that but given MM said player read his book, then buried pair will explain 6 street call and then he probably made 2 pair on end to bet.
Russ
I read all the responses. This this a short game so a lot of hands are possible. I personally think he has a queen with another card in a hole (probably an ace). The next hand I would think he might have had would be a medium pair.
Some comments:
On third I think I would have just called. When he raises on 4 I would be asking myself if he has a big pocket pair calling in the process. On 5 when he checks after you check I would think his most likely hand is rags something (ace something) and he is trying to get to the showdown cheaply with his ace in case you did pair the king. On 6 it sure looks like he paired the queen or maybe has something like 8's and the king scared him. River I would bet unless I thought that he thought there was a good chance I had another 7 in the hole. A loose agressive who can play should have no problem raising you with queens up or even 8's up on the end if he does not put you on trips.
AC Trop, Sat night; 10-20 7CS; nice crowd, nice mix with 2 calling stations to my left and no pros. After 1 hr -- up about $200.
AK flush on 5 cards. 2 callers to 6th street. One looks like a straight or most likely 2 pair with a straight draw. Other looks like 3 aces. I loose on the river to Quads! Aces of course.
Next hand I am dealt rolled up 10's. Raise in late position and get 3 callers. End up going to the river and getting beat by a full house, 5's over 3's
Next hand (no kidding). I raise with pocket queens in late position. 4 callers! I get a queen on 4th street and raise. only 2 callers, one with a small flush draw the other probably 2 low pair. On 6th street I pair my door card for a boat. I make the terrible decision to check with the intent of check raising if there is a bet or letting the others make their hand and get 2 more bets. BAD DECISION.
. The river gives the free card. the straight makes his sraight and checks. I decide to bet. I get raised. I reraise. Straight folds. Flush reraises. I call. Guess what? The same guy in the orange sweater who just had quad aces turns over a small straight flush in hearts.
Oh yes, did I mention that while waiting for a 10-20 seat, I was playing some 5-10 and was dusted by quad 8's to my flush. Great night. I lost 35 bucks for the night. Very lucky. I do not think that will ever happen again. On the positive side, I stole about 70-80% of the antes with A or K raise.
ratso,
I thought you were going to say $3500. I see that your graduating to getting burned with full houses rather than flushes. Time will take care of this, it always does my friend.
Paul
My wife told me to read some more books so that does not happen to me again. Cute, eh? Lucky I did not loose a lot more $$$. What a shock to get beat like that. Oh yes, I almost forgot. In the 5-10 game, a guy had a straight flush in diamonds from the King. I was not in that hand.
"AK flush on 5 cards. 2 callers to 6th street. One looks like a straight or most likely 2 pair with a straight draw. Other looks like 3 aces. I loose on the river to Quads! Aces of course."
I hate it when quad aces beat an ace high flush. Next time check the deck though.
Last night, at Trop in AC in a mid limit game, after a player called a bet with 2 non-dangerous looking cards, the other player got pissed off and screamed at the other player,
"What are you doing? You have no business chasing me with those cards." He then opened his hand to reveal pocket aces and left them face up and further berated the other player. the dealer said the player just made his hand dead by purposely exposing the cards. The floor person backed the dealer up. pot to the other guy
Sound right to you?
Sounds like an excellent ruling. Rules are rules. Players are not supposed to display their cards.
As an aside, it's very unpleasant to be at the table, or even in the room, when one player berates another player or the dealer, or decides to give unsolicited lessons to another player or the dealer. Usually when that happens I'll pick up my chips and leave before the next hand is dealt. Turns out, if you hang around, the player who has done the berating or given the "lesson" is not through after just one episode.
Takes all kinds. But not around me. Bad for my blood pressure.
Buzz
When playing heads up if my opponent desires to show me his cards I see no reason to stop him.
Vince.
Recently I was in a 7CS/8 game where the player to my left would on 6 out of 10 times show his river card prior to betting. He would also announce to the table what he was needing. This seems foolish to me, but he was the big winner at the table. Would his hand be dead under the rule if he showes the river? Most of the time the river didn't mean anything to his hand because he already had his had made.
Bill - I don't know. My experience is that the rules are a little different here and there, and they change a little now and then. Moreover, if you ask the floor supervisor where you can find the rules, they don't seem to be written anywhere. Interesting.
When I originally wrote my response to Ratso I had just come from a game where one player had just unjustly berated a dealer. It was obvious from looking at the dealer's face that the dealer was humiliated but he kept his cool. I didn't say anything but was upset about witnessing such unkind behavior and left soon afterwards. The incident was fresh in my mind. It predjudiced my reply.
I have it somehow in my mind that I am supposed to keep my cards on the table and not show them to anyone. I have it in my mind that I'm not supposed to coffeehouse about my hand during the play of the hand. I have it in my mind that I may be penalized for doing so. Those seem to be part of the rules some places, although they may not always be part of the rules everywhere.
I don't enjoy having someone try to intimidate me or anyone else at the table. Showing a card or two some of the time during the play of a hand is an obvious attempt at intimidation. Somehow that behavior seems insulting (or at least mocking) to the other players at the table.
That's just my opinion.
Buzz
That rule is only for tournaments since your action affects all the other players in the tournament whether they are in the hand or not.
The rule should not be applied to a live game situation. If I give you an edge by showing you my hole cards...it can only help you and the other players are not affected in any way.
Bad ruling
I would like to see other's hands and I see no particular reason why the hand was dead. I think someone, probably the dealer, said the man made a move to muck his cards. Still, if the cards are visible and not in the muck, I thought the hand should carry on. The man lost the hand anyway. he had a draw and did not get it.
the rule should only apply to tournaments and only when done to influence someones decision. even then headup i believe it should be allowed.
Why is this called the Ray Z. rule?
it goes back to one of old crazy ray's tournies. he was the leader in some kind of points contest that cummulated over several tournaments. well, in the last tourney all he had to do was get so far and no one could catch him. the contest was worth more than the tourney. at one point, ray has AA and raises all in. he wants the guy to fold because he doesn't want to risk being eliminated. so he shows the guy his cards to get him to fold.
ever since then you cannot show your cards in a tournament until there is no more betting.
hey ray! when are you going to write your crazy story book? i am book reviewer for the school paper that everyone who's anyone reads. if you send me a free copy, i guarantee a fair and impartial article about how much i love your book. (same applies to other 2+2 literature. yes, i mean you, john feeney!!!)
scott
scott,
when i write that book ill send you a copy. but since that crazy Paul Feeney has been dogging me i cant bring myself to do anything but hide out.
I agree with Ray that I see nothing wrong with flashing cards in a heads up situation, but against more than one opponent, flashing cards can help different players disproportionately, to the point where I agree it shouldn't be allowed.
I think I can clear up this whole thing.
In some, low limit 7 stud games, there is indeed a rule which states you can not expose your hole cards.
However, in higher limit games this is not the rule (to my knowledge)and you may expose your cards or pick them all up at the river and look at them as you would a gin rummy hand.
The reason you cannot expose your hole cards in a tournament has nothing to do with Ray Zee and I'm surprised he didn't say so.
Ray, and all other 7 stud Hi lo 8 or better players, I have a question.
I recently read the stud-8 part of your hi lo book. Good stuff. One question:
Should third street play vary based upon the ante structure of the game?
My first impulse is that yes, of course it must. But, now that I've thought a little more about it, perhaps this is not the case, since, as you say, stud-8 is a game of implied odds rather than odds. What's the story?
In particular, I might play sometime in a 40-80 HOSE game. So first, I am thinking that the players will not necessarily be great stud-8 players since it is a mixed game (in a small card room far away from most of the civilized gambling world), and second, that being the case, I am wondering if there's anyway to profitably loosen up your 3rd street suggestions. The game in particular is 40-80 with $10 antes and $15 bring in (low card, I think).
All suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Best Regards, Alan
Alan,
your antes are not too much higher than in the games i wrote for. as the ante goes up you would natually play more hands. but most times you would play maybe less but those much more forcefully to protect the already large pot. you also play more in unraised pots because of the extra odds. the amount of hands you play is directly related to the amount of people playing hands.
Ray,
What are some examples of hands that one can start to play profitably in unraised pots that you wouldn't normally limp with if the ante were smaller? Also, what if there is a lot of multiway action on 3rd? For example, do the "Razz hands" become playable in either of these situations?
Thanks! Alan
3 at the river in 7 stud.
