![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
you may want to slowplay big trips some but you must try to build a big pot while doing so. so maybe in 1-5 where you can raise less than a full bet you have this option more often. by waiting too long to bet people then think they are against a monster as you may have caught something big. but by pushing some earlier they only sweat a bigger pair. id have certainly bet on the end with the jjj hand. why check when its obvious that he wasnt full going into the river. you are the favorite to win here and he will always call. 2nd hand not much to do but remember when you checkraise they get scared so maybe you should have just bet into him instead. but sometimes they have nothing and just cant call.
just remember this, the smaller the trips the more inclined you should be to raise. small trip can be a problem because if you have 222 and you let other larger pairs in for the bring in they can catch and beat you. big trip should be slow played, but in a tight game you might want to slow play even small trips. but if you are in a loose game and you know if you raise you will be called than it is correct to raise with all trips even AAA.
heres a hand that happened a few days ago.
im the bring in with (22)2.
person on my immediate left has (xx)2.
all fold to guy on my immediate right who has (xx)Th. he is an experienced casual player and is pretty loose.
he raises, i call.
fourth street: i catch a blank and he catches (xx)Th9h.
we go to war and he backs down, calling my 5th raise. (6 bets on fourth street).
i catch blanks whole way, he catches (xx)Th9h8c he check calls, (xx)Th9h8c8s he bets out, i raise(?!) he calls, and he checks the river and i check as i didnt fill.
i think i probably overplayed my hand a bit here?
brad
I would have raised bringing it in at the door (maybe you did) and re-raised his raise. Other than that, I would have played it the same. The second Eight doesn't look like a set to me. Looks like a second pair (not much use to him) or a card that doesn't fit his draw. As he didn't get aggressive on the river, you either convinced him you had a boat or you won the hand.
-- Will
"As he didn't get aggressive on the river, you either convinced him you had a boat or you won the hand."
unfortunately, only the first.
brad
Overplay???? Why didn't you bet the river? There's a very good chance he will pay you off. Even if you call a raise on the river, I still think there is a much better chance that he will pay you off on the end without beating your trip than that he will beat you. In order for your bet to be a good one, he has to pay off twice as often as he raises (assuming he raises with any hand that beats trip twos). If opponent is afraid to raise with many made hands but will pay off with two pair, that probability goes down as you just have to win closer to 50%.
Don't be afraid to bet. All you can do is lose a little bit of money.
well, i had some thought that went into it, as my opponent betting out on sixth street probably meant i was beat, and i could lose the same/win more if i bet if full and checked if not.
but youre right, its way too easy for him to put me on Aces or Kings in the hole.
thanks
brad
I haven't read the other posts but I would tend to wait to fifth street to raise rather than go to four bets on third. However, there is nothing wrong with this. Plus if your opponent makes an open pair on fifth street you will be able to get that raise in anyway.
Your river play is more debatable. While a scary board may be troublesome, given the size of the pot, your opponent should still call you with many hands that you will beat. If you somehow know that this is not the case, then your river check makes more sense.
yeah i was a little chicken on the end there.
by the way i dont think you need to sugarcoat it. just tell everybody abdul is a p***k who just needles you constantly, and since he wont accept your challenge to a duel ( a true statement, at least by (some) classical standards ), youre gonna delete all of his posts that are directed against you. (and then i would delete his posts on a strictly random basis, but thats just me:) )
brad
He SHOULD do that if he doesn't want me (and others) reading here. On the other hand, Abdul should NOT get so personal.
-- Will
We actually like for Abdul to post since he has some different ideas that are worth discussing. However, we have been warning him recently that he needs to post and not include the insults.
Haven't SEEN the insults, haven't been here very long, but I agree with the principle (principal?) that one should stick to ideas and not personalities. UseNet, some NewsGroups but not the poker one, often becomes extremely stupid due to the personal stuff. I really enjoy Abdul's posts everywhere I encounter them but I would NOT enjoy seeing him or anyone else insulting anyone. If a particular IDEA is really bad, one might attack that idea but it is silly and nonpruductive to attack people and it is important to make it CLEAR that it is an idea or a train of logic that one is attacking and not the poster. Glad you generally like Abdul's posts, we are in agreement on that.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
I miss quite a few value bets on the river every year, I am sure, but it is not a place where I am very aggressive and I like check on this hand too. A river bet will not invluence who wins the pot; it is just a matter of one more bet. Sure, you are trying to make money but do you really want to be check-raised and LOSE more money when you have to call.
This goes back to 666 being an extremely vulnerable hand. I raise exactly the way the original poster did , check-raising that first betting round, and I make as many opponents go away as possible. Unlike the original poster, I am not at all sorry that so many people folded. Of course, I have a fairly aggressive image and would get some calls that others don't but, frankly, on this hand I don't want them. On this hand, I wish I were the accountant in the Jeff Rubens story who, when he raised all-in in an early seat, made it correct to throw away a made flush (draw poker story).
-- Will
You are correct in your statement. In theory, when you miss this bet you are only costing yourself a small mathematical portion of the bet. That's because you might get raised, you might get called by a better hand, or you might not get called at all. As you state, these are not the plays that make or break you as a player.
And when you are having a big day (which I often seem to do at mid-stakes stud) the other guys at the table see you as a "gentleman" and don't resent you as much and stay at the table longer. Some of these guys have actually, without my intending it, become my FRIENDS even though I take money out of the game. Taking the extra twenty or forty bucks from one of these guys makes for an "edginess" at the table that doesn't do me any good.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
Derrick - Thanks for your response. I agree an unimproved two pair is, in general, a poor holding on the river in a full, loose game of Omaha-8. However, in this particular case, I think top two pair may be a decent holding on the river.
"In my games if there is a straightening board 66% of the time, I would GUESS that 70% (conservative) someone will have a straight, so ~46% of the time you will lose by the river if you don't fill. These numbers are all off the top of my head though..."
In a loose game, when the board enables a straight, you do usually lose to a straight if you don't fill. However, that generality does not apply to all situations. In particular, that generality does not necessarily apply to the specific situation described in the original post.
If the board on the river is A-Q-7-8-9, your 70% estimate seems too conservative. Yet if the board on the river is A-Q-7-8-K, even if everyone stays for the showdown, I think the 70% is too liberal. To make the make only possible straight with a board of A-Q-7-8-K, an opponent would need a jack plus a ten. The fewer the number of opponents who are still in the hand on the river, the less the likelihood one or more of them will have a jack plus a ten.
A-Q-T-3 is not at all hopeless with a flop of A-Q-7, but you must play the hand properly. If you play aggressively after this flop, I think you will succeed in limiting the field somewhat, even in a loose game. As a result, your two pair will likely hold up for high. With four or fewer opponents, the chance of one of them making a straight after a flop of A-Q-7 is less than half of your 70% estimate.
“ so ~46% of the time you will lose by the river if you don't fill.“
I don’t think so, because I think your 70% is way too high for this particular situation.
To convince yourself 70% is too high a percentage, first take A-Q-T-3-A-Q-7-9-K (the cards in your hand and the board at the showdown), shuffle the 43 remaining cards, and deal out four other hands. Do this ten times. Both a jack and a ten have to be in one of the four hands to make a straight. I think you’ll be convinced that the likelihood of an opponent making a straight, considering your hand and the flop, is not as high as you estimated.
Yes, the 70% figure is conservative for many situations where the board enables a straight in a loose game. But not for this particular situation, and even less with a reduced field.
Even with a turn and river card more favorable to a straight, (where more than one straight is possible), with only four opponents, it is more likely than not none of them has a straight.
“ Also, it is hard to read other people's hands in this case because of the low draw. It would be hard to tell in my game if someone held a set of 7's or 2-3“
I agree it’s hard to tell for certain, however two points make the 2-3 much more likely than the set of sevens. (1) Considering the cards you can see after the flop, 2-3 would be dealt to someone 12/3 = 4 times more frequently than a pair of sevens. (2) If you were dealt a pair of sevens, what would your other two cards have to be, in order for you to see the flop? Wouldn’t you tend to not pay to see the flop if your hand had a pair of sevens in it? (Wouldn’t most decent players do the same)?
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Hi again Buzz,
More comments...
If the board on the river is A-Q-7-8-9, your 70% estimate seems too conservative. Yet if the board on the river is A-Q-7-8-K, even if everyone stays for the showdown, I think the 70% is too liberal. To make the make only possible straight with a board of A-Q-7-8-K, an opponent would need a jack plus a ten. The fewer the number of opponents who are still in the hand on the river, the less the likelihood one or more of them will have a jack plus a ten.
I agree that there are more straights possible with 7-8-9 on board, but the straights SHOULD be a less likely holding of players. For instance, you hold 6-5-X-X, 6-T-X-X, or T-J-X-X. Your other 2 cards would have be be almost perfect to see the flop in a O/8 game. However, I have seen some very strange holdings in my O/8 games. If you have 4 high straightening cards though, your hand isn't that bad in O/8, you have a reasonable chance at a scoop. But even if you hold a good Omaha High wrap hand 6-7-8-9 in O/8 this is junk, you are basically hoping to draw to a split (but again I have seen hands much worse then this play and win at O/8, it just isn't usually me playing and winning with them). If you were ahead with top 2, who is going to stay with you... Any one with a good low draw, or anyone with a good high draw. The best high draw I could see is someone holding K-J-T in their hands. This is the only high DRAW I would stay with. J-T is a gut shot, K-J is a gut shot, and K-T is a gut shot all horrible holdings when drawing to a possible split (unless you hold low outs as well). Now it would be hard to put someone on K-J-T-X, the perfect high wrap drawing hand, but with 4 others in, it would be hard to rule out. I would still say there is a very reasonable chance that someone straightens on any high card. Especially considering they may only have a gutshot draw for high, but a good low draw.
A-Q-T-3 is not at all hopeless with a flop of A-Q-7, but you MUST play the hand properly. If you play aggressively after this flop, I think you will succeed in limiting the field somewhat, even in a loose game. As a result, your two pair will likely hold up for high. With four or fewer opponents, the chance of one of them making a straight after a flop of A-Q-7 is less than half of your 70% estimate.
