![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
yes, these sites are illegal in the USA. Ratso is intelligent in suspecting problems.
Why is it illigal in the USA?
Playing any-any (hi-lo stud, no qualifier...75-150), I'm the high card with a queen, so i bring in. 3d raises to 75, Ac calls, Ah reraises. I look down and i'm rolled up. I call...maybe i should have folded??? I rarely play a rolled up hand in this game but i figured this was a good time since we had 4 people for 2 bets on 3rd street. I thought about 3-betting it and hoping everyone calls to build a pot early. The other players call and 4th street the Ah catches the 4h, the other 2 catch bricks. Ah4h bets, all call. 5th street Ah4h catches the 2h, the others catch bricks. I figure I'm in horrible shape here, but I call and the other 2 fold. (Right now I'm wishing i had folded on 3rd street....Maybe I should have folded here???). Anyway, I catch quads on 6th street and split the pot against his wheel.
This was the first time i had played a rolled up hand beyond 3rd street in any-any. Of course I wouldn't play it if the pot were heads up. The game at times is absolutely great when people raise with hands like a pair of jacks on 3rd street and such, plenty of opportunities for freerolls.
I hate playing for half the pot in this game (it's gotta be the biggest sucker play in any form of poker), but this was the first hand i've had where i believed it was profitable. With me calling 3rd street there's 4 people in for 2 bets.
Anyone who has played this game extensively, what would be your preferred move in this situation?
In my opinion, the play of this hand depends on whether or not the trips are small. If they're small trips and you catch any kind of low companion cards, you have one of the best situations possible. Trap second best high hands, put pressure on the low hands. Of course, the low heart flush in your example deserves respect.
I was 1 right of the button in a loose 15/30 Omaha 8 or better game. Started with KK23. Raised before it got to me, I called, button raised (which is common for him, even with trash) 6 players call including me. Flop was AK8. Wow trips! Ace scared me, so when large blind bet I just called, button raised, 5 callers including me. Turn is another A, giving me a full house. Checked to me, I check,scared of the button I guess. He bets, 3 callers before me, I just call. River is 9 or 10, I forget which. Checked to me, I check, Button bets, fold to me and I call. He has pocket Aces. Did I play it right or should I have been more aggresive? The game is very aggresive, lots of raises and calls, so it is hard to read the players. The Button player will raise to try and buy a pot often enough that you cannot be sure what he has (he has huge swings up and down because of his style of play).
4 other players play for two bets after the flop? You've got the Kings covered, your buddy's got the aces covered? What's everybody else playing? Probably 23 or 234. When the second A hits on the turn, I think I fold this hand. Your 23 is probably going to quarter if it hits.
Vince,
Not familiar with WTFO. Tell me about it yourself---don't have others elaborate.
Congrats on your 7CS tournament high finish.
Abe
Thanks Abe,
Truth is I'd be embarrassed to spell out WTFO now. wish I hadn't made the comment now. when they say "No Brainer" I think they are referring to me.
Vince
A heated debate arose in a home game I play in regarding which hand would win low between a hand with a pair of aces and a hand with a pair of deuces. Vociferous arguing ensued. I'm sure there must be a universally accepted rule regarding this situation, but I not only need the ruling, but also someplace I can go to PROVE this, other than "some guys I know from the Internet said so."
Thanks.
PS - I contended that the aces would be both hi and lo. I was roundly rebuffed by all at the table. Am I crazy?
Aplogoies in advance if I am wrong but it also may be the case that both of these hands would not qualify for the low pot as in Omaha8. Straights and flushes do count for the low but not pairs.
At home poker you have to have some sort of house rules to prevent these kinds of arguments. When you sit down for the first time you should ask a series of common sense questions about the structure of the game or games. As to your question, there is no convention that I know of. House rules. Logically though, it doesn't seem right that the same pair could win high and low. Put a qualifier on that low, it makes the game better.
X
First, Ben: If straights and flushes can be used, so can a pair. What you didn't say, but I assume you meant, is that there is a QUALIFIER in place (usually 8-low, sometimes 9-low). THAT would exclude pairs but allow lower straight and flushes (Broadway wouldn't be a low).
As to the A vs. 2- can't answer this, depends on the game and what is considered lowest card. In low-only games, there are 3 "professional" variations (I may have razz and lowball backwards)
Razz- Wheel is low A2345. A is low and high (not that high matters) Lowball- perfect low is 6432A. Again, A is low Kansas City Lowball- 72 low (23457) is perfect. A is high, deuce is low.