Above average but a little loose player with Q in door and likely queens checks. Loose live player who will lose all of his money shows 789T and bets. I have a 10 high straight flush with 3 small flush cards showing. I call.
Player w/Q in door overcalls. At the showdown I get a lecture from a collge student/part time player who shouts "Why didn't you raise?!?".
At the time, I thought the decision was close, but I was conviced my play was correct.
Was it? And, more importantly, how do you fend off such a lecture without having LLP feel like he's being pitied and keep the table in a fun-loving, gambling mood?
Here's an example of a stud strategy decision where 2 (reasonably) good players had very opposite opinions.
I think you should definitely raise here.
If you only call, he may fold, earning you nothing. He may call, earning you the single bet. Or he may raise if he made a big hand (a check raise bluff is unlikely against two opponents).
If you raise, you will likely lose the Q unless he made that big hand referred to above...in which case, he might three-bet it. You will, however, most probably get a call from the probable str8. If he is a complete bone-head or has something better than the str8 he may also raise you, allowing you to cap it.
There are two scenarios where your call makes money...when original bettor folds to your raise (unlikely...the LLP will 'keep you honest' with a T high) or when the Q check-raises and the str8 would call one, but not two bets had you raised first (even less likely).
If the third player was last to act or there was another player to act behind you, the call MAY be slightly profitable...but in that case you are relying on TWO overcalls.
And plus...if you raise, you wouldn't have to worry about the bad feelings of extracting a single bet from a borderline player in a good game with an absolute monster :). Raise.
You made a mistake by calling.
P.S I don't think it was close at all.
A definite raise unless you want to send a message, "I am a kind person and do not want to rub it in", or "I usually just call when it is head up (so be kind to me when you have a monster"
Really, you definitely should have raised. If he folds, you have the choice to show or not depending on what message yoy want to send.
Why did you believe that it was more likely that the live player would fold to your raise than the pair of queens would overcall? If this isn't the right question, what is?
Calling is clearly correct, and I don't understand why the previous responders are telling you to raise.
The loose player is showing 789T, and since you haven't mentioned anything about jacks being dead, it appears that he might have a better straight than you, even if he only caught it at the river. If you raise, even if he's loose, it is hard to imagine that he's going to 3-bet with a hand you can beat (at least not very often). Also, if you raise, what are the chances that the "above average" player will call 2 bets cold with a hand that can't beat the straight and flush that he appears to be facing? Thus, if you call, there is a reasonable chance that the above average but loose player will overcall, adding 1 bet to the pot, and there is no chance that the 789T player can 3-bet when he does have a J in the hole (or other better hand than your T-hi straight).
Since you can't be sure you beat the original bettor, but can be pretty sure you beat the third player, going for the overcall seems like the perfect play to me.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
x
.
Everyone else is right. A loose live player will _never_ fold a straight here and probably won't fold anything else he would bet with either. So you can pretty much only lose money here by not raising. (Call of raise by loose player = overcall of queens). And if the queens improved to a boat....
Of course, if the loose player isn't that loose, or could be bluffing and would fold to a raise, maybe the overcall is ok, but probably still in the long run will lose you money.
Dan Z,
I called with a straight flush ONCE!! The player I was against had two pair showing so I was looking for a Heart. A heart came so without looking at my hand I threw the money in expecting to lose. The player said two pair and I said flush. Everyone at the table corrected me and said straight flush. I haven't had one since and that was 6 months ago. I don't think your going to lose any friends over raising with a straight flush.
Next time I think you and I should raise.
paul
Here's my reasoning:
The game is a casino $10-20 stud game.
The player with the queens will almost certainly overcall with 2 pair. He rarely folds on the end. Also, his play seemed to indicate he had 2 pair (one may have been showing, I forget).If he did not he would have likely folded on 6th looking at 2 possible pat hands). and the live player will bluff a good bit.
There are several scenarios where the overcall is superior. I am not sure there are any where a raise is significantly better.
Factor One: Does player representing straight have one? If not, there is no more money coming from him. Clearly, going for an overcall is better here.
Factor Two: Does player with queens fill up? If he does, he is probably going to the max 4 bets on the end if given the chance. What about the player with the straight? He will certainly call one raise from the queens before I 3 - bet and get 4 -bet by the queens. In other words, we get a definite 2 bets from him, and possibly 4 by just calling. If I raise and get reraised, it will be 2 bets back to him and he may fold (he's not clueless), giving me just one final round bet. So if I am against a full house, it seems I do better by calling.
The most likely case is I am against 2 pair and a straight. This is the only case I found that seems to favor raising, but how much does it favor raising?
Raising gets me 2 bets on the end from the straight, and zero from the 2 pair. But how much is getting an extra bet from the live player worth? Unless he gets ticked off and leaves, he loses all of his chips and money. So I can expect to get $3 or so of that $20 later anyway ($10-$20 stud). So getting that extra bet now is worth $17. Lets say the likelihood of an overcall from the 2 pair is about 75%. Thus going for the overcall costs $1 in this case (the player with the 2 pair is a winning player, so I don't expect to be "carving him up").
I felt the overcall strategy is trivially wrong in the most likely case, but very correct in every other case, esp. the scenarios when there is a full house against me.
"The player with the queens will almost certainly overcall with 2 pair. He rarely folds on the end. Also, his play seemed to indicate he had 2 pair (one may have been showing, I forget).If he did not he would have likely folded on 6th looking at 2 possible pat hands). and the live player will bluff a good bit."
This is the part I can't believe regarding your overcall theory. You say he is going to overcall two possible pat hands one that bets and the other that calls if he has two PAIR!!!! Is he an idiot cardplayer or what???
JUST RAISE!!!!! Forget this method, put it to sleep you have a STRAIGHT FLUSH!!!!
Paul
With 2 callers behind you, you might consider just calling, but in this case, even if the player behind you folds for a raise, the original bettor surely will call if he does in fact have the straight.
Agreed. But what happens if:
There is no straight OR The potential overcaller has a full house.
I think the problem is more complex than getting 1 bet from each opponent vs. 2 bets from one.
Thanks for the responses.
Pot-limit dealers choice - blinds 5 5 10 - Omaha (high) is called.
I am in middle position with J 10 9 7 single suited and call after 2 opponents limp. It's call, call and weak tight opponent raises to 100. It's folded to me and I call, others fold.
OK, heads'up without position against timid player, I have 1700 in stack and he has more, I put him on 2 A or 2 K with 2 big cards since this guy would never raise in this spot without such a hand (I know him pretty well).
Flops comes 4 6 8 offsuit. Very good flop for me: I have 13 nut outs for the straight and this flop can not have matched him. I bet full pot (250) and he calls.
Turn: 2 offsuit. Not a bad card since it cannot help him even if it does not help me. I bet bull pot (750), he hesitates a little and calls. What can he have ? AA35: no it's a O/8 hand, KK35: neither, too weak, AA86 or AA84 or AA64: perhaps, hum I know: he has 2 big pairs AAKK or AAQQ. At least I'm sure he has not 57 since he would have raised now. But he has to put me on that hand with the 2 barrels. Or he feels I keep betting a draw.
At this moment my plan is to bet all-in (my last 600 in a 2200 pot) if an A or K does not come (giving him a likely set).
River: 8. Now board looks 468 2 8. Top card pairs, not a good card for me ! I'd prefer a 3 or a J, or of course one of my outs. I *know* he has not the full house and I know he is not strong enough to realize that I would never bet a straight at the end with a pair showing, fearing a full. But I have no choice: I immediately move in, he hesitates 10 seconds and calls showing AAJ8 for a set beating my busted draw.
Any comments appreciated.
Perhaps I'm not following the hand, but it looks like you flopped a straight..
I am in middle position with J 10 9 7
Flops comes 4 6 8 offsuit.
You can only use two cards in your hand.
.
First, fold to the raise preflop. Your hand is quite marginal, prefers position and a large field, and won't be paid off by a timid, weak-tight player.
On the flop, why not check-raise? He'll bet an overpair here, and probably fold to your check-raise. All-in with two cards left, you're in much better shape, especially if he only has aces.
On the turn, he has to be concerned that you have something. You committing more than half your stack is clearly not a bluff. You read him for a weak-tight player, but from the play of this hand he seems more like a calling station. The money was still deep enough preflop that you could easily have a set here, or two pair, if not the straight or a strong draw. It's highly unlikely he matches the board at all. If he will fold dry aces here, bet, if not, check, and hope he checks behind you.
On the river, having called this far, he's not folding for 600 into a 2800 pot.