This is where I have to agree with you... If you are going to continue with the hand, you have to come out pounding... And be willing to release if a poor card comes on 4th street. If you bet on the flop, and are raised what would you do. In many cases this person would raise you on a good low draw, but you do have a reasonable chance of being behind. This is where my O/8 game is weak. I have a hard time determining whether I am behind, or whether the guy is coming back with the low draw. I usually choose the low variance play and drop the hand before I get in this situation. In the games I play when you have a great hand, you will get paid off with it, so it is worth waiting. I still don't think the chance of a striaght would be < 35% if the high card came...
I agree it’s hard to tell for certain, however two points make the 2-3 much more likely than the set of sevens. (1) Considering the cards you can see after the flop, 2-3 would be dealt to someone 12/3 = 4 times more frequently than a pair of sevens. (2) If you were dealt a pair of sevens, what would your other two cards have to be, in order for you to see the flop? Wouldn’t you tend to not pay to see the flop if your hand had a pair of sevens in it? (Wouldn’t most decent players do the same)?
I couldn't agree with you more here. I would play 2-3 way ahead of a pair of 7's. My other 2 hole cards would have to be perfect, to play 7-7-X-X. However, where I play, there is a bad beat jackpot for Quad's, and as it grows, people have a hard time laying down pocket pairs. I wouldn't play pocket 7's except under the best of circumstances, but... others would.
All in all I believe you are correct in saying you should play this hand. I believe you have a positive expectation with it, but I wouldn't usually play it because the variance of the hand is too high for me.
Thanks again Buzz,
Derrick
Derrick,
one thing is that 6789 in omaha high is a piece of junk against anything execpt maybe headup with position. even when you hit the river card ruins your hand too often.
I may have mislead what I meant... I know that 6789 isn't a great Omaha Hi hand, but it is playable. 6789 in O/8 is unplayable even heads up. Is this not true?
Also, you said that by the river you will often lose with 6789, is this not also true with flopping top 2 in a loose game.
Thanks Mr. Zee, I appreciate your comments.
Derrick Ashworth
Ray:
In the light of your statemetnt "that 6789 in omaha high is a peace of junk against anything expect maybe headup with position," please reconcile it with Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Holdem Poker, 1992, page 17 statement: "At Omaha, a sound and sensible player will play and often raise with hands like 10-10-9-8, 9-8-7-6, and Q-Q-6-6, and so forth."
In all fairness to B. Ciaffone, his remark here pertains to a pot-limit omaha high game.
As always, Ray, your advice is much appreciated.
Thanks!
Ivan
Hi Derrick - “it would be hard to put someone on K-J-T-X, the perfect high wrap drawing hand, but with 4 others in, it would be hard to rule out. I would still say there is a very reasonable chance that someone straightens on any high card. Especially considering they may only have a gutshot draw for high, but a good low draw.“
Good point. And I agree there is a “very reasonable chance that someone straightens on any high card.” But I think the odds are still on your side.
I play mostly in casinos where you have to pay a collection fee every round. You can’t sit and wait for, A-2-3-4 or A-A-2-3, double suited, because (1) it would cost too much in collection fees, and (2) if you did, you’d stick out like such a sore thumb that you wouldn’t get any action when you finally did get a nice hand.
The original hand was Ac3cTdQh. I don’t think it’s a great hand, but I do think it’s playable, pre-flop, especially with no pre-flop raises, and especially if you have position. Note the suited ace of clubs gives you the nut club flush draw. Although A-3 for low is better if there is also a 4 or a 5 for back-up, it is still an asset before the flop. The two-card combinations A-T, A-Q, and Q-T all stretch to make a broadway. In addition, A-T, A-Q, and Q-T are all nice high card combinations for full houses and Q-T makes three possible straights. Put it all together and there are a lot of nice combinations in Ac3cTdQh. Lots of different ways to hit the flop for the nuts or a nut draw.
Paradise may be different. Where you play may be different. I don’t know. At least for my usual L.A. area ring games I think it would be a big mistake not to see the flop for one small bet, holding Ac3cTdQh. I easily might dump the hand in a tournament depending on a whole bunch of other factors, but I certainly would play it in a ring game in L.A.
“I still don't think the chance of a striaght would be < 35% if the high card came... “
Depends on what is needed for the straight, the particular high card that is turned, and the number of opponents. You’re correct that usually, and especially with more opponents staying for the river, a straight is much more likely. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think it is for the particular example and situation I used.
For this particular flop, A-Q-7, the only straight draw anyone could see after the flop is an inside draw to a broadway, A-K-Q-J-T. After the turn, things may be different, but after the flop the best straight draw an opponent has is a four-out draw. Since there is not enough money in the pot to justify a four-out straight draw, isn’t it a mistake for an opponent to play for a four-out straight draw? Don’t you want your opponents making mistakes?
Sure, if all your opponents have low draws and four out straight draws after the flop, your top two pair and probably going to get beaten. And they all could have, just like one of your opponents could have A-A-Q-X, in which case you’d be drawing dead. On the river, I think you have to be concerned if a better hand than yours is possible, because especially in a loose game someone very likely has the nuts, especially for low. But you can’t look to the worst case scenario and fold every hand but the unbeatable nuts right after the flop!
You can do something about the sequence of events yet to unfold here. You can put the heat on your opponents. After the flop, you are greatly favored to have the best holding. Your opponents have some of the same fears you yourself have. You write like you’re almost a rock, if not solid granite! If so, when you bet and raise an A-Q-7 rainbow flop, your opponents, even the stupid ones, will fear you have A-A-X-X or 2-3-X-X. Make your image work for you! If you can limit the field, it will be less likely that an opponent will draw out on you. However, even if you can’t limit the field, you will win all the more when you do make your boat or when your two pair do hold up.
Just my opinion,
Buzz
I am ready to put this to bed. I just want to say that I would play Ac-3c-Qx-Tx in my game as well. I don't think that is a bad hand to play, you have a decent low draw (esp. when a 2 comes), you have a nice hand for a high straight (which is a scooper), and the nicest part of your hand is the suited A, which guarantees that you don't have to split the high if you hit. I totally agree with a preflop call with this hand especially considering the oppenents in my game are generally loose passive pre-flop.
You also make a good point about letting your image work for you. If you can limit the field with top 2 you have a much better chance of success. Also, like you said when you fill, you are likely to get some action on it.
Derrick
Isn't Omaha a more complicated game than Holdem?
If so, shouldn't a good player make more money at Omaha? Why aren't good players playing it more?
. . . of course!
I haven't read Rays response but my take is that
holdem is a more complicated game than Omaha/8. They are the 2 games I play most often and although I play holdem reasonably well, I do not believe I play Omaha/8 very well.
At low levels it is quite str8 forward and this may cause problems if you are easily bored. It is quite easy to rationalize playing more hands than you should.
At higher levels, knowing what hands your opponent should have and what they think about you may become quite complicated and then it becomes more complicated than holdem at higher levels (yes I did see Rays title of Yes and No).
yes it does have many things that make it more complicated than holdem but different skills are rewarded . but any split the pot or low winner type of game has alot of situations that are automatic bets and calls for both parties. this limits alot of the better player advantage during the cource of the game. plus split games go slower and less hands are dealt so it can be hard to make up that lost earn per hand. against poor players i believe that a great player will make more at split games. split games go slower so good players get antcy and want one winner games that go faster so higher stakes games are less common(rare).
I understand what you are saying about the automatic calls. I'm fairly new to Omaha/8 but it seems there also a lot of ways a weak player or even a careless good player can make a mistake, such as drawing weak against obvious better hands. This seems to be a tendency perhaps because you see so many hands made on the river to thin draws. Thanks Ray.
I think Ray said most of what needs to be said but I want to add one point that is, I think suggested but not said outright in his post.
Omaha8 is BORING. Correct decisions are cut&dried, bluffing is almost never right. A semi-bluff is not usually even an option. The weak players are exploitable mostly because they CANNOT be moved off a hand. As a way to exploit weak players, O8s only rival is draw but as a GAME it sucks.
My source for this information is my friend Jim who is an O8 pro. He is a retired teacher and doesn't NEED the extra income that badly but it passes the time and he makes a good hourly rate. HE doesn't use the word boring. However, he admits that other forms of poker are more fun. If I wanted to be a pro, I would certainly take up O8 but I am not attracted to it. I have a decent win rate at stud and my results at HE are encouraging.
Frankly, I have always thought that hilo games should be played with no qualifier and with a declare and, preferably, with a betting round after the declare. Now THAT is a game where the players matter more than the cards.
-- Will
Frankly, I have always thought that hilo games should be played with no qualifier and with a declare and, preferably, with a betting round after the declare. Now THAT is a game where the players matter more than the cards.
I've never tried Omaha hi-low with a declare. I've played a few hands without a qualifier. I argued strongly (and successfully) against it, as lows just become too powerful.
You'll never see a declare game in a casino. For one thing, it takes longer, and they're trying to get in as many hands per hour as they can. Also, by having it cards speak, there are never any disputes as to who declared what, nor any controversy when someone blows a two-way call.
My favorite game is straight stud, but in home games I always call high-low stud with no qualifier and a declare. We used to play it with a betting round after the declare, but that just punishes the weak players unnecessarily. They get punished enough. And raising not on the merits of your hand, but because you have a lock, just isn't poker.
You can always limit the guy who is the only one going his way to one bet or raise or to just calling. In fact, we always did as anything else WOULD be extremely brutal. We even invoked that rule if the post-declare round started with two people going each way and one folded. If your only opponent going the same way folded, you could no longer raise.
Not COMPLETELY uncivilized and without mercy.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
Third street a 3 raises, a king calls, and I call with split aces with a 9. Fourth street the 3 catches another 3 (which he visibly is not happy about), the king catches a 5, and I pair my hidden 9. The 3’s check, the king makes a full bet, and I make it two bets. The threes fold. On the river I fill up 9’s full.
After the hand the guy with kings up asks if I made a set on fourth street. I told him aces and 9’s. He then starts mumbling about how bad that raise was with just aces up. My thinking was the guy with the 3’s started out with a really good low and caught bad on fourth street. I wanted to put pressure on him so I could get the hand heads up with the other high hand so I wouldn’t have to chop the pot.
I usually play regular stud, but decided to give stud eight a try. How was my play on fourth street? What about third street?