My general understanding of pairs (in hi/low games) is that AA is ALWAYS high (be tough to argue that a pair of deuces beats a pair of bullets if there WASN'T a high-low, wouldn't it?) and can't be low.
One of the Aces BY ITSELF would be the lowest card- when paired, cannot be lowest pair. Aces are so powerful already that to make them even MORE powerful implies that you should fold every time without an Ace.
But... you have to set that rule beforehand for your game, since logic is not always king.
Hope that helps.
Here's a play I watched while sitting in a $40-$80 stud game at The Mirage last night.
After the bring-in came in for $10 (with a 3c up), a weak player with a 4c called, a moderately aggressive player who plays okay called with a Kh, and then a player with an As raised. Only these three players went to fourth street.
On fourth street, everyone caught blanks. The player with the As in the door bet, and the player with the king in the door called, and the other player folded.
On fifth street it appeared that both players caught blanks. The player with the ace bet and got raised by the player with a king whose board was now Kh6c2s. (Note: all his cards were live.)
The player with the ace called the raise. Checked and called on sixth street, but checked and folded on the river.
My question is this. What could the player (with the king) who raised on fifth street have, and was the other player (with the ace) correct to call him?
Without peaking at anyone else's answers and setting myself up for a big fall,
Unless he improved to a fullhouse on the river, which Mason might not be in a position to know, the standard kingsup vs aces is eliminated due to the bet by the king on the river. I don't think he's as likely to take a pair of deuces up against a 4 and a 3 as he would be a possible pair of sixes, so I'm gonna guess he made trip 6s. One thing I have a little trouble with is why an aggressive player limps into the ace and calls the raise. One possibility is a setup for a completely naked steal, tho that is only possible if the opponent will give him credit for starting with 6s which given the subsequent calls is unlikely. So I doubt this. If I'm right about the 6s, then the ace was probably drawing to a two-outer, but didn't realize it. Had he made two-pair, he would've cost himself another $80. At least that's the FToP way of looking at it. An argument could be made that given the distribution of his opponents hands/ plays at him, that he's obligated to call him down with as little as aces. One would need more information about the opponent to make this determination tho.
JG
Your analysis is good except most aggressive players will bet out Kings up on the river in that type of game. Also, in this game, any live pair plays, I tend to discount the 6's because many players would raise coming in over the 4 that called. I vote for 3K, 2pair 6's and 2's or rolloed up.
There is one way to have 6's up, 2 ways to be rolled up, and two ways to have trip 2's. This makes trips a 4/5 favorite. I don't want to run the EV here all the way, but a fold is probably in order, although very few players ever make that lay down as it is a tough one in the heat of battle and this analysis has given 0 probability to a tricky play with 2 dry K's or K's up or a naked steal or a tilt play. Only Mason knows this answer for certain.
The player with the K up probably had nothing and decided to take the pot away from the A who was probably on a flush draw.
Here's my opinion. But first, I put this hand up because I see this type of situation all the time and I think that many people play it wrong.
First, we can eliminate a pair of kings (to start) because the player would have raised coming in. We can also eliminate a hand like three big cards (which includes a three-straight) because of the cards that he caught on fourth and fifth street.
This leaves three choices. The first is rolled up kings. The hand is played consistently with it.
The second is a small pair in the hole -- either deuces or sixes. I believe that this is a distinct possiblility since the player would be less inclined to raise because (1) someone has already limped in, and (2) the mistaken belief that many people have that hidden small pairs play best multiway. Furthermore, when the ace raises, many players also overvalue a small hidden pair and would thus call. This means that we are again looking at trips on fifth street.
The third possibility is starting with a three flush that consists of a king up and a 6 and a 2 in the hole. The problem with this is that many players, even those who are somewhat aggressive, are reluctant to raise what appears to be an obvious pair of aces on fifth street with two small pair. So I would say that sixes-up is less likely than what the mathematics of the hand would indicate. (This is an important point.)
(Note that I am not saying that calling with sixes-up is correct. If, for instance, the raiser doesn't have aces -- perhaps he has the small pair in the hole -- and would now fold to your raise, failing to raise is a mistake. However, I am saying that this is the way some people play.)
So my conclusion is that it is overwhelming that the player in question has made a set or started with one. If this is the case the player with the probable aces should fold.
All comments are welcome.