Well I agree with Badger. Playing four running cards heads up against known aces (or aces or kings) with large stacks (relative to the size of the bet) is a good situation. You can always easily get off the hand if you miss, and you have great chances to outdraw on or after the flop, or to bluff. If anything the poster's hand would have been better if his cards were smaller, since he put the raiser on aces or kings AND two other big cards (e.g QJ I suppose), so cards which hit the 79TJ could also help the raiser.
I would have check raised the flop if I thought the aces would bet (put yourself in the the position of having dry aces against a check raise when the flop is 468 - what could be worse!?), but I think betting the pot twice was fine as well. Just a shame that the other player was not sensible enough to fold.
The bet on the end was very bad, I fear, since the raiser was committed to call whatever happened. It really was just a waste of money. Pairing the board probably made it more likely that he would call, even if he did not have trips, since dry aces would beat 2 small pairs.
Richard Meade
test
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a terrible O/8, and should never be played for a raise.
Let's say its your dream flop. 789. You have the nuts, and there's no low. Now, what can happen?
A - 6. Low comes. You get half. 7,8,9. no longer nuts. (9's full of 8's beats you) Tx - you don't have the nuts. Just two pair Jx - you don't have the nuts. Just two pair. QQ, KK, no longer nuts.
The only way you can have nuts with that hand, and scoop, is with a board of 789QK, and no flushes, unless it is your flush, and even then you can't be assured you have nuts, OR with ull houses that hand makes.
Because it is a hand that makes nuts with a low present, I chuck it.
mth.
.
ah. in orginal message, when you said, "AA35: no, it's an O/8 hand", i took it to mean you were playing a hand of O/8, not what it really meant. Of course, this didn't jibe with the rest of your message.
glad you helped me piece that together. i was thinking "this dude is dead if he's sitting in this game with that hand."
mth
"Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt.... it *was* paid off!"
Read the rest of my post. I said that his read on the player was wrong, and that the player was not in fact weak-tight. Since you are against a calling station, then a call makes more sense here.
Well in fact he is very tight and usually pays in Omaha only when he has the nuts, but you're right he will never be agressive and raise for a lot of money, just call. It's the reason why I post this hand because I wonder how this type of guy can have called on the turn with HIS hand and this flop ? He later explained to me that the 2 on the turn could not have helped me and so I was clearly bluffing but I answered I would have played the same with 57.
One hour after this hand I lost my 2nd buy-in of the night, in 7CS 8 or better when the same guy raised on 3rd street with a 4 showing, a 9 called, a Q reraised, I with AA/Q reraised all-in, he fold, the 9 and the Q called and I lost with my pair of aces against the 9 who made a set and the pair of Q ...
But this is not the point. The guy in question fold rolled up 4 !!! He later explained he was anxious to put all his money on 3rd street in HiLo against 3 opponents.
...
*How to win at stud poker by James Wickstead 1938 *How to win at poker by Terence Reese and Anthony T. Watkins 1964 *Money poker by Mr. x 1983
I dont know if them are good but them are available in gamblers book shop.
Tom
*Complete guide to winning poker by Albert Moorehead.
Tom
20-40 7cs.
I am the bring in with the 4h. I have 4d, Ac in the hole.
Best player (definitely a pro who I know puts in forty profitable hours at least a week at this game or at ones slightly larger--i.e. 30-60) raises on my immediate left with the As showing. He could raise with anything here, the board is weak (only one picture card and four clubs dead) and he will raise with a small pair, ace kicker, or a three flush in spades, or three big cards--my having Ac makes the chance of him having aces less likely.
Everyone folds and I call. I think this play was wrong, and I should have folded, but I'm sure at some limits in stud this is a call. What are those limits? 30-60 with $5 ante and $10 bring in? 40-80 with $10 ante? $75-150 with $15 ante? How about 15-30 where the ante is proportionately smaller but I would be getting bette odds on the call (10 to 36 rather than 15 to 49). This is really why I am posting...
next I catch the 5h, he bets, and I fold--much to his surprise. I think I should have folded on third, but a raise on fourth would be a better play than the fold, but I'm not sure (the raise would be pretty much a pure bluff, although catching another straight or flush card would possibly allow me to take it on fifth) because i am almost sure that this player would reraise here and fourth would cost me three bets. Comments on this brilliant play welcome...
I like it when someone asks a good question and then answers it well. Saves a lot of work.
In fact, Russ Garber answered it perfectly for 20-40 not just well like the Chris. But Chris asked about higher limits. Is the play the same or do you play a hand like this aggressively say at 60-120 with a high ante.
Vince
Maybe with (1) a very loose (i.e. will raise with total blanks in the hole) stealer (2) in a super high ante game like 40-80 ($10) or 80-160 ($20) when (3) you have a live 2-flush, and (4) he either folds his steals easily or is way too passive on the later streets when he doesn't improve. Even so, fours are a problem since there are few scare cards you can catch and even with blanks he likely has all overcards to your pair. This call is probably only minimally profitable even under the best conditions, if at all. I agree that many players are too passive in high-ante games, but this is not the ideal situation to get involved. Note that your improvements will be obvious to him, while you will have very little information as to where he stands.
Let's make the game short handed or heads up, high ante. Then?
Vince.
The only reason to play this hand is if you think the opponent has a weak hand (or maybe a tell that gives away his hand), so that you can make a move to get him out somewhere along the way. Of course, it also helps if he will call if you make open 4's (if you read it wrong and he has a good hand)but this is not a reason for calling alone. If he is a solid player, get OUT, UNLESS the above condition is met. Maybe you have seen him steal often and fold to a reraise or you know he bets through til 5th and folds for a 5th street raise if he does not have a good pair. THEN, the hand becomes playable. Chasing with 4's and dead kicker is not a profitible play by itself (hoping to improve to maybe win).
Depending on the player, if I called 3rd, drew seemingly good, and got bet into, I might fold on 4th anyway. But if the player was at all weak, a raise is in order as you will not be reraised, might win it on 5 with a good card, and might get a free one anyway. But if you raise on 4 and buy bad and he checks, then you MUST bet on 5 because he would not check a good pair if you broke off to say, an offsuit 9. In a hand like this (if you play it), you absolutely cannot afford to miss an opportunity to win the pot with a bet.
The guy is solid, and I should have gotten out and moved to the next hand.
When I posted, i was wondering: in a game with more than twice as high an ante (i.e. the $10 ante 40-80 stud) which I know from this forum you play, is this still a fold? I guess it would be from your post, based more on the fact that this guy could outplay me, than on my chances of outdrawing him or making a better hand. it seems that this is only a playable hand against a bad player, and even then not all the time.
I understand the second part of your post, and I was thinking about these things on 4th. It would have cost me a minimum of $80 to see sixth street or to get him to lay it down on sixth ($40 on 4, and my bet [if he checked on 5]of another $40 on 5) and I just wasn't prepared to invest $80 to win about $80. With any other player at that table, I might have thought more seriously about it.
Actually, this hand is even worse against a bad player, unless the bad player is so bad that you are willing to call on the end with your low pair. The point is that you might be able to get the "good" player off the hand, while the bad player is more likely to go down to the end with you, regardless of his holdings.
You are correct, it is better to fold unless you believe it is an outright steal, and then you can move the hand, maybe even by reraising on 3. Solid players have trouble putting money in with weak hands.
You had no call unless you had an overcard to his possible pair (A's).
5-10,.50Ante,2bring-in. (No Suits) Third street #1 xx/Qxxx/x, #3 xx/5xxx/x, Me #5 K3/3xxx/K, #6 xx/6785/x, #7 xx/Jxxx/x. Third street I bring it in and get 4 callers $10 + $4 ante=$14. Fourth street Q bets 5 and all 4 call total=$39. Fifth and sixth street get checked around. River the Q starts and it is checked to me. The player with the straight has been catching flushes and straights since the game started there was one 9 out. I figure he's got to bet and I'm going to call him. He doesn't bet and I win the pot with K's over 3's.
My question is should I have bet??
thanks paul
If you bet, don't you think that he might raise with a straight, which he could easily have (with seven outs going to the river), or just fold if he has nothing, but if you check, he might bet as a bluff?
I would have checked also. True, you might have won an additional bet from another two pair (js up or qs up), but with everyone showing so much weakness, I think the net would have been the same.
Seems like your best shot is checking and hoping to snap off a bluff, or to win it in a showdown.