Also, what do you guys do when it gets heads up between a made low, that doesn’t have a chance to scoop, and you have a made high. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to keep betting. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
thomas
well i am just wondering if you are from Tucson and play at the desert diamond?
Though your nine isn't going to put fear into anyone's heart, you certainly like the raise if there is any reasonable probability that you can get it headsup versus the kings. A lot of players still would have called with say (2)(4)-33, so it depends on your read of your opponent. I would say that it is unlikely your low-playing opponent popped it with (8)(3)-3 or the like, so trip aces may be as good as aces up there (modulo low guy sticking around and catching another 3), so if his comment was based on a "fear" of being up against trip 3's, it is unjustified. If it was based on you don't want to be giving the low guy a great price on his low draw and scooper chances, I'd say maybe. But if you know him well enough that there is any reasonable chance he is going to fold to two bets, but not one, it is the right play.
JG
"Also, what do you guys do when it gets heads up between a made low, that doesn’t have a chance to scoop, and you have a made high. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to keep betting. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. "
It may seem senseless to keep betting, but I have seen low chasers go to the river and not make their low too many times. I usually bet into the low hand, unless it serves my table image better to seem like a nice guy, and turn on the killer instinct later with a better two way hand and a bigger pot. It depends upon the etiquette of the table. If you are all strangers, charge them for their low; you have nothing to lose and half the pot to gain.
You sound pretty good to me. You seem to be thinking the right thoughts.
You didn't say, on 3rd street, whether you were last to act or if there were more potential callers behind you. Especially if you were not last, I think you should have reraised on 3rd street. With your AA your best tactical situation would be to get it heads up right now with either one of them.
Given that you didn't, I do agree with your raise on 4th. Same reasoning applies. And IF the 3s has three of them, you will probably find that out right away via a reraise, and then you can fold, either right away or (more for table image than pot odds) pay one more small bet and then fold on 5th.
Dick
this question is about the odds and luck.I was playing $30/60 omaha high low 8 and any.I was playing in a casino in Arizona.over the course of the evening i was fortunate enough to get kings full five times sounds great right?I only won one hand out of the five the other four hands i lost to straight flushes including a royal flush. 1 royal flush 1 king high straight flush 1 wheel straight flush 1 queen high straight flush.Now i have been playing poker for 20 years and have never seen anything like this.i told a couple of my poker buddies and of course they are like "yeah sure that happened."two people that were there could not belive it.my question is what are the odds of this happening and should i except these hands to be out there in omaha all the time?also does anyone think they were cheating?the only good news is that after 10 hours of play i only lose five hundred and i felt lucky to only lose that little.But i feel that after getting kings full five times i should have won alot of money.ANY AND ALL COMMENTS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECATIED.I AM VERY BOGGELED.THANK YOU
Assuming your kings-full were the stone cold nuts (you had quads blocked), you can't be too afraid of straight flushes - but you always have to keep one eye on the board to see if they are possible. I would have expected that you would be beat by quads far more often than by straight flushes. All in all I would say you had a particularly tough night - not typical. Probalby won't happen to you for another 20 years. Have never worked out the odds tho.
You would run into quads much more often than a straight flush because when the board pairs a straight flush is not often possible.
Maybe Ill do the calculation tomorrow. (That is if you have K's full and two random cards (and/or if you have the quad blocked)) how often is your hand the nuts!?) (ANd how often if its not the nuts does a random hand contain the nuts (or a straight flush)).
Would be very interested in what you find out.
To suspicious if you can do the calc. I would love it.No I did not have the quads blocked that i remember but i do remember thinking to my self that when you get raised with a possible straight flush and quads out there that kings full doesn't look as strong and hey thanks for not questioning if this was a true story becuse i checked again with one of the other players agian today to make sure i didn't fall asleep at the table.I will be looking for you results.
Over the years while playing OM8 -- I have noticed that sometimes players who are not in the current pot start discussing out loud what they think the active players have. I know there is always a temptation for myself to do this also, but I try not to say anything about other player's hands during the action. I really wish that players could get a ticket and be fined to prevent this table talk during the action. I understand that in England that harmful table talk is not tolerated.
Another common event in OM8, is an active player showing his/her cards to a neighbor who isn't in the pot. I try not to show my cards to people next to me. Once a lady wanted to see my cards and she felt offended when I would not show them to her. She said, "that half of the fun 'in coming here'is seeing her neighbor's cards."
Oddities:
Yes I have also been present at the poker table when extreme long shot events occur.
In Gardena CA years ago, I saw many long shot events in the mid 1960's. At that time the players delt the hands. All of these events occurred while I was playing draw poker with the bug "joker.":
(1) Once an older player left the table to go to the bar for a drink at the bar next to the poker club. After returning from the bar,on his first deal, he delt himself four of a kind, and one other opponent a good hand which lost to his 4 of a kind. He did this three times -- each time dealing himself four-of-a kind and one opponent a very powerful hand "after retuning from the bar." Everybody thought he was cheating and reported him to the floorman. Over the years I often played with this same guy and I don't think he was capable of cheating. The odds for what he did had to be "before the total event" on the order of at least a billion to one.
(2) Another time I saw a guy win 9 hands in a row at the table. In twenty years. I don't think I ever saw anybody win over four times in a row in jacks-or-better. In lobal with a kill, I have often seen action players win "kill" five or six pots in a row.
(3)Once I had tens-full in five hard draw "jacks-or-better" three times within an hour. I lost the first two times.
(4) Another time in Gardena, I played in an honest eight handed game where five players made full houses after the draw.
(5) Another time, a spastic dealer "deal your own" delt out five pat full houses and three sets of trips in a high low draw poker game with the bug and no qualifer to win low. And the trips in all eight player's hands were in order around the table -- he delt in order, aces full, kings full, queens full, jacks full, tens full, nines full, trips eights, and trip sevens. Before the draw, there were about twenty raises. Aces full "without the bug" won high, and trip sevens won low. I had trip eights before the draw but folded when it was five bets to me to call. Many times, long shot events occurred in Gardena CA because some players did no properly shuffle a "new sorted deck" which just arrived from the floorman. So these events were not rare.
I haven't forgot about your question and will post an abbreviated soln before the end of the week.
Saw Caro's article in CardPlayer on-line today detailing Three Card Brag. Looked it up and found the "pure" British version. Does anybody know any strategy for this game? Looks fun.
Jon I.
Okay, I'm not a very good 7Stud player, and I must confess that one of my leaks is that I have a bad memory, so I don't have all the relevant info on this hand, but the basic gist is as follows:
Fairly loose game, not much raising going on. 8 players at the table, four are probably under 25, three are in their 40s, then me. The game is very friendly and the players seem to be pretty weak.
On fourth street I've got a split pair of aces vs a pair of kings on board and a "straightish" looking board. Kings bet $5, "straightish" board calls, I decide to call. At this point I wasn't sure that I was beaten, because this table was pushing their board pairs, plus one of the kings was out. I shouldn't admit this, but one of my aces was dead.
Fifth street I hit the case Ace and bet $5. Kings raises $5, "straightish" board cold calls $10, I just call. At this point, I suspect the guy has trip kings.
Sixth street I check to Kings who bets $5. "Straightish" board calls, I raise $5. Both call. At this point I know the guy has the trips. I had a bit of a tight image at the table, but not so tight as to get this guy to lay down his trip kings. A couple of the guys were analyzing each hand and they often put me on stronger hands than I had.
On the river, I don't improve, so I check. They both check. I win with three Aces.
I'm pretty sure the kings would have called w/ only the trip kings, but I was worried about him filling up, not to mention the "straightish" board. This player was probably the tightest player at the table (besides me), so I was afraid of her. Turns out she had two pair. Should I have bet?
It depends on the players. I presume that this was 1-5 stud. Many times people will call on the end thoughtlessly, so you should consider betting, especially if both will call and this will often be the case. The problem arises because both of the other players could raise if they had a straight or if the K's filled. In your situation, I would likely bet and hope to get called, and if raised you can fold. You cannot fold if it is heads up, but with two other players this is one of those situations where there is a protected pot, as the straight or the K's will not bluffraise against two players unless they are very loose.
You might benefit from doing some reading, especially the books from twoplustwo.
Pat
I believe you should have bet. As Patrick says you get a lot of thoughtless calls in $1-5 and you probably would have won two extra bets in this situation. If the Kings raised you know he filled up and can fold. Many $1-5 players believe that everyone plays the bad hands they do and that players are bluffing a lot. They may think that you have nothing more than Aces or two pair at best therefore they'll call just about all the time.
Okay, in a loose 1-5 Stud game w/ not much raising, especially the bring-in, how should you play an Ace in the door? As stated in a previous post, I suck at 7 Stud. I usually play hold'em.
When I have an ace up, I feel almost obligated to raise the bring in, if I'm going to play the hand. Someone at the table last night gave me an idea. I had an ace in the door and not much else below, but there were no other aces out. I just called the bring in. A guy across from me who had been "analyzing" my hands all night, said, "Oh, I hate it when you just call with that ace." This was a very friendly table, laughing and joking; I don't think the guy was trying to get into my head. But based mainly on his statement, I bet $3 on fourth street, without any improvement (I caught a medium card that didn't help). I guess as sort of a semi-bluff. There were about 4 or 5 people in the hand, so this was probably badly timed, but I was hoping he'd planted a seed in the others' minds. At least he folded.
My new "idea" is this. Always just call the bring in when playing these kind of loose, passive games and then either fold or bet $5 on fourth. Any thoughts?
Also, a local room has changed their 1-5 stud to 2-5. Any comments on how this would affect strategy?
What is the ante in this game. The $1-$5 games in Las Vegas usually don't have an ante, only a $1 bring-in. If that's the case, you shouldn't be raising much if first in with an ace in the door no matter what your hand is since there isn't much there to win. If you hagve a hand like a pair of aces you want to only call ( or perhaps raise to $2) in an effort to entice players. If raised you can then reraise.
If there is a significant ante, this changes everything. Now you should be doing a fair amount of raising if you are first in with an ace up.