Mason,
Your analysis is very good and folding is probably the correct play. However, I think that you are downplaying the chances of sixes and deuces. The Mirage 40-80 games are quite aggressive and players tend not to hold back at all. So I think we should discount the probability of hidden sixes slightly (because he might have raised that hand) and INCREASE the probability of sixes up because almost all (unless the game has changed a lot lately) players will play that hand very aggressively and a good number will even bet out on the end. (Probably between 50 and 60% of the players.) Also, most players in that game will not fold for another 30 with 3 way action and no possible raise behind ($180 already in the pot)with ANY playing hand.
Your analysis is certainly more exact for a 15-30 type game with regulars. 40-80 at the Mirage tends to bring out the wild side of players and tilt happens more quickly as the swings are huge. I have not done a careful pot odds calculation, but if it comes close with a distribution such as this:
3K = 2/7
trip 6's = 2/7
trip 2's = 2/7
6's + 2's = 1/7
I would definitely play if the pot odds of this distribution were anywhere close to break even because I would discount the probability of 3 sixes and also enter a non-zero probability for a hand like 2 kings only, kings up, gut shot, etc. You never know (for sure) what people are thinking at a particular time. Maybe this player saw a lot of weak hands played and wants to sit on 2 kings because he thinks they are a monster. Maybe tilt is involved. Maybe he has seen the Ace player fold before and makes a move with a hidden pair. Maybe he has the other two aces and just loves to sit on buried aces. I don't think these are likely scenarios but they do not have a zero probability. Additionally, if I called on 5 with aces, I would call with dry acea on the end also because if I called on 5, it would be with the hope that the opponent did not have trips. With the low probability of kings as a starting hand, if he doesn't have trips on 5, there is a fair chance of only one pair in that hand (not too high, but worth the large pot odds on the end)
Russ:
I was hoping that you would answer my post since you have a fair amount of experience in this game. Obviously the "best" answer hinges on the particular player in question, not necessarily the general player who plays this game.
Mason,
You described the player with the king as aggressive and said he plays ok. Therefore, I made him the average player in that game. I have seen so many players that fit that description tilt in that limit that anything is possible. That particular limit seems to tilt even the most rational people. Even if they are not tilted, they seem to get wild thoughts like slow playing kings or believing no one ever has a good hand and raising on 5th because they give the other player nothing. That being said, it only moves the odds a little. I think if the player is aggresive and plays ok and is not tilted, then I will make the distribution even for 3 twos, 3 kings and 6's up. [6's up has only half the chance of the others because there is only one way to have K26h vs two ways for the other hands]. I discount 3 sixes because that would have been a raising hand. If I was playing, you can distribute the probabilities as I have described because I would not have reraised with 3 kings in a 3 way pot (usually want 4 or more to reraise), would have raised with kings or sixes and would not have raised with twos or 3 flush. I also would not try to make a move because I don't think Ace would try a steal once two players and low have come in. Tell me what you think and what he had (the latter only if you think it would be good for the site)
Russ
All of your observations are excellent. I think the $10 ante is driving most players out of their minds good and bad alike. I was just in a $10 ante 40-80 game this weekend. There is little chance that I would have folded in a situation described in this game(there are always exceptions of course). There were all kinds of desparate moves being made. Also as you said most were on tilt. Moves and tilt seems to prevail every time this game takes off. Because of this I think you should look at what hands are possible to start with:
pocket:
KK = 3
22 = 3
66 = 3
K6 = 9
K2 = 9
26h = 1
AA/K = 1
It is true that kings to begin are a little more unlikely in this case but if you substitute some of two pair hands by busted straights and flushes (maybe semibusted such as Ah2h/Kh26 or even totally busted) you have an easy call just as you did before. The only thing that is different now is you have to be prepared to call the river.
And for all of you trips fans I have this to say. You think you can rule out two pair which would leave you most likely with trips. But this game has a big ante and very aggressive play to it. My point being with some players you can rule out 2's and 6's as well. Why? Because it is a raising hand to most.
Good analysis although I strongly discount 66, or Kx or AA (two ways, not one to have this hand) as I think there is a very strong possibility that these hands would have been raised early. Thus, we are really down to 22, kk, or 26h, or some wild hand. Given the description, trips is an 80%favorite. This can be discounted some due to uncertainty but unless we put the player on slow playing to build a pot with kings (very rare given the game and description)its hard to imagine other hands