Hi Paul, I think I might have raised 4th st just because of position, it might get some draws out, and I will get a free card if I want on 5th st. Important thing is that I will like to get some people out, and a raise on 4th st is a cheap raise. On the river I might check, but my experience has been that over 50% of those small straights turn out to be small 2 pairs (would he have stayed with a x5/6 or more likely with x6/6, or TT/6. I probably would bet the river and hope for a call by the possible straight. If he raised me, I would fold
On third street, consider raising when it comes back around to you if that will get the pot heads-up.
On fourth street, you should have raised the queen's bet to lose the others. You don't want busted 3-draws to see fifth cheaply, and if you can get the queens alone you might be able to win with two small pair.
I would generally check the river. Note that a lot depends on what exactly the "xxx" on your opponents' board are - the jack may be on a draw also. The possible straight won't bluff into four opponents, but the risk of a bet here is too great compared to the potential gain - people won't call with anything in this small a pot and it's likely that everyone is weak.
"On third street, consider raising when it comes back around to you if that will get the pot heads-up."
(I was the bring in nobody raised.)
"On fourth street, you should have raised the queen's bet to lose the others. You don't want busted 3-draws to see fifth cheaply, and if you can get the queens alone you might be able to win with two small pair."
(I probably should of dropped, but with all the players in I really didn't have a multiway hand so I called. If I had a three flush or straight I would of raised.)
"The possible straight won't bluff into four opponents, but the risk of a bet here is too great compared to the potential gain - people won't call with anything in this small a pot and it's likely that everyone is weak."
(The possible straight had two pairs and still didn't bet 7's & 8's. This blew my mind he had second best with a possible no-call and still didn't bet.)
Paul
dearest paul,
i like to bet on the end since im going to call and it seems that most times people wont fold smaller two pair without seeing that they are beat. yet they wont bet them as often. if you get raised you can fold if you feel you are not being bluffed.
Thank you Ray that's exactly how I felt I should of played it.
I owe you ONE!!!
Playing Omaha High with the 5th card started out well but been getting killed the last 4 times. Bought Bob Caiffione book it is excellent but I still didn't win today. Patience the Nuts and I'll be fine!!
Paul
Paul,
Is that ONE:
O = Old
N = Nasty
E = Egghead
If so, I don't believe that mass of white on Zee's dome is a mess of eggwhites. But you never know.
Vince.
Vince that's not fair you helping out Zee like that he would of never figured it out and he would of slept well thinking I gave him a compliment.
InVinceable(IVA)
I play in a wild 6-12 Omaha game. It often gets capped 5-6 way before the flop and on the flop. The pots get huge and I wonder whether to call on the flop with backdoor draws. Example:
I have AsJsQc10h and the flop comes 2s3c10d. How much has to be in the pot before I call 12 bucks on the flop (knowing it might go to 24)? I have runner-runner nut flush possibilities, runner-runner straight possibilities, etc. Is $138 enough? (That would be what's in there if it's capped 5-way before the flop, then a bet and raise to me if I'm third to act on the flop.)
Is there a good rule of thumb for figuring out whether to call with many runner-runner possibilities in these huge pots? Would I be giving away much if I chose NEVER to call on runner-runner chances?
.
High only.
Crash -
Figuring the odds of catching runner-runner after the flop seems not too difficult. You presumably see seven cards after the flop, leaving 45 in the pack. Let's say you have 4 outs for one runner and 4 outs for the other runner. In that case the probability of hitting runner-runner is 16/990 = 0.016. In other words, it's over sixty one to one that you'll miss. To justify spending twelve dollars for the bet after the flop there would have to be more than seven hundred dollars in the pot at the showdown. However, if there was seven hundred dollars in the pot at the showdown, then you'd also have to put some more money in the pot after the turn, making your combined pot odds even worse.
I only play Omaha high/low where making such a gamble would be very very foolish indeed (especially considering that with this particular flop you would probably be getting only half the pot in Omaha high/low).
Hope this helps.
Buzz
On the turn there are four Ks and 10 spades that can help you. However 2 of the spades will pair the board, so you've got 12 outs. If you hit a non-king spade on the turn you have 11 outs on the river. That's a little worse than 14 to 1. You might need 170 in the pot to call 12.
There are implied odds to be considered, but in my limited experience, more than one Broadway can show up on the end, so hitting the king might split the pot.
I would best for a real Omaha hi player to show up and advise us on what to do here. In a game where everyone shows down on the end, this might be a good call, but otherwise I have some doubts.
Also, any 9 gives me an open ender. Getting a Q or J on the turn isn't bad either: I get top two and a gutshot. I just don't know a quick way to calculate all this at the table.
Bear in mind that the following calculation might be WRONG, but it seems to me that the two posts here already are mistaken. Both ignore the chance of getting the nut straight on the next two cards. Suppose one wants to know the chance of catching either the nut flush or nut straight, without the board pairing (except for TT to split the pot with another ATxx). I also ignored straight flush possibilities for the other players (one takes ones chances, I suppose).
The possibilities are: (1) two running spades could hit (2) an 8 could hit, then a 9 (for 89TJQ) (3) a 9 could hit, then an 8 (for 89TJQ) or K (for TJQKA) (4) a Q could hit, then a K (for TJQKA) (5) a K could hit, then a 9 (for 9TJQK) or A (for TJQKA) (6) an A could hit, then a K (for TJQKA) (7) two running tens (for TTTA)
I came out with the following calculation (not ordered as just above). There are 2 cards to catch w/ just one out on the river (2/1980). There are 11 cards to catch w/ 4 outs on the river (44/1980). There are 4 cards to catch w/ 7 outs on the river (28/1980). There are 6 cards to catch w/ 8 outs on the river (48/1980). There are 2 cards to catch w/ 10 outs on the river (20/1980). There are 2 cards to catch w/ 13 outs on the river (26/1980).
Combining all of this together (properly, I hope) gives us 168/1980 = 8.4848% = 10.8:1 against.
The implied odds are of course relevant here too (as Troell points out). Whether to go for it or not is beyond my abilities, but it looks like the straight possibilities makes the situation significantly better mathematically than it might have looked at first.
I doubt there is a practical way to do these calculations at the table, but I think that you can learn to estimate the odds as you practice. In this example, it would seem you have about half the deck, i.e. every card higher than an eight and most low spades, that will enable you to continue with positive expectation on the turn. You would then have different number of outs on the turn. Some cards, like a king or a spade with a draw to a straight or a boat, gives you a lot of outs, while sometimes you only have six outs (when you have a straight draw with two diamonds or clubs on board). I would have guessed you have roughly 20% on average, which gives us about 50% * 20% = 10% chance of hitting. Then I would think you would sometimes win with non-nut flushes and straights, trips, and top two pair, so you would actually win more than 10% of the time. We cannot be sure somebody has trips on the flop in this "wild game" just because there is a bet and a raise.
Calculating the exact odds doesn't give you that much if you don't know the price you will have to pay, which is just as important. What if all five opponents just call the two bets on the flop and everybody just calls one bet on the turn? Considering that you only call 50% of the time on the turn, you now wager on average ~$18 to win $258+implied, i.e. 13:1+, but if it gets capped on the flop and turn with just three players, you pay ~$48 to win $354+, which is only 6.3:1+. (By the way, it doesn't hurt you much if it goes to four bets on the turn as long as all four players are with you, since your draw will be about 4:1.) So you would have to guess your pot odds too. Seeing that they can vary this much, it doesn't seem that important if we're a few percent off in our runner-runner calculations.
Would I be giving away much if I chose NEVER to call on runner-runner chances?
If you were last to act and only had to call one bet on the flop, then folding would certainly be very bad. It would seem to me you can call the double bet on the flop in your example. Needless to say, most runner-runner draws would not be worth it.
--- Chris Callahan
Crash - Perhaps I was too brief in my original (and generalized) reply above.
I agree with Chris Callahan. I got a different result than either Keith Troell or Earl Anderson. My (more specific than before) reasoning follows.
You can either make (1) an ace high straight or (2) a straight that isn’t ace high, in which case a nine would have to be involved. To make (1) a straight involving an ace, you need one runner to be a king and the other runner to be either ace, queen, or jack. To make (2) a straight not involving an ace, you need one runner to be a nine and the other runner to be either king or eight. (3) You need any two spades out of ten to make a flush. (4) You make a full house with a ten plus either ace, queen, or jack, and you make quads with two tens.
(1) The number of two-card-combos making you an ace high straight are 4*9 = 36.