Normally if you had a pair of aces you want to raise to get headsup so you have a better chance of winning. With the ace up (and nothing else)in late position you have one of the few chances to bluff in $1-5. I would raise the max on third especially if you have the bring in plus 3-4 other callers. Take the $4 to $5 if everyone folds. More then likely you'll get a caller who will fold on fourth if they don't improve and you bet the max again. Take those wins when you can because at $1-5 you have people who stay in with next to nothing calling $5 bets and then folding on 5th and 6th street on a regular basis. The raise can be a profitable move.
I don't have a lot of experience w/ stud, but I have noticed that a $5 raise on 3rd street (at least in my local games) is greeted w/ rolls of the eyes and folds. Sometimes one person will call and chase you down. I'm not sure this is good or bad, but I suppose I could find a way to use it to my advantage.
The key here seems to be playing EVERY ace the same way. Which would tend to become expensive. Especially since you're going to be delt and ace up more often than you'll be delt a pair of aces, or even a pair in the hole w/ an ace up.
There is no ante in this game. Just the $1 bring in.
I played a lot of $1-5 stud until just recently. However, there was an ante, .50. I suppose the four bucks already in the pot makes a difference. Hell, I KNOW it does. Actually, the key is not, in my opinion, "playing the Ace in the door the same every time." It is playing the several hands you might have with enough variety that the other regulars can't clock you.
If you really have zilch, you can raise or you can fold. You don't HAVE to play the Ace but you want to narrow the field if you do. Headsup, you might win the pot with little or no improvement and your raise might induce passivity in your opponent on later rounds. On the other hand, you can save the buck and get out. Either. One bonus I get when I fold is that people start worrying about their ability to figure me out as they KNEW I was a maniac and here I am folding with an Ace in the door.
If you have a three-flush or a little pocket pair, you can raise or call. Either could be all right and you need to disguise what you are doing. Now is the cheap time to do it. If you have a BIG pocket pair and an Ace in the door, see the next part. If you don't raise, you are not missing much in the way of a bet but if you do it is not expenisive.
If you have split Aces, you usually raise. However, if you check and then get strong on later streets, some cautious opponents might think "AHA, he was slow-playing trips." Most of us will doubt that $1-5 players think that deep but YOU play at that level and I did until just recently and WE aren't unobservant idiots.
With rolled-up Aces, many advise one to slow-play. However, in some games at this level a bet won't get people out and you might as well get money into the pot. In any case, betting is playing the hand as if you had a split pair, _exactly_ what you want your more observant oppontents to think. Again, varying your play is ideal. Not fifty-fifty. It is fine to have a favorite strategy with each of these hands but it is important to not have an ALWAYS.
BTW, my favorites are 1. Fold (but I raise fairly often) 2. Raise 3. Raise 4. Call
Whether Aces are completely "live" has an impact on every one of these decisions.
-- Will
Do you have tiger
Nature? Can you strike without
Anger or mercy?
You have to take into account the fact that there is no ante--what is the purpose of your raise withjust an ace? It cant be to steal since there is nothing to steal. It also is not worth it to represent aces since you are against weak opponents. I think you should be limping or folding to a raise. If you limp, you are hoping to catch an A on fourth or to pair you other cards so that you have an A kicker.
You should be playing tight in this game if you want towin, since there is no ante. There are some games, esp. in connecticut that have a .50 ante in 1-5. I am not sure these games are beatable and I never play them, but it could be worthwhile to raise occasionally in this situation.
Pat
Hi, I wanted to get feedback on this hand to know wether I did the math accurately or not. There were 3 players in the hand on the flop, and they were:
Player 1 - A-3-6-J
Player 2 - A-5c-10-9
Player 3 - Ac-Kc-2-10
Flop - 2c-3c-4
Player 1 was first to act and checked, player 2 bet, player 3 raised. Player 1 calls 2 bets, player 2 re-raises and player 3 caps it and the other 2 players call.
My question is what % was player 3 losing on each bet he put into the pot? I estimated it to be about 40%. I figured he won 25% of the pot with a 5 about 10% of the time and hits the flush about 36% of the time, and gets 50% of the pot. Hits both some % of the time but I didn't calculate that in,nor did I count possible full houses, let me know if that changes the numbers much (notice 5 of clubs was in a players hand and could not come).
So 10% of the time he loses only 25% of the bets put in on the flop, by catching a 5.
36% of the time he gets 150% return with the flush.
54% of the time he loses all bets.
For an average return of 2.46 bets, or 61% of the of the 4 bets put in ont he flop. for a loss of 39%?
Thanks for an critisim on my thinking, Matt
whenever three wheel cards come on the flop, unless you have the wheel you should probably fold if there is a bet/raise - i'm sure there are exceptions, but not many.
my question to you is what are you trying to figure out??? if you knew what you're opponent had, obviously you would fold your a2k10 - esp since the 5 would give your opponent the higher straight.
however, people do stupid things all the time in O8. try not to be one of them - most of the answers are very self evident.
tim
1) No Improvement - What are the odds of not catching a 5 or a club? There are 3 5's, 7 club's, and 37 unknown cards. (27/37)*(26/36) = 702/1332 = 52.7% chance of no improvement.
2) Chance of catching a 5 - What are the odds of not catching a 5? (34/37)*(33/36) = 1122/1332 = 84.2% chance of no 5. 15.8% chance of catching a 5.
3) Chance of catching a club - What are odds of not catching a club? (30/37)*(29/36) = 870/1332 = 65.3% chance of no club. 34.7% chance of a club.
4) 52.7 + 15.8 + 34.7 = 103.2 - Shouldn't these values add up to 100? The problem is that we have ignored the odds of making a club and a five. (7/37)*(3/36) = 21/1332 = 1.6% chance of club followed by a 5. (3/37)*(7/36) = 21/1332 = 1.6% chance of 5 followed by a club. 3.2% chance of 5 and club. 15.8 - 3.2 = 12.6% chance of a 5 and no club. 34.7 - 3.2 = 31.5% chance of a club and no 5.
5) Final Values 52.7% Chance of no improvement. 12.6% Chance of a five and no club for 1/6 of pot. 31.5% Chance of a club and no 5 for 1/2 of pot. 3.2% Chance of a 5 and a club for 4/6 of pot.
---Quote 1) No Improvement - What are the odds of not catching a 5 or a club? There are 3 5's, 7 club's, and 37 unknown cards. (27/37)*(26/36) = 702/1332 = 52.7% chance of no improvement.
2) Chance of catching a 5 - What are the odds of not catching a 5? (34/37)*(33/36) = 1122/1332 = 84.2% chance of no 5. 15.8% chance of catching a 5.
3) Chance of catching a club - What are odds of not catching a club? (30/37)*(29/36) = 870/1332 = 65.3% chance of no club. 34.7% chance of a club.
4) 52.7 + 15.8 + 34.7 = 103.2 - Shouldn't these values add up to 100? The problem is that we have ignored the odds of making a club and a five. (7/37)*(3/36) = 21/1332 = 1.6% chance of club followed by a 5. (3/37)*(7/36) = 21/1332 = 1.6% chance of 5 followed by a club. 3.2% chance of 5 and club. 15.8 - 3.2 = 12.6% chance of a 5 and no club. 34.7 - 3.2 = 31.5% chance of a club and no 5.
5) Final Values 52.7% Chance of no improvement. 12.6% Chance of a five and no club for 1/6 of pot. 31.5% Chance of a club and no 5 for 1/2 of pot. 3.2% Chance of a 5 and a club for 4/6 of pot.
---
My math was off because I didn't account for a 5 and a club coming together (which I admitted to) and I was wrong in thinking a 5 won 1/4th of the pot instead of 1/6th of the pot for player 3. But I don't see how you get 7 clubs instead of 8? And while you did help me out my main question was the % negative expectation for player 3 on the flop.
Eventually I hope to be able to gauge probable % loss for plays I see, on the fly instead of having to use a calculator.
Thanks, Matt
My mistake - Should be 8 clubs
In a couple of weeks I am going to accept an invitation to play in an Omaha 9 game. (It has another name, but I can't remember what it is.) It is omaha hilo with 7 5 (KC) being the nut low; straights and flushes kill the hand.
At first I assumed that it should have a 10 qualifier, but now see that a 9 qualifier will provide the same proportion of made lows as in Omaha8.
I assume it will be played no limit with 1 &2 or 2&5 blinds.
Has anybody ever played this game? Does any one know if any canned software such as poker probe or Wilson will emulate it? Sounds as though it has some interesting possibilities. I don't see aces being as dominant as in O8...
Are you sure it's the same proportion? If all you were doing is playing aces high, it would seem to be the same proportion, but if a straight-6 is no good etc, the I'd think it would be now less. Of course, I could enumerate the combos by hand, but it seems like you have the whole thing right shifted one, but then you take out the 4 straights.
JG
Right. I was referring to the proportion of 5-card boards that would enable a low hand to be played. There would be fewer possible low hands because of straights and flushes.
What are strong hands in three handed Omaha 8 or better against reasonable opponents? More specifically, what kinds of hands should be raised on the button? And what kinds of hands should one call a raise with in the small blind (assuming the button is raising approximately 1/3 of the time)? Lastly, what are the most important things to keep in mind about short handed Omaha 8 or better games? Thanks.
while you should loosen up, quality hands that can go both ways and are connected are still what you should play. last night, in a six person game, 4 people took the flop and three of them had ace-deuce.
if your going to get heads up, make sure that you are either very strong in one direction or have decent hands both ways.
playing in a home game, 10-20 blinds, pot limit, max bet $300. buy in is 5k.
am dealt (3-8)-7, two hearts in BB. 4 limpers, including j, 6, A.
4th street: i catch a six, rainbow. 6 catches a 5, A catches an 5. aces makes modest $60 bet, the jack flods, i call, as does 5-6.
5th street: i catch a 2 (giving me 2-3-6-7-8,r), 5-6 catches a 9, A-5 catches another A. aces bet $200.
i raise to $500...oops i think. although i have the best low currently, a-a-5 could be going both ways, and 5-6-9 could have a lower draw. the intention of my raise was to drive out the 5-6-9.
both call my beth
6th street: i catch paint (yuck), A-A-5 catches a 7, and 5-6-9 catches a 4. aces bet $200, both of us call.
river i catch an ace, improving to a rough 7 low.
aces bet $300, we both call. aces turn over a wheel for a massive scoop pot. my other opponent had an 8 low (he was drawing for the straight.)
i was up a little over a grand going into that hand, was even after it, and ended up losing $600 on the evening - basically a non event considering the stakes.
however, i think my raise was a huge mistake on fifth street. i probably should have folded as the pot wasn't that big, and despite having the best low, i had no high possibilities and was facing perhaps two 4 card low draws to better hands.
any comments??
why did you even call the 4th street bet? 2 hearts and a rough 8 draw, against 6-5, A-5 (ESPECIALLY after the $60 suckemin bet by the Ace)???? You'll get clobbered often going up against them odds- what did you think you were drawing to?
A four draw to a better low, plus the AA already out there to put pressure on all hands, probably should have changed the raise to a fold. If you knew the players really well, and suspected a weaker 65 draw (maybe 7 or 8 underneath), MAYBE the raise would make sense.. but then, who are you making money from?
Seems to me this raise had little positive expectation, pot-split wise (you either win a little or lose, as you did, a LOT).
i can live with bad beats, i can live with being outplayed...however, making stupid unforced errors like this is without a doubt the most painful way to lose.
i have no one to blame but myself.
amen, brothah... been there, done that.
Assuming you haven't read it yet, pick up Ray's book. Good reference to clear your head after one of these (the self-recriminations won't go away... until you don't repeat it)
please.
a fold on 4th was best imo. since you raised on 5th and it turned out bad for you(although not a bad bet) as you could easily drove out the 9 high and played headup against acesup maybe or just two aces. after that you were stuck being a caller and hoping for the best which didnt happen.
I have a real hard time laying this hand down and would probably have played it the same way, losing my money and my shirt. BUT!! - I just bought your book and will no longer be making these mistakes. Am only on the 2nd chapter but won't play again until I am done.
I'm not pot limit guru, but this is exactly the kind of hand I'd shy away from. If it were A78 with a suited ace, I think playing it would be ok, but without *some* kind of a nut draw, I don't think you can risk playing this in pot limit. Drawing to an 8-hi flush in pot limit seems pretty slim to me.
- Andrew
a three card rough eight without an ace is certainly a bad hand unless the conditions fall right. this game id say plays less like pot limit and more like about a 50-150-300-300-300 limit type game, as the 300 cap on the bets changes it considerably.
before flop, first bet is rarely more than $120 to call. after that, depends.
after going over a couple books and dealing out the hands repeatedly, i realize i made a couple of mistakes.
1. should have folded on the flop. i know that a 8 low is garbage in this game. i let a small bet lure me in.
2. should have folded on 4th street. again, i let a small bet lure me in.
3. the raise on fifth street was not awful, at least after reading your book. i was trying to isolate myself against the initial bettor.
4. the call, after on the turn was probably weak. at that point i was drawing dead (well, i did have a inside straight draw), but i was sucked in by the large pot.
i was an underdog, but the bettor did draw two perfect cards.
a valuable lesson learned.
thanks
before flop, first bet is rarely more than $120 to call. after that, depends.
after going over a couple books and dealing out the hands repeatedly, i realize i made a couple of mistakes.
1. should have folded on the flop. i know that a 8 low is garbage in this game. i let a small bet lure me in.
2. should have folded on 4th street. again, i let a small bet lure me in.
3. the raise on fifth street was not awful, at least after reading your book. i was trying to isolate myself against the initial bettor.
4. the call, after on the turn was probably weak. at that point i was drawing dead (well, i did have a inside straight draw), but i was sucked in by the large pot.
i was an underdog, but the bettor did draw two perfect cards.
a valuable lesson learned.
thanks
Ok, here's the setup:
I've got split Aces and raise on 3rd. Two players come in, A T and an 8, who are average and I think I can read pretty well.
4th str I get Aces up and bet. Both Call.
5th str the T pairs his board. He immediately bets and I'm next. I consider the following:
1) Ten seems a high enough card to strongly believe this guy now has trips. All the books I've read recommend folding most of the time when someone pairs their door, esp. if it's a high card.
2) This guy seemed very capable of coming in with a pair of Tens hoping I was on a 3 flush or hoping he'd get 2 pair and I wouldn't.
3) He bet as soon as the card fell. I'd seen this player get excited about a good hand falling before and start betting.
Well, you can probably guess the end of the story. I folded, the other guy called it out, and the Tens won with two pair, Tens up.
I folded the winning hand, but did I make a mistake here?
Schroeder
Yes, in assuming you could read them pretty well (evidently).
More directly- if you knew them as well as you implied, was there any percentage possibility that a) the guy thought you only had one pair (even if assuming AA) and would try to drive you off it?
b)the guy thought you were raising on an Ace alone? Your board is showing nothing but an Ace.
Generally, paired doorcards are dangerous.... but you might have reraised in this situation to make sure (could probably fold without hesitation if he came back at you again. If he knew that you knew that paired boardcards are dangerous, what percentage chance did that player have, in your mind, of taking advantage of your knowledge?
unless you know your opponent well you made a mistake. At the very least, if you were worried you could have raised for information and if reraised then consider folding. You gave your opponent way too much credit.
pat
I'd be giving some thought as to who read who. Perhaps this 'average' player is a little better than you give him credit for - at least in reading your play. But don't feel too bad. It has happened to all of us one time or the other. By the way, the other responders who advised a re-raise are giving you some good advice.
At on-line poker it is no so frequent than live games that a paired doorcard means a trips (or better). I saw this many times and many times that paired doorcard didn't mean nothing. But..but you well know that on-line bluffs are more frequent and the only good move you had to take was a reraise; if he came back to you call his bet and then look what happens. Very frequent after a capped pot a player checks to you.
Good luck but you must be very patient playing 7 card stud on paradise. Last month (february) I won 1500 at 4-8 games and this month (march) my credit card is crying for my numerous purchases.....
Marco
As always, I wrong section. I thought this was the internet one. Sorry of me! (I have to abandon poker..and go collecting rattlesnakes)
Sorry again
Marco
$20-40 5-card draw dealer's choice game. No checking, must open or fold. 6 players in game, $10 ante per (don't ask, they LOVE large antes, maybe to cover their loose play).
I'm second UTG, the UTG player (loose, especially later in night, which we were) opens. I raise with KKJT3, to drive out other loose players. 3 out of 4 call $40 (most also playing weak/loose), UTG calls $20.
I dumped two cards, don't improve my KK.
1) If I must open for $40, can i do so? UTG drew one, others drew 2 or more, dealer (tricky, but loose) drew 2.
2) If the 3rd caller announced BEFORE the draw that they were drawing 4 to an Ace... can I open?
3) If the UTG folds first, should I open?
4) Do I open if i don't expect a raise from 2 low pair but could face a tricky one from the dealer?
I folded, figuring i was fighting too far upfield to beat 3 players behind me who called my raise. Dealer won with a bust hand when everyone folded to him.
Did I make a mistake? Pot was $260 when I had to decide, I didn't see my odds at 6.5-1 that I had them all beat... Although I was wrong, were my odds calculations correct?
In your position, I would fold before the draw after someone else opened. But maybe I am not taking into account the large antes. If you make it past the draw, you have to assume someone will have you beat, I would dump.
You couldn't check after the draw? That is odd. Never saw it before. This structure has WAY too much dealer advantage, worse than HE. You ought to suggest just giving money to the guy who calls this game. It would save time.
I don't like your chances with KK against all these opponents. You don't want anyone to call so betting is contra-indicated. However, you give up all hope by checking. The only one who doesn't face that situation is the thief, I mean the dealer.
You might think of having each player suggest a game in turn and then playing an orbit of each game with the deal moving normally. Or you ought to call this game yourself. Add a high-low declare feature. With the declare starting on the dealer's left and ending with the dealer. Or bring a gun to the game and just rob everyone at once. Sheesh.
-- Will in New Haven
Do you have tiger
Nature? Can you strike without
Anger or mercy?
it's worse- you can't check BEFORE the draw either(and not just this game either... it's a general rule- check = fold for this poker group...)
Yes, huge dealer advantage
in my game, (see 7 stud, 8ob post below), we also play 5 draw,hilo 8, with a spit before the draw. 3 betting rounds.
i had trip 7's and trip 9's and folded in early position after raised pots before the spit. (3 players called). my reasoning is that i'm not sure where i stand, i'll probably be splitting the pot, and someone may have a higher set/flush draw. in fact, in this game it seems that flushes and straights occur much more than regular 5 draw. also, i was taught that in hilo you play to scoop. with those two hands i can see winning half or loosing it all. also, if i don't improve i'm going to have to make a crying call.
other hand was dealt a-a-2-3-5. bet before spit, spit was 5, giving me aces and fives. (3 opponents) i am the first to act. do i keep the aces up, or draw to the wheel? i drew to the wheel, pulled a six and won low. was that the right play??? unfortunately, no one has written a book on this game.
also, one more question. we also play big omaha, with five cards instead of four. although some premier hands are same (like above in spit), how does this change how i should play. obviously, hands will be better, but by how much???
thanks for any advice.
This is slightly related to another post I made last week.
Playing a wide range of hands the same way seems even more crucial in a spread-limit game than a fixed limit. I'm having some trouble sizing my bets.
In the passive games I encounter, a $5 bet or raise on 3rd and 4th streets seems to rub people the wrong way. The responses range from eye-rolling folds to you're-not-going-to-push-me-around calls. Once they call $5 on 3rd they tend to go all the way to the river. I'm not saying this kind of chasing is a problem, but I'm wondering about image concers and information leakage.
Should I pretend like the game is $1-$3-$5 fixed limit and bet accordingly? If so, what about those times that I want to limit the field early on 3rd street? What if I only bet $5 no matter what I have? Absolutes seem to be anathema to poker, so if these options are wrong, can anyone give some guidlines as to how to keep your bet sizes from giving away too much info about your hand?
Jeff,
Would you bet the max on 3rd street with rolled up K's?
If you did, what might happen? (a) In a game where they'd all fold while rolling their eyes? (b)What about in a game with loose callers who will call anything hoping to hit their seconds pair and where you will get 4 callers?
What about when you are next to last, have an A showing and not much else, everyone else has folded to you and the bring-in will fold to a $5 bet? Do you (a) Fold? (b) Raise? (c) Call? I would raise.