(2) The number of two-card-combos enabling a straight involving the nine are 4*8 = 32.
(3) The number of two card combos enabling a flush are 10*9/(1*2) = 45. Then you need to subtract the two-card-combos which enable both a straight and a flush (there are 3 of them).
(4) The number of two-card-combos enabling a full house for you is 2*9 = 18. Then you need to subtract one combo which already has been counted above as a flush combo (queen of spades + ten of spades). Finally, add one combo for the two tens.
Thus the total number of two-card-combos you like are 36 + 32 + 45 - 3 + 18 - 1 + 1 = 128.
Pretty hard to keep all those numbers (36+32+45-3+18-1+1) straight while playing cards, but if you can combine those seven numbers in your head, then just divide the sub-total of 128 by 990, the total number of two-card-combos after you have seen your hand and the flop. To approximate the division, just move the decimal over three places to the left. Thus 128/990 becomes approximately 0.128. That’s pretty close to the actual quotient (0.129), which is the probability you will make a straight or a flush. Makes the odds 871 to 129 against, or 6.75 to 1 against (almost 7 to 1 against).
If you have the kind of mathematical brain that can handle those mental gymnastics, then you’re all set, at least as far as figuring the odds.
Turns out (I think) that if you’re sure you will have five opponents all the way to the river, then it’s favorable for you to play the hand (assuming you will fold if you don’t catch the first runner and also assuming you will also fold if you don’t catch the second runner).
With only four or less opponents, I think, it’s unfavorable for you to play.
Hope I have the numbers correct. Whether or not I do, I think the approach outlined is the correct general approach. Hope this helps.
Buzz
All the math advice you are getting here is well and good, but it misses the point. It's not very important to know whether your odds are 7.5 - 1 or 8 -1. Much more important is your knowledge of the players in the hand. The big questions to ask here are whether you are likely to be raised if you call, whether someone already has a set, what the action will be like on the turn, etc. Errors in these judgements swamp any errors made from forgetting an 'out' or two in your calculations (which you won't be able to make at the table anyway).
Instead of expending your effort trying to figure out those exact odds, just try to learn the recognize profitable situations. If you flop a bunch of backdoor outs and the pot is large, GOOD ENOUGH. Now expend your effort trying to figure out where you stand. Watch the players behind you, look at who called and from what position, how the betting is going, etc.
For example, let's say the flop is AcQh3s, and there's a bet and a call before you, by a couple of very tight players in early position. You've got something like KhQhTs9s. Can you call? You've got middle pair, a gutshot for the nuts, a backdoor second-nut flush draw, and a backdoor ten high flush draw. There are two people left to act behind you.
At this point, what are the most important factors in this decision? Is it the exact amount of money in the pot? Nope. As long as it's in the ballpark, small differences are trivial. What's important is the fact that you're probably already looking at top two pair or a set, meaning your queen is no good and the board can't pair if you make a straight or a flush, and a tight early position caller probably has the same straight draw, although maybe with 9 outs. So you lose one of your gutshot outs, and your gutshot is probably going to split the pot (in my experience, gutshots to broadway are almost always bad calls, because they usually split the pot and/or have fewer outs than you think.)
Next most important is the chance that someone will raise behind you, and with a flop like this there's a pretty good possibility.
Next, I'd want to get a feel for whether my backdoor flush draws are any good. Again, with the first two players indicating they have a fistful of big cards in their hands I'd have to degrade that possibility somewhat.
Overall, in this particular example what looks like a pretty easy call with a large pot would be, in my mind, an easy fold.
Learn to know what's important and what isn't, and expend your energies accordingly.
Has anyone ever "ranked" (by a point system) the opening 4 card draw in a hi/low omaha game?....
Tom - Yes. There are several.
(1) Cappelletti in "Cappelletti on Omaha" has a point system for Omaha high plus an "add on" modification for Omaha high/low (but don't take this as a recommendation to buy his book).
(2) Ed Hutchison has an Omaha high/low point system listed on his web site. Poke around on r.g.p. and you'll run across it. If you can't find it, e-mail me and I'll send it to you.
(3) I understand there is one on Wilson's software Omaha high/low program. (I have Wilson's program but can't get it to run on my Mac, even with Virtual P.C. I keep putting off buying a windows based computer which may be needed to run the software. My wife already thinks I've gone nuts about poker. She might want me committed if I buy a second computer.)
However, I'm not sure a point system for opening hands is all that helpful. I believe Dan Hanson is correct in what he writes, especially about being able to compute the odds on a complex hand, such as the one involved in this thread, at the table. Dan has also written elsewhere that he doesn't think a point count system is helpful. Dan seems always right on the button.
I think Ray Zee has also stated that a point count system is not very helpful. His excellent book does not have a point count system.
I used a point count system for a while shortly after I started playing Omaha high/low in earnest. I agree with Dan and Ray. If you follow the starting hand advice in Ray's book, you won't be far from wrong, at least as far as Omaha high/low is concerned.
If you're playing Omaha high only, get Ciaffone's book, and also Cloutier's book. (They both also have some good advice for high/low).
Steve Badger wrote somewhere that you should play an average of about one hand a round, except for the blinds, in Omaha high/low. I've been following Steve's advice pretty closely and usually end up at the final table in the tournaments in which I play.
Hope this helps. I just tried to answer the original poster's question. But Dan Hanson is right, I think. Other things matter more.
regards,
Buzz
"That would be what's in there if it's capped 5-way before the flop, then a bet and raise to me if I'm third to act on the flop.)"
Dan answered the question but pos'n is very important in this game. If you feel you can get in for just one bet then a call is in order. You already have a raise to you and could be raised again after you call. I would probably fold here and wait for a better flop. If you were in late pos'n and had more control you might want to stay for a raise or two for the turn. It is up to the players, but I can't see that flop hitting anyone too good unless you play with players who hold onto small pairs.
good luck paul
Looking for some tips on starting requirements in a stud game I have been playing recently in San Jose, CA. The table has a mixture of tight and loose players, with most being a little loose. The ante is $1 with a $1 bring in. The rake is $4 a hand w/8 and $3 with 6-7. If there is no completion of the bet on third street five to seven limp in, otherwise four to six are in for the next card, depending on the position of the raiser. Raises on third street are happening a little less than 50% of the time.
This is what I have been playing, but I am still getting my butt kicked:
In early-mid position:
I raise with any premium pair 10-A.
I call with any lower pair with a Q-A kicker if none of my pair are out and one or less of my kicker up.
I call with any 3card flush draw if 2 or less of my suit are out
I call with any straight draw 7-8-9 or better
I will call a smaller straight draw if 2 are suited and one or less of the suit is on the board
In late position:
I will raise with trips or pairs Q-A with a 10-A kicker when two are suited and I see hardly any faces and any of my suits.
I will call with any premium pair 10-A; I have previously raised in this position, but I get no one knocked out 90% of the time and get outdrawn.
I will call with a small-medium pairs with a crap kicker if I am last or next to last in position and none showing.
On fourth street: On any bet, I will fold my straight or flush draws if I catch a blank. I will fold my small-medium pairs if I catch a blank and/or I see my card shown. I will call with my bigger pairs if I don't see one come out I will call with any three flush-pair or three straight pair I will call (raise occasionally) with a four flush I will call (raise often if cards are live) with two pair I will call (raise often) with trips I will call with a four straight (never raise)
These decisions to not cover every situation, but are the basics.
I find I am having the most trouble on fifth and sixth streets: Many times I find myself on fifth street with a high pair and a $8 bet to me with a $40-$50 pot and two to act behind me. I am wondering if I am calling too much in this situation, because I usually will. Occasionally, a raise will come behind me and I must throw it away. If no raise, then often I will be on sixth street with a high pair and the bet will come again, with me and one other that called before. Here too the pot is now at $60-$75. I have been calling these bets a lot too. The reason is I have been watching and playing for a while, and quite often one pair or two pair are taking the pots after consecutive rounds of betting on 4th thru 6th, while the bettors are betting on the come and usually miss. Too keep these calls profitable, how often should I be taking the pot after a showdown?
I'm sure I'm missing some information here, but any help is appreciated. Thanks.
"On fourth street: On any bet, I will fold my straight or flush draws if I catch a blank."
It is wrong to fold these automatically here, especially in a high-ante game like the one you describe.
Remember that your high pairs play best heads-up. Do what it takes to limit the field. Bet into a strong board, or check raise the likely bettor. Do this even with the second-best hand, as the dead money in the pot will make chasing worth it.