Buy the 2+2 book on stud, it will pay for itself in 2 hours...no offense, but your questions are pretty basic.
Mark
Mark,
Thanks for your answer. I understand what you are saying. I've read the 2+2 book twice and am reading it a third time (I've actually been playing stud lately, but have less than 20 hours at stud).
Sorry for the elementary nature of my questions. I guess I need to work on being able to better analyze and apply the "knowledge" I've gotten from the books.
That's where I thought this forum would help.
Guess I'll go back to lurking and keep playing and reading. Thanks for the response.
Jeff, What Mark is saying is; it depends on what kind of hand you hold, what kind of people are at the table and what kind of reactions you would prefer they have to your bet. This street is more complex in stud than in HE, because you have more info to process and are not as limited in your options by position, it may take you a while to adjust.
Joel,
Thanks for your clarification. I think I understand what you are both saying, but my question wasn't really about how to extract extra bets w/ rolled up kings or how to steal the antes, though these are good questions and important considerations.
My question was more about the "meaning" of a bet in a spread limit game. Sometimes I'm afraid my bet is giving away too much information about my hand, or at least about what I think of my hand. I think Lee Jones talks about spread limit hold'em in his book, and suggests that you "pretend" like it's fixed limit. I was just curious if anyone applied this idea to spread limit stud. I guess not. I'm sure I'll get a better feel for bet sizing as I play more stud.
The second part of my question was about how your betting effects your table image. In a game where $5 bets in early streets tend to irritate players, getting them out of the "let's just have some fun" mode, are you better off sacrificing some of your edge to maintain a "friendly" image. In my short stud "career" I've noticed that the best tables (even more so than in hold'em) are the friendly, talkative tables where everyone is laughing and there is an illusion of "we're all in this together." This not any great insight on my part, I know.
Thanks for your reply.
Spread limits are something we don't see much in these times of casino poker and your question is not about something that comes up all the time. I used to play a lot of HIGH spread limits. We used to play draw $25-$50 (you could bet 5-25 before the draw at five dollar increments and 10-50 after, at ten dollar increments)We usually played stud for less but the same idea applied, and what I observed was that people who 'took advantage' of this feature to vary their bet size often gave away a great deal of information. There were guys who would bet ten or fifteen before the draw when they had pat hands or a set and twenty-five on a good pair. Invariably. There were guys who never bet the 'full fifty' except when they were bluffing and others who only did it if they had a monster OR they were bluffing. Not as helpful but useful information. The guys who won USUALLY bet the maximum if they bet at all. There were exceptions even there and they often depended on who was in the hand with them. In a sense, spread limits resemble PL and NL in that at times you have to wonder "why did he or she bet THAT amount?"
-- Will in New Haven
As in all stud games you must consider what your goal is and whether you can accomplish it. As an example, in 1-5 you are dealt 7K/7 and are in second position. You want to play the hand heads up if possible. How do you accomplish this? You raise the full amount to cutthe odds and get people to fold.
The proper play depends on your image. If your image is such that your raise only makes the pot bigger and you still get three callers, then you should have folded (probably--depends on teh players and their cards).
For the most part you shouldnt care if people are rolling their eyes when they fold, or doing theother things you describe. What you should be concerned with is how to adjust your play accordingly, i.e in the above situation your raises get no respect, then your play must be different.
There are specific guidelines in 7CSFAP which you should learn with respect to half bets in spread limit games. But for the most part you should be betting or raising the maximum, and should adjust your play to how the table reacts.
Pat
Jeff,
I'm not sure what you're after. I don't think there is a formula for playing poker to minimize annoying your opponents.
I must admit, to be truthful, that I haven't played much 1-5 stud, so please don't think I actually know what I'm talking about. My wife plays, though, and I've made some suggestions to her about betting on Third and Fourth Streets that I think have helped her game.
I don't like over betting the pot, and I don't like having to think about whether I should limp in, or bet $2, or $3, or whatever, as if there is some precise bet I'm trying to find. I don't think I can be so precise, so, if I want to raise, I raise what's in the pot. An example might be if I have split Kings and two players are in ahead of me for $1 each, I might make it $3 to go. (I'm assuming no ante, $1 bring-in)
On Fourth Street, if I had been the bring-in on Third Street with pocket queens, for example, and two players had limped in, making the pot $3, I would bet $3 if I'm first to act, or if it's checked to me.
Once there is $5 or more in the pot, I would bet or raise the maximum the rest of the way, if my hand was worth betting or raising. A lot of weak 1-5 players make a huge mistake when they make a less than maximum bet on Fifth Street, say, when there is already $15, or $20 in the pot. They make it easy (correct) for a lot of hands to come after them with long-shot draws.
I don't think you would be giving up too much information betting this way. Let me know what you think.
Tom D
That's very interesting.
I like what you said about betting the pot. I've found myself doing that on third street, too. I think that may be a useful way to think about it.
It's not so much that I'm trying not to annoy, but to preserve the "gambling spirit" that I perceive in my opponents.
Thanks for the feedback.
The advice that Patrick and Tom give is pretty much it. You have to be willing to adjust your play accordingly, but not too much that it will alter your ability to win. What you are talking about is, in my opinion, one of the more difficult concepts in 1-5 no ante. If you raise too big, you scare everyone away (no money for you). Not enough, nobody cares and you lose the effect (bad guys will suck out with that pair of 3s tripped on the river). Feel out the table. Screw 'em if they cry and roll there eyes. These are the guys that are there to gamble. They will sit in every hand for a buck, hoping magic hits on 4th street. yeah, they whine and make comments, b/c you just turned it into a poker game. I find that when I sit on hands and don't bet b/c I am afraid to scare people, or triyng to keep it friendly, I lose. These guys are armed with their Mega-suck 2000 shop-vacs and will suck out on you every time if you let them. Keep playing tight- you will watch alot of hands, and this will give you a good feel for the players. Don't be too afraid of getting a strong table image- it will help you in the long run- a little fear and respect at a poker table can be a good thing. Keep reading and playing, and this game should become easy for you. Also- find the "fun" tables- they tend to pay off in the end, as opposed to the people just taking a chair waiting for the jackpot to hit. Good Luck! Derek PS- In my opinion, this is not as "basic" a question as some people suggest- The # of responses is a good indication of that.
I've had similar experiences w/ "slowplaying." I tend towards not slowplaying in hold'em, but I find myself wanting to slowplay more in stud, for some reason. I guess because there's an illusion of having more control over your opponents w/ the size of your bet. Unfortunately it is often just that, an illusion.
Thanks for your advice.
You've got time to post this kind of comedy (mega-suck shop-vac 2000...ROTFLMAO) but you don't have time to answer my e-mail! Shame on you.
David
When should I raise pre-flop in a low-limit passive O/8 game?
If I have high strength, I want the lows to call, right? I'm only planning on continuing when there's unlikely to be a low.
If I've got A2 or A3, I want worse lows to call, right? In LL, people will call with bad lows.
But any other hand isn't really good enough to raise, is it?
What about a high pocket pair? But limiting the field is _hard_ in LL omaha. Everybody's got a reason to call.
"When should I raise pre-flop in a low-limit passive O/8 game? "
If the players will call all the way to the river with inferior hands then rarely raise preflop. If they play fairly good from the flop on then you will want to raise preflop.
"If I've got A2 or A3, I want worse lows to call, right? In LL, people will call with bad lows. "
Bare A2 or A3 with nothing else going for it is not a very good hand. The answer to your question has a lot to do with how the players play after the flop.
"What about a high pocket pair? But limiting the field is _hard_ in LL omaha. Everybody's got a reason to call. "
High pocket pairs with nothing else going for them are generally not playable. It depends on the game and position.
"When should I raise pre-flop in a low-limit passive O/8 game? "
Comments by Rock_of_Sages (for LL ring games):
(1) Only raise with very good starting hands. If you don't know what good starting hands are -- then (1) read good books for OM8, take lessons, or gain experience by playing in 3-6 or 2-4 games. From experience, I prefer my raising hands to contain three spokes to a wheel: A, 2,x or A, 3,x where x= 4 or 5. Also - hopefully the ACE is suited with another card. Also with the three spokes, I prefer to have a king or queen kicker. Surprising, the big kickers will win lots of small pots for you in the long run "halves or scoops." A, 2,3, K with the Ace suited is a very good starting hand -, as you know.
(2) Your first preflop raise should be "generally" when you have good table position. Preferably two or three loosey-goosies have called before you. You can generally reraise if you have good position and you won't cause loosey goosies to fold. You want good pot odds -- especially when you have a good chance to get half the pot and maybe a scoop.
(3) Don't always raise. Vary your play. Keep them guessing. You will generally get better pots with this strategy
(4) Develop good judgement. There is lots of good educated judgement required - especially when making calls on the river. For instance, if low gets there " arrives" on the river, and for example you have an A,3 for second nut low. What should you do? If two or three people have already called -- then the odds are that you have second best low or you will be quartered. These types of calls are very tricky. Hopefully through experience, you will make enough good calls, and that you will break even, or maybe win or lose very little. Keep in mind what the size of the pot is and what are your odds or "implied odds."
RZ has written that in Omaha hi/lo/8, playable hands rate fairly close to each other, so preflop raising for value is not necessary. He also wrote that preflop raising will add somewhat to your EV but will add a lot to your variance. Therefore, I almost never raise preflop.
I am wondering if this is correct in my extremely loose game that I play in. These guys play almost any 4 cards - in a loose evening or weekend game, it is not unusual for 6-7 of my 8 opponents to be in, on the average. And even the old-timers who are the weekday daytime regulars play more than 50% of their starting hands - 4 to 5 out of 8 is a typical preflop participation in that game. [ PS - this is the regular game for Don T, Dunc's friend. Don isn't this loose.]
With my opponents playing pure garbage, I have to think that when I have any real starting hand, there would be tremendous EV in a preflop raise, as long as I'm in late position so I don't lose too many customers. (Since every hand that I play is targeted toward making the nuts, I DO NOT want to thin out the field with a preflop raise.) This would be comparable to raising with AKo or AQo in a very loose hold'em game.