Hi Chris, I sometimes play in a 2-5, $1 ante game and I've found a few things that might help.
Generally in a high ante, stealing antes is a necessary tactic, but your game sounds like it also very loose, so you have to be very selective about steals. Wait for the right opponents and position.
While you can't be a rock, you might tighten up in a couple of places:
While draws gain value in a loose game, pairs loose some value.
<>
Try limiting this to times when you have all eight cards live at both ends.
<>
I usually wait till only one or less is dead and I also have at least a Queen high.
<> << I will call with a small-medium pairs with a crap kicker>>
These are more likely to give you a second best hand. Try playing high pairs strongly, but give them up when necessary. Instead of focusing on only your hand and trying to have rigid starting requirements, look at the board. I'll raise or check raise with 88 or above if there are no over cards showing, but I'll throw QQ if there are two or three Aces or Kings on board.
The high ante is great because some players think that it means you can't ever fold. You have to be very careful not to get trapped with a lot of second best hands.
It's hard to figure exactly, but I think I make more than 3 bets an hour by playing somewhat tight and very carefully in games of this type. Over all, much better than in low or no-ante games.
DJ
The way I understand it, the rake is taken from the antes, so the effective ante is just $0.50, which is not a very large one for a 4-8 game.
I will call with any premium pair 10-A; I have previously raised in this position, but I get no one knocked out 90% of the time and get outdrawn.
This line of reasoning is meaningless and I think you know it. Are you claiming that they make money when you raise on third street with As8sAc and they call with 3s5h7d and 7s9hKh? Don't overestimate people calling with crap. The way I see it, it is important to charge them on third and fourth before their hands become too hopeless.
As for your play on later streets, it is hard to speak in general of the situations you mention. You cannot play your hand for it's absolute value only, and do well. You have to consider the players, what they catch, and how they play, as much as you consider the strength of your own hand.
I think your third street requirements look reasonable, perhaps on the loose side if you want to play really solid. IMO, your overall strategy looks somewhat passive.
I find I am having the most trouble on fifth and sixth streets: Many times I find myself on fifth street with a high pair and a $8 bet to me with a $40-$50 pot and two to act behind me.
Sometimes, if the players' boards look very scary, you need to fold. If you don't fold, you need to put pressure on your opponents. For example, if someone bets on fifth and you are afraid of two pair, you might want to raise with a quality pair. Reasons to do this include: (1) You may have the best hand. As you say, players often bet on the come. (2) The bettor will frequently just call and check on sixth with two small pair. If you don't improve, you can take a free card on sixth. (3) You might knock out tight players behind you who you don't want in the pot. (4) You make loose players behind you pay without the proper odds to do so. (5) People will not read you easily when you have big hands.
To make calling down profitable you obviously must expect to win often enough to more than make up for the times when you don't win. Example: On sixth street the pot is $60. If you look a player up for $8 a round heads-up, the final pot will be $92, and you will pay $16 for a chance to win it. You need to win about 1 in 6 (92/16) pots to show a profit in the long run. For much the same reasons as listed above, you might also want to raise in this situation.
Good luck.
--- Chris Callahan
Chris,
You got some great responses here. Read them all especially Chris Callahan's. Your problem in my humble opinion is not what hands you are playing but how you are playing them. I agree with Chris that you need to get a little more aggressive especially on the later streets. Now my buddy "Dangerous Dan" will tell you that the more bad players in a game the better. I believe just the opposite is true. Low limit poker is very tough to beat. I'm sure there are some that beat it but they are probably very disciplined and have an understanding of the game that is beyond mine. I prefer poker 7 stud games where I can get an opponent heads up on 5th street. In low limit poker with lot's of callers the trick is to tighten up your staring hands somewhat and play them correctly. Correctly usually means aggressively.
Just a point about your starting hands. Small pairs even with a Q-A kicker unless they are exteremely live are not good multiway hands. Multiway poker is big hand poker. Straights and flushes go up in value. Small split pairs go down in value unless most of your opponents are so poor that they will routinely call paired door cards. Live flush cards should be taken to fifth street unless it is too costly or your opponents boards are very strong. Be very careful with straight draws below Q,J,T.
If you never raise a four straight on fourth street then you do not understand the concept of "free cards". That requires a trip to your poker library for a quick refresher. Small pairs with 2 big live kickers are also fourth street raise candidates.
You appear to have a fair understanding of starting hands. I would brush up on my tactics and when to apply them. Especially raising, reraising and check raising. I would also consider playing at the 10-20 level if you have the bankroll. It would be even better if you became a bit more aggressive and move to 15-30 if you can afford it. At 15-30 you begin to be able to isolate on one opponent more frequently.
Well hope that helps.
vince.
I am not a professional player or critic, but its sounds to me that your game is pretty solid except for on e thing I found out from my playing. Your play doesn't get the respect it deserves. That is you are playing strong according to your standards, but since you haven't been able to beat the game your oppenents have no respect for your play. Burn them a couple of times and they will respect your bets and your play, and they will loose confidence in their own actions. I play LL and when I win early I have their repect and their attention with my play. Don't know if this will help you, but I know this works for me at every session I sit down in. Good Luck.
Chris:
I'd invest $29.95 and buy Roy West's book. It has helped me tremendously at the 1-5 tables in Vegas.
Good Luck and study hard!
What is the chance of any one hand making a flush in seven card stud? Assume showdown poker, and also assume there is a joker that is good for flushes.
You are not getting good enough odds to call the bets on the turn. When you have two low cards on the flop someone must be in there with a low draw. If you do make your hand you will be spliting the pot.
Before you act on the turn there is $30 in the pot. After UTG bets and someone raises there is now $42 in the pot. You will have to call a $12 bet to win $21. Fold. I think you got a poor flop to this hand and should have folded on the flop after the first bet.
I play this game very tight, that being said the only way you can play that hand in the first place is for "free" in your position. After the flop any bet would muck that hand in my playbook.
You have to fold here.
The pot is laying you 4-1 by my calculations. Your odds of making a boat are approximately 7-1, and you still might lose. But even worse, you can assume you are only winning half the pot, so you are really getting 2-1. Very easy fold.
In fact, 3 pair is usually pretty terrible in (loose) 0/8, because you are almost always drawing to only half the pot.
Haven't been to Vegas since 1996. I know a lot of new casinos with Poker rooms have opened since then. When I was there last time I had only been playing a year and was strickly LL 1-5. I only play stud but will try HE while there. Checking my records I realize I only played Sahara, Stardust, Riveria,Binnions and Rio (no poker room anymore). Since I play 5-10 and 10-20 now. I would appreciate a run down on rooms, when games are available etc. And if your in Vegas around March 29th to April 3rd I'd appreciate a chance to take some of your money. THE KOUNT
Your an idiot
THE DUKE
...........put>qs
........put qs>
........putqs>
That's "you're" an idiot. "Your" is a possessive, "You're" is the contraction for "You are" as in "You're illiterate." ;)
Kount,
Please use a different forum for such pragmatic, non-strategic questions in the future. Thank you, and good luck in LV.
WFM
There any good books dealing specifically with 0/8, good playing strategies, odds, etc.?
Ray Zee's High-Low-Split-Poker for strategy. Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Holdem Poker deals with odds and other issues.
Get both books.
I really like T.J.'s book on Omaha, as well as the ones by Ray Zee and the Coach.
I recently have read the T.J. Omaha Book, and there is some questionable advice, but I think most of it is good. I'll read through it again and maybe I can find it and post it here for discussion.
thanks for the help
Ah well, I knew it was a bad call - just hoping maybe there was some glimmer of rationale in it...
*sigh* That's the last time I play Omaha at the end of a 15-hour session...
Thanks for all your responses!
~DjTj
In all the years I've been playing poker I've never flopped two sets in Omaha or had Aces and Kings double suited in Omaha (high or high-low).
Conversely I've had a dozen or so royal flushes in holdem.
No.
I don't think you have enough outs to call w/ the low out there, regardless of the other problems with your hand.
I believe there are 16 small bets in the pot, it is four small bets to you, you have (probably) fewer than nine outs, and are drawing to half of the pot, therefore the pot is offering you two to one odds on what is at best a 4 to one draw.
you have probably fewer than nine outs because it is safe to say with five people calling the flop that some of your full house cards are dead.
This is not withstanding the fact that there could be more bets and raises to cut your odds down even further, that three of your outs are for the lowest possible full house, and all the other bad things.
I've found that getting a free play in the blind in Omaha can be more expensive than being raised out.
Once a year we play a freezeout tournament that is completely dealer's choice. Start with 3 tables, and the game becomes no limit at the final table.
What would you consider the greatest dealer advantage game under these conditions?
[One player was dealing 5-stud lowball with a twist. Bigtime advantage to the dealer, but the 5 betting intervals puts the short stack at a disadvantage, I think.]
Pot-limit Omaha high.
The games are dealer's choice, but the limits are fixed (or in the case of the final table, unlimited).
While I applaud the savvy player who dealt five-stud lowball with a twist because of its definite advantage for the dealer, I would suggest that the old "home games" of Lucy and Oths also favor the dealer.
What method does one use to compute the odds to hit a hand with two cards to come, for example, combined odds to hit a flush on the turn or river after the flop has produced a four flush. I realize that you have approximately 20% chance on the turn and river respectively to hit your flush card. Are the probabilities simply added together to get the combined odds for the two? Is it 40%?
On a related Omaha 8 question: my hand is 10QKA suits irrelevant the flop comes 89J two flush Is it correct to play this straight fast if you are sure another player is drawing to the flush? This is an action game, an A2 will draw to a backdoor low and bottom straight will not fold. There are 10 big bets in the pot after the flop and any where from 10 to 12 more will go in. It will probably cost me 3 to 5 more big bets to play the hand fast. If the game were tighter should the hand be played differently?
It's a little less than 40%, since you could get flush cards on the turn and river, and that would only count once. If you have AsAc2s3c, and the flop is KsJs8d, nine cards out of 45 will give you the flush on the turn. In the 36/45 of the time you don't get the flush on the turn, you have a 9/44 chance of getting it on the river. So the total chance is (9/45)+(36/45)(9/44).
To answer your second question, you would generally play fast even when it won't knock anyone out. There is still a decent chance your hand will hold up, and you almost certainly have better than average value for the field.
In a tighter game, you would still play this hand fast. It is far too vulnerable to be slowplayed.
Joe -
"What method does one use to compute the odds to hit a hand with two cards to come, for example, combined odds to hit a flush on the turn or river after the flop has produced a four flush. I realize that you have approximately 20% chance on the turn and river respectively to hit your flush card. Are the probabilities simply added together to get the combined odds for the two? Is it 40%?"
No. It's not 40%. The probabilities are not simply added. Dan's method is the classic way to do the math.
"On a related Omaha 8 question: my hand is 10QKA suits irrelevant the flop comes 89J two flush Is it correct to play this straight fast if you are sure another player is drawing to the flush? This is an action game, an A2 will draw to a backdoor low and bottom straight will not fold. There are 10 big bets in the pot after the flop and any where from 10 to 12 more will go in. It will probably cost me 3 to 5 more big bets to play the hand fast. If the game were tighter should the hand be played differently?"
If it's a loose game the answer depends on how many players are in the game. With a full table (8 or 9 players, 6 or 7 of whom are usually seeing the flop), you're asking to get "rivered" with this hand. You might consider folding, even though you have the best hand at the moment. Someone probably has a flush draw and someone else probably has a full house draw. There aren't many safe cards left after you add up all the cards you don't want to see on the turn and the river. Your best strategy IMO (Thanks again, Andy) is to check and duck.
It's a different story in a tight game. The hand may hold up, mainly because fewer players are seeing the flop, but also because fewer players are making poor draws.
In a loose game, someone could have a cheese hand (such as Q,J,9,2), see the flop, like the flop, and stay in to outdraw you. Someone else could have ten, five in the flush suite (as part of another cheese hand), and also stay in to outdraw you. When you add up all the crazy hands people might be holding, there are too many ways for you to get beaten. That scenario would be unlikely in a tight game.
In either a short handed loose game or in a tight game, I would play 10QKA with a flop 89J two suited "fast," as Dan suggests.
Just my opinion. I certainly am not always correct.
Buzz
If the game is loose and there is a two flush on the flop I will play this type of hand in late position. If I only have to call one bet, I will call it. In these loose games the flush will call a raise on the flop. Why build a big pot for him to win? I would wait until the turn. If the flush does not come on the turn, I will reraise anyone that bets. By waiting for the turn to raise you reduce the odds for him to call two big bets.
If the game is tight, where I believe I could get the the hand played shorthanded I will raise.
Momentary brain-lapse by my opponent or what? I thought this was a bad fold by him.
$75-$150 7-card stud. I have the bring in with QQ/2. There are 2 Aces on board and the rest of the cards are all low cards below 8. 2 fold, 1st Ace folds, 2 more fold, 2nd Ace raises, folded to me, I call. The raiser I have played with only once. He is selective, disciplined and pretty strong. Yet he is in an obvious steal position and will steal when the opportunity is there.
4th street: me QQ/2A him xx/A8, he bets, I raise, he looks and goes "Got Aces and deuces?". He calls.
5th street: me QQ/2A4 him xx/A82, he checks, I bet, he calls.
6th street: me QQ/2A42 him xx/A82J, I bet, he turns his hole cards up (Ax) and folds his Aces.
After I saw his hands I was happy to take the pot right there. The way he played his hand I was surprised that he had the real Aces, and even more surprised that he mucked them especially since he should know that I would not have defended with split deuces. I thought my Queens were good after catching the Ace on 4th.
You're right.
Once you catch the third A, it seems more likely has has something other than an A in the hole. Either a pocket pair or 2 big cards, most likely. Maybe 2 cards of any rank suited to the A.
Once he catches a 2 on 5th street, he shouldn't give you credit for split 2s when you catch another 2 on 6th street. I would put you on a pocket pair as your most likely hand.
Given the size of the pot, I would call and hope to make aces up.
I think the really hard question for Mr. Aces is whether he should call you down with unimproved aces. That depends entirely upon the chances that you don't have that pocket pair, which depends almost entirely upon the chances that you're raise on 4th street was a "delayed resteal". Would you ever make such a play without a pair, and does he know that? Tough play, but maybe it's an easy fold with unimproved aces and I'm a stud dud.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
it sounds a little strange, doesn't it.
stud stud. stud stud. stud stud. huh
scott
There's a lot of information that he may have had that you didn't put in your post - if several of his cards were dead, he may not have felt he had pot odds for the call.
Using only the information in your post, he has 10 outs to aces up - and no outs to trip aces.
You have 3 outs to a full house.
There pot is giving him 7:1 right now on his call. His ten outs give him almost 2:1. Factoring in your 3 redraws, he has 3:1. Its still a very clear call. Perhaps several of his cards were dead...The line comes around 5 dead cards - its possible he saw more than 5 dead cards, and that would justify his move.
Otherwise, he probably made a big mistake by folding as it was pretty obvious you had a wired pair.
~DjTj
Great post, DjTj. I agree absolutely. I would have called on 6th with Aces simply because if the size of the pot unless I saw a lot of my outs on board. Overall, the QQ's played correctly and the AA made a mistake by not calling. Of course it was not my money.
He probably thought that little rock you had on a table was the third deuce.
I think he made a bad fold.
Omaha PL Blinds 200/400 i have small blind. Holding 8x8c7x9c. Button raises i call others Fold. Flop 8d7h9x i check he bets i call.Turn 7d now i checked stupidly( mention that i was shortstacked had only T 800 left).He checked too.River Jh. I go all in he calls. Tourney was over for me he turns JdJx10d10c.
He said to me if i go all in at fourth street he would have folded.Do you believe him. I know i gave him a freecard but i thought he would really called me anyway.
Unless he's a mind reader. There is no way he can be sure you have a full, and even if you do, he has 4 outs. He would have to be something like 80-90% sure you were already full for his fold to be correct (exact numbers depend upon the size of the pot, which you haven't told us).
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Played only a few rounds of it. I'm trying to get it called "Bama Stud". Nothing too radical, but it seems oddly "fresh" anyways.
Starts like 7 stud. Then two cards come at the same time ala "Mississippi stud". Then 6 and 7 cards are community cards with betting in between. Have played it hi-lo a couple of times too.
I like it all the way thru. Seems like you can play more hands at least for first round like in stud. But (borrowing from the "mississipi" inovation), you aren't married to it, and don't neccessarily regret getting out next betting round. Then having last 2 cards being exposed and community property gives you plenty to think about, and sort of like holdem presents lots of opportunities to make good laydowns or value bets that might seem wrong if you could only take into account the absolute strength of your hand.