My other concern is that I don't want to raise ONLY with hands containing A2. In this game I'm in, lots of players fish in all the way to the end with 4th, 5th nut low or worse. If my raise puts up a big flag that I have A2, or even that I have either A2 or A3, I might lose a lot of bets from these customers later in the hand.
I play very tightly. My starting requirements are: any A2, almost any A3 with some other value, some 23 with extra value, any 4 coordinated cards 9 or higher, and some hands with AA, KK, QQ with extra value. That is it.
How about it, guys ... should I be raising more in this extremely loose game?
Dick
My home game is similar to what you are describing. I typically don't raise with super starters unless (1) I am in late position and a raise won't likly drive anyone off who already has 1 bet in the pot, and (2) to vary my play from time to time. I'm known as being pretty tight and am always going for the nuts if I'm going to stay past the flop (nickname is "Mr. Nuts"). My starting requirements are virtually identical with yours. Even with most of table staying all the way to the river, more often than not someone will show the mortal nuts. The board can do funny (and unfunny)things to your great starters. It's a great game if you can keep your wits about you and wait for right cards.
you are an expert....getting a pot going?
I have used the conjelco 7stud/Holdem softwar for about a year, and I was wondering if anyone had their own opinions about it. I think the play is fairly realistic if somewaht passive, and it is much better than other ones I have used. Any thoughts are appreciated.
Pat
I didn't know that Conjelco had their own software. What is it called? I have been using Wilsons Turbo software and have found that to be very good. You can adjust most of the action to suit the type of game in which you want to practice so it is very flexible. You will find it not to be passive unless you want it to be. Worth every nickle.
.....the Wilson's software
n/t
nt
so i got (ThTd)6c and raise after (XX)K, just after bring in,limps in. 2 call me as does the K. uh oh.
4's,T's,K's,6's,clubs all live.
(xx)Ks4h checks to me (TT)6c8c, i bet, call, call, and the K checkraises!?
now just to give you some info here (but not result), i called and other two called, on fifth others blanked and i caught a club on fifth and K checked to me, i bet,other two folded, and the K called me to the end.
now i guess the other two guys were on draws that missed, but what about K? about the only hand i can really put him on is (44)K4, right? unless he would play a pair of kings that weakly. and KKK would probably wait until 5th.
so now that i think about it, im pretty sure i could have folded on fourth, but on the other hand, im pretty sure i had the odds to spike (live) a ten.
?
brad
Brad,
Don't know how the guy with the K plays. Does he slowplay on 3rd much? Is he a weakie or very cautious? If not, then I would probably put him on pocket 4's, as you did.
I might put him on K4 in the pocket, but I would have to know more about the player (is he weak, tight, cautious, strong, tricky, etc.) and the game (tight, loose, shorthanded, etc.). Maybe he was gambling a little by not raising up front, hoping to get a little more in the pot before he tried to get it heads up with you. Hard to say without knowing more about the player.
I call after he reraises and continue on 5th only if I improve to two pair or better (hopefully trips).
There are no odds to spike a third 10. If you believe he has trip 4's or K's and 4's, then you must fold on fifth street.
Once I get checked to on 5th, I must bet as I can no longer give opponent more than one pair of kings. I don't believe he would check kings up or trips to 3 suited on 5th in a 4 way pot. In fact, when he checks, I question whether or not he even has kings or maybe has a funny hand like A4/K4 depending on how he plays. I would definitely bet on fifth. Even if I'm up against kings, I have many ways out.
I might check behind on 6th if I don't improve to two pair or 4 open clubs but that depends on the player. I wouldn't try bluffing on 6 any more and would only bet if I thought player with K was goofy and called on 5 with 4's and a couple of overcards. Many do play like that you know.
the club i caught on 5th was Tc giving me trips and i bet it the whole way.
im just not sure if the older man played a pair of kings very weak, or if he maybe played three fours very weak.
in any case im sure i was real lucky to win this hand.
brad
I dont know what the results were as I didnt read them,but I think the K was trying to limit the field. If he had a K then this would be one potential strategy he could use(actually he might do this with pocket 4's also). If you thought he had trip 4's on fourth you definitely should have folded, as you do not have good odds to draw to the third ten. However, the fact that you are not sure where you are and the fact that he could be semibluffing or trying to limit the field makes a call correct. His check on fifth is probably because you caught a third club, not because he plays weakly. If I had just a pair of K's I wouldnt bet into a three flush on board who raised on third street.
Pat
"If I had just a pair of K's I wouldnt bet into a three flush on board who raised on third street. "
really? i would bet here almost every time. of course, against a 3rd street limper, i would seriously consider check folding.
brad
I think this is one of those situations where you are a small favorite or a big dog,so it is better to check. In this situation, if you bet and are raised you still dont necessarily know where you are atinthe hand, since a good player would likely raise here even if they did not have the flush. Since he raised on third street,he could have a pair and a fourflush,which is still a favorite against you. I think that if you decide to play the best way to play is to check and call.
Pat
Here's the basics of a hand I played the other night. I felt pretty good about it at the time, but had a possible flaw in my thinking pointed out to me by my more skilled brother.
I'd only played a handful of hands w/ this player, but she played VERY aggressively when she was in. $5 bets on third, betting all the way. She was very quiet, almost uninterested in this game (she was on the $4-$8 hold'em list and jumped back and forth a couple times that night). She had the demeanor of someone out to win, not out to have a good time. It was too early to say if she was a solid player, but she was at least intimidating.
I bring it in w/ a 3 in the door. The jack to my left makes it $5. It folds around to another jack (the third jack folded earlier) who calls. Back to me. I have pocket 4s. I reraise $5. The original better calls, the other jack folds. This other jack was capable of laying down hands, and I was counting on him to fold here.
From every round she is high and checks to me. Every round (except the river) I bet $5. Every round she calls. On 5th street I have an open-ended straight draw w/ my 4s. On sixth I catch two pair, 5s & 4s. Her board stays jack high, nothing too obviously threatening.
On the river we check it down. I show my two pair, she says that's good.
Comments?
I think a Holdem player thought she could play stud the same way as holdem. Your pair of 4's may have been good enough. Agressive raise and betting on your part, what would you have done if she reraised and lead the betting into you instead of checking? (As she should have done)
nt
Well...were my fours good on third, or did the second pair save me?
I probably would have folded if she hadn't kept checking to me.
My brother says she had a bigger pair or the other Jack. I'm thinking perhaps I was a tad too aggressive here. I think I got a little too frisky, and one of my problems is that I get too "creative" against players who I perceive as tough. It usually gets me into trouble.
I think you overplayed your hand. This play is only good if you're up against 1-2 opponents who you know can be bet off their hands. That doesn't seem to be the case (in this hand at least) as you got action all the way to the river. Be careful who you do this against and don't make this too much of a habit otherwise people will figure it out and start calling you down frequently. Then you have to get lucky to win like you did in this hand.
I havent read the other posts, so I dont know if your hand contained a twoflush. If not, and maybe even if it did, you should have folded almost without hesitation. The fact that you won the hand does not change this fact. You had a raise from a jack with another caller.
That said, I think that once you decided to play your raise was correct to try to get it heads up. If you had a two flush the raise would be a necessity.
In a 5-10 game or higher your play was correct. At 1-5 I dont think that it is worth it to chase in your situation, since there is very little dead money in the pot.
Also, the mere fact that your opponent bet 5 all the way does not mean she is very aggressive. It does not even mean that she is aggressive. She is actually playing fairly close to the proper strategy. This is not being aggressive, it is merely good poker. If she was raising two or three times with draw hands now that would be very aggressive.
Pat
Jeff,
I was wondering if the 1-5 game in which you played had an ante? If it was a 1-5 with no ante I would definately have to say that making it $10 with pocket 4's is overagressive. Probably should just fold here, unless you have GREAT reason to believe you can outplay your opponents at a later street.
If it was 1-5 with a 50 cent ante, Assuming that it was a full table. There would have been $4 in antes in the pot, $5 that the fist jack raised, $5 that the other jack called, plus your original $1 bring in. $15 total ( minus rake ) With the larger pot, If you think that a double bet has a VERY reasonable chance of getting EVERYONE to fold ( given jacks are dead ), It might be worth the try. Especially if you think you can outplay any remaining opponents on a later street. Risky play in 1-5 anyway you look at it!! 1-5 opponents will usually call you down to the river, and your 4's with no kicker aren't going to be the favorite, even if the person raised with 3 overcards and no pair.
Remember there is a difference between playing 1-5 with a 50 cent ante and 1-5 with no ante! Adjustments in your playing should be made to compensate for that 50 cents every hand. ( therefore entitling you to BE MORE aggressive when warrented )
Just something for you to think about.
Congrats on taking down the pot.
Later, CJ
You over played your hand. In most 1-5 games there is no ante and only the dollar bring in. When the pot was raised why would you risk loosing a good chunk of money for a hand that is a dog and is best folded? In 1-5 games you can play tight and still win. Cosequently, save the fancy plays for games that actually have some starting money in the pot that is worth fighting for.
What's considered the BEST Omaha book. Please don't say the Ray Zee book - I already have it so I need a second source.
Also, I'm mostly a holdem player and I have HPFAP (as well as a couple other holdem sources like Super Systems, etc..), is it worthwhile to buy "The Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky?
Any input or other suggestions of other books or sources would be greatly appreciated, thanks guys!
The Theory of Poker is one of the best and most necessary books. It should be required reading!
In Response To: Omaha Books!!!!!! (Big Willy)
The Theory of Poker is one of the best and most necessary books. It should be required reading! True but also.... ---------------- There are lots of good books but.... These books set excellent guidelines and starting hands for Omaha & OM8. But you have to play, develop skills, learn how to pick games which you can beat, and how to leave games you can't beat. Also, Wilson's PC Turbo Omaha High Low , Omaha High only are good tools for learning, developing skills, and understanding many of the ramifications of Omaha. One big weakness in Wilson's games for Omaha are the advice given for calling and folding opponents bets -- you would go broke fast if you followed this advice. In defense of Wilson, he explains that the programs advice is a very difficult thing to program efficiently -- he probable intentis, that you should develop your own criteria for calling, raising, checking, and folding.
This is one of the main criticisms I have of the Wilson programs. If you can't program them to give good, accurate advice, why give any advice at all. Isn't he doing a disservice to his users, especially those who are essentially novice players?
MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com>: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 3:15 p.m. In Response To:Re:Omaha Books Rock_of_Sages) MM said: This is one of the main criticisms I have of the Wilson programs. If you can't program them to give good, accurate advice, why give any advice at all. Isn't he doing a disservice to his users, especially those who are essentially novice players? -------------------------- Mason you are right. Novice players could be grossly misled if they put blind faith in these programs. If I recall accurately, Wilson mentioned that advice for OM8 is difficult to implement in poker programs, and I think Wilson gave credit to a person associated with the Gardena CA Normandie Casino for helping with this advice for OM8.
It is very difficult to implement an expert knowledge based system into a $89.99 PC poker program. Wilson's program does try to account for many of the independent variables such as starting hands, position, number of opponents, and the board:i.e., "flop, turn, & river." The main weakness in this program is that the advice is linear or one-dimensional, but the real world is not linear. For instance, the OM8 program gives weak advice for position: a given starting hand may be very profitable when played on the button, but an overall loser when played under-the-gun.
But I feel the Wilson's Turbo PC poker programs are a useful tool for OM8 or poker players who have a keen mind and have developed some skills at the casino poker tables "players who can read between the lines." Properly used these programs can improve skilled players poker decisions.
I personally have the Turbo Texas Holdem and I rate that software as ok (but this is the only poker sim that I've tried). I also do not agree with some of the advice which the software gives in the holdem software.
I use it mostly just to try different hands and to play around with different types of players. The software is capable of more but I've only used it for a couple weeks and haven't taken full advantage of it yet (especially with simulations of 1000s of hands, etc..)
I got the software on ebay for about $65 total. I don't think that I'd be willing to pay $90 +shipping +taxes. Still its a good tool to have.
NEW: Re: Omaha Books! Big Willy -- Monday, 16 April 2001, at 11:33 p.m. Willy mentioned SOME OF THE POKER TURBO SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS. and also: I got the software on ebay for about $65 total. I don't think that I'd be willing to pay $90 +shipping +taxes. Still its a good tool to have. ----------- I agree with Willy -- in spite of the Turbo poker software limitations, an experienced poker player can set up poker various senarios and experiments which are very revealing tools.... ---------- Willy thanx for recommending Ebay. But I am wondering if you are getting the latest versions of the software? In the past "at flea markets" I recall that many times what I thought was a software bargain was really an older version of the product.
You can ask the seller which version it is. I got version 3 which came out in 2000. I think Wilson just came out with a ver4 but the differences are very small. You can check out Wilson's site for exact details. I'll probably be selling my copy so if you're looking for one then give me a shout.
bmboy888@hotmail.com
You might want to try Bob Ciaffone's "Omaha Holdem Poker", Millenium edition. Gambler's Book Store and Conjelco should have it. Not too pricey Ace
I have read a number of books on poker including those by Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Caro, etc. etc. I like to play low limit stud - anything from 1-5 to 4-8, and have just started doing so at the LV and LA casinos. At this point I probably have 50 or so hours of playing time and am behind a minimal amount - about a good dinner. I need advice on how to really determine the quality of my play in the games.
For the most part I play tight agressive to tight passive with aggressive being more frequent. I'm posting this in the theory section, because I am not seeking specific advice on how to play stud - the better books provide that. Rather I am trying to find out if I am just so short of hours played that it is impossible to make any realistic assessment of ability. Malmuth and Sklansky discuss players who do very well for extensive periods of time because of high standard deviations and delude themselves that they are better players than they really are. Similarly there will be players will long loss runs who are quite good. In a nutshell what does it take to figure out what you are.
Well, certainly more than 50 hours :). I think many on these boards would advocate 500 hours. Some other thoughts:
1. Many believe low limit stud is tough to beat long term because of the rake. Where I play the low limit stud players are woefully bad, so I believe I can overcome this in the long run. However, just because you aren't winning doesn't *necessarily* mean you are a bad player, just that the rake is getting you.
2. Most beginners, even when they think they are playing tight aggressive, really aren't. It's good that you realize that you play tight passive sometimes. This was (and sometimes still is) my biggest problem...not playing aggressively enough with the top hand. In any case, just by reading the books you're probably playing better technical poker than most....now its time to concentrate on other aspects such as reading players, adjusting to table conditions, etc.
Just some thoughts
You can analyse your play at the end of the evening. Think about the hands you won or lost and whether or not you had the best hand, had the right odds, or just got lucky. At the end of a session, you should realise that you had the best of it on most hands otherwise, you did not play particularly well that night (of course, sometimes you just run into trap hands, but don't worry about that).
Also, think retrospectively about how you would play hands differenly. If you find that number is high, again, you probably did not play that well.
As you improve, you will find that you had the right hand most of the time and that there are not too many changes that you would make in retrospect. Basically, what this method is trying to do is distinguish between good decisions and good outcomes.
I have just started playing low stakes omaha at Paradise. I am using the Hutchison system of point counting to determine which hands I should play. It is working pretty well for me. My questions are once the flop is out. I know I need to buy a good book on this ( I assume the Ray Zee book).
1) I try not to chase hands that won't become close to the nuts. I usually assume someone has a set. If a flush is possible, someone probably has it. If the board is paired someone usually has it. Same with a straight.
2) I flop 2 pair with no low possible for me but atleast two to a low on the board. Is this worth to chase? I occasionally call the flop bet if I have top two or top/bottom but bottom two seems like a fold.
3) Flopping 1 pair is always a fold unless I have nut low possibilities.
4) When I have two low flush cards and I hit a flush and someone else is betting. Should I call if there is now low possible?
5) I have A3 and flop is J87 with 5 or 6 callers. Do I call or should I assume one of those players have a2?
I know a lot of time it depends but I am trying to get an idea if I am playing them right.
Ken Poklitar
Paul,
This is just one way to play. I use Z's guidelines for starting hands. No matter what flops if I don't hit it or it conterfeits my hand I get OUT!! Now if I'm in late pos'n and decide to call with hands that don't fall inside the guidelines A3xx (J87)flop as your example and a 2 doesn't hit I get out. I try to play where I don't have to play defensive in the hand. I don't always play aggressive but I hate playing defensive in this game. LL games with 6 players calling and it is very hard to get a read on them especially on-line I found it best to play this way for me. Getting trapped for 1 or 2 bets is alot better than getting trapped for 4 or 6 bets chasing that 2 and two players already have A23 or A24 in their hand.
It's fun Ken so keep playing.
paul
Thanks. It is fun, although more fun when your nut flush doesn't lose to a straight flush :(
Ken Poklitar
Ken - Your questions indicate you are thinking in terms of two-card combinations. While it is true that you use exactly two cards from your hand, you should be thinking in terms of more than two cards. However, it’s very difficult to make the transition from two card combinations to four card combinations.
The Hutchison system is fine for a beginning player. Yes, you definitely should get the Ray Zee book. Shane Smith’s book would be my other choice of an Omaha-8 book for you. Get them both.
1) Right.
2) Right.
3) Sort of; not necessarily nut low possibilities, rather other nut possibilities.
4) (Depends on your opponents, your position and the betting round). Against unknown opponents, tend to fold on the flop or turn and tend to call one bet on the river with no one left to act behind you.
5) At a full, loose table (7-9 opponents), if you have A-3-X-X and no deuce, an opponent has A-2 something like two hands out of every five.
However, there are two other important factors to consider here. (1) You will make an uncounterfeited low slightly less than half the time (actually 488/990). (2) At a full, loose table you will be quartered (or sixthed) about a third of the time when you do make an uncounterfeited low.
Try this. Put twenty chips in a pile. Take away 10 because you’re only playing for half the pot, take away another 5 because half the time you won’t make an uncountefeited low, take away another 2 because forty per cent of the time you’ll get beaten by A-2, and finally take away 1 more because a third of the time you get quartered. You should have two chips left from the original twenty chips. If nothing more is bet, you should average winning two chips out of the original twenty.
Now you have to answer two questions for yourself to reach a conclusion as to whether or not to continue playing holding A-3-X-X with a flop of 7-8-J and no reasonable chance for high. (1) How many chips are you willing to risk to win the two chips? (2) What kind of fools are you playing with?
If your opponents are big enough fools, it might be profitable to play your A-3. Otherwise, it probably is not.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Thanks for the response.
Jeez it sounds like you think I am a holdem player! Okay guilty.
I am trying to play hands that can win both low and high. Usually 2 or 3 low cards hopefully suited with an ace or maybe 2. The counterfeiting of low really makes having 3 low cards an important key.
One more question. How bad does a hand have to be in the SB to fold it (with no raises)? I have rarely if ever folded my SB but playing only 50-1 or 1-2 it is not a big price.
Ken Poklitar
Hi Ken - You wrote, "One more question. How bad does a hand have to be in the SB to fold it (with no raises)? I have rarely if ever folded my SB but playing only 50-1 or 1-2 it is not a big price."
I think the answer depends on your opponents, particularly on the big blind. If the big blind likes to occassionally raise pre-flop, then you hate to call with a hand you would not have voluntarily played, had you realized the price to see the flop would be 1.5 small bets instead of 0.5 small bets. What can make it even worse is that if other players know the big blind often raises, they may tend to call and wait for the big blind to make a raise before re-raising.
I remember the faces (not fondly) of big blinds who tend to raise after everyone has called. I try to avoid sitting directly to the right of them. If I can't avoid sitting there, I tend to play tighter in the small blind. I hate to do it though, because probably one of their objectives in pre-flop raising is to get me to play tighter in the small blind, to get me to tend to concede my small blind.
Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm playing the small blind optimally. I tend to see the flop with more hands that I probably should. My reasoning is, if there are a lot of callers, then you're getting very favorable odds for paying only half a small bet, as long as the big blind is unlikely to raise pre-flop. However, with a lot of callers, you don't want to play hands that might tend to end up second nut hands, even for half a small bet. A suited king has little pre-flop value with a lot of callers, 3-4-5-X is still trash, that sort of stuff.
Just my opinion. I'd love to see a response from someone else here. I'm still learning.
Buzz
Re: omaha hi/low questions Posted By: Buzz Hi Ken - You wrote, "One more question. How bad does a hand have to be <.............> of callers, 3-4-5