It is so difficult for a non-expert to beat a table with a lower rake, that I would estimate a nonexpert can't beat the house here. Even an expert wouldn't be beating the game for much...
If the players are terrible, and the pots you win are huge, a nonexpert might stand a chance, but the fluctuations will be great.
This game will be impossible to beat unless the players are just absolutely giving their money away.
This is a huge ante for this game. I'm used to seeing a $1 ante for a 10-20 game, and only $0.50 for a 5-10 game. With antes this high, the normal strategy would be to play more loosely to avoid getting ante'd to death. However, with a the high rake, the opposite strategy applies (i.e., generally the higher the rake the tighter you should play, as your winning pots will be smaller). Thus, playing tight will not win here, because of the ante, while playing loose will still require that you really can outplay your opponents (even if it's only because they suck).
If you could get them to reduce the ante, you could better afford to play tight on 3rd street. Or, if you can get them to switch to a time charge, then you can better afford to play pots that are only marginally profitable (whereas now that marginal profit is eaten by the rake, so you avoid even coming in on 3rd).
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
what about 6-12 with 1 ante and 3 rake?
fd
i play 6-12 stud with 1 ante and 2 bring in with 3 rake. i find im playing tight on 3rd street, but am finding i play less than 10% of the hands. is this right? every once in a while i'll play a junk pair like 5s6s/ 5h , because people are bad and will pay if i pair my doorcard. im just wondering if this is normal, (ie, 2 or 3 hands an hour) or am i just in a bad run of cards.
brad
ps. ive only played about 150 hours.
The ante is pretty high in the game described, and the higher the ante, the more hands you want to play. The 5s6s/5h is not junk with no fives, no sixes, no spades, no 4's, and no 7's showing...in fact, with such a high ante, this hand is pretty good under the right conditions.
In the standard ten twenty game, with exactly the same ante as you game of only 60% the limit, you probably would throw the hand away unless most of the conditions above were met.
I have a question: Do you want to raise with this hand to get it heads up?
from my understanding, you would raise to get it heads up (if you thought you could get it heads up), only if the better probably had a big pair in the hole, so you could tell if he makes 2 pair. where i play most of the time its almost always family pots no matter what.
brad
"but am finding i play less than 10% of the hands. is this right?"
What do you consider playing a hand? You call the bring-in. You call a raise. You raise yourself. 10% is low especially in your 6-12 game with $1 ante. I think somewhere around 20% is where you should be.
You are in a game with a fairly high ante, and if you play stud well you should play more hands than if you play hold 'em well. (Your 10 percent figure is to tight.) I suggest that you may want to look at our stud book.
ja, i have 7cs for advanced players, its a great book, and i use those starting guidelines.
i was just wondering, if you play correctly, (like according to 7csfap), about what percent of start hands should you be playing. i may be playing very tight because the game i play in is way way loose and so i always get paid off good on good hands.
brad
Malmuth's advice is sound. I reread that book all the time. It is excellent. I have a copy in the bathroom. I also like Roy West's book.
The most important thing in 7CS low-mid limits (in my opinion) is knowledge of the opponents. It is often accomplished by watching from the rail or playing tightly for the first 30 minutes or so. You must know who are the rocks, who are agressive, who are the calling stations. You must be able to follow general rules and adjust them to fit the table. There are few absolutes at a poker table. To say only play x% would be incorrect. The percentage is determined by the type of game. Loose vs tight games dictate the type of hands one should play while passive vs agressive games dictate the number of hands one plays. So, there is so set rule.
After reading several posts in these forums the past few weeks, I think I came across a few posts that stated if you are a successfull poker player you could expect to get between 1-2 big bets per hour. This would seem to discount the proporotion of the rake to the size of the big bets. In my original post, I calculated a 13.75/pers/hour cost to sit at that 4-8 stud table. Thats close to 2 big bets/hour right there!! So the question is, at what limit does a $3-$4 rake become insignificant enough to say gaining 1-2 big bets per hour is successful? Any comments would be great. Thanks.
Chris
Actually, it does take that into account. However, it also takes into account that you typically face weaker opposition at lower limits. Thus, pre-rake, you should generally win more at low limits, but then you lose more to the rake. At high limits, you can't win as much pre-rake, but the rake has less effect.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
after a grueling 12 hr session of 1-5 stud i am left with a question about how one is able to win without getting winning hands. being new to the game i am having trouble with this concept. in the games i was playing, if i tried to bluff( say with four flush on board on 6th street) i would be called by at least one person and then subsequently by others who were fooled one but not twice. the hands were not comming( aces but no two pair, open ended four card straits, etc...) and if i did hit it was for small amounts. i thought i played pretty tight and i was just wondering how you back up a bluff if you dont hit the real hands to back them up? also i am wondering about the light at the end of the tunnel cause for now it looks like a freight train commming my way
the idiot,
Cards don't have minds. Yesterday I was playing 7cs 10-20 and I was stuck pretty good. After about 2 hours of surviving I finally get a pretty good hand. I was in #1 pos'n had 5T/789T, #3 had xx/QxQx, #5 had xx/JcxTc7c, #6 xx/Adx3d8d. #3 checks his apparent 3Q's, #5 check his flush draw, #6 checks his flush draw, I bet 20, #3 calls, #5 raises, #6 calls the raise, I drop and #3 calls. I was trying to get at least one of the draws out and ended up putting myself out by betting with a bluff. It did tell me that I had no chance to win against a made flush and it costs me 20. If things had worked out I may have only had to play against one player and might of been able to steal the pot with 3T's or less.
idiot even though it doesn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Just keep paying attention and learning and you'll be fine. It's hard to develop a game at 1-5 if you can afford to move up to 5-10 you may find it a little easier to apply your knowledge of the game.
good luck idiot
Paul
I have some questions about this seciario.
Did you voluntarily play the hand on 3rd street with 5T/7? Even if it was 5T/T, you were still on shaky ground against a Q,J and A showing.
On 6th, you did not take the free card with a pair of tens and the fourth best draw? Nobody is going to throw away trips or a flush draw against an apparent J high straight.
This is not intended to be a flame. Just wondering.
:-).
Fred M.
Fred M,
I wrote this in a hurry your right it was 6hTh/8h9xTxJx. I should of taken a free card. I was replying to Idiot bluffs by making one myself. As bad as you may think it was it did tell me I had no chance of winning for $20 where I might of got trapped had I just called on 6th on the river but maybe not. It also told me about the player who raised expected me to bet the 4 straight on the board.
Thanks Fred M
paul
The Idiot:
I think Sklansky, Malmuth, etal, have written that if you are stuck and the cards just aren't coming, your table image is non existant. You will get no respect, and the bluffs won't work.
On the other hand, when you are winning, whatever you do often works, including bluffing.
Having said that, however, I believe that $1-$5 stud is showdown poker. Unless the pot is very small, you must show down the best hand to win.
If you are playing good basic poker, you will come out of that tunnel and the sun will again shine on you. Keep your chin up.
Fred m
Did you wait until 6th street or the river to bluff? What was the level of your bets, if any, on 4th or 5th streeets? A good bluff, esp.in 1-5 should start early, IMHO.
Scott
Bluffing in 1-5 stud is like trying to slip a cassava melon under someone's door. You can pound away with the biggest hammer you've got, but it's just not going to happen.
Representing trips or even a made flush on sixth street isn't going to help precisely because the players are so terrible. Even if you flipp up your cards and show your made hand, everyone with two tiny pair is going to keep right on coming, hoping to catch a full.
Neils,
When it comes to bluffing at LL, it's all about location. When I played the 1-5 at the mirage, bluffing the river became a very profitable play. The odds that the other player would fold were something like 1 in 4, and like every LL game, there were plenty of chips in the pot to make that a winning proposition. The 1-5 was no ante, so people knew enough to play tight, but they didn't understand the implied odds, nor did they realize that they have to call with pots that big.
regards,
james H.
OK, I stand corrected. I've never gotten anywhere bluffing in 1-5, but that may have just been a function of the players in the game. Or maybe I just suck at bluffing...
RedAces - You only get dealt four (down) cards in O8.
Both of the hands you have shown are five card hands. Therefore they're not O8 hands.
Buzz
If you're asking which is the better low, a low is determined by the highest card in the hand. Therefore, the 6-low (b) beats the 7-low (a). Consider if the hands were competing for high. Hand is is obviously higher, and hand b is therefore lower. I hope this answers the qeustion you were asking.
Other Poker Games
February 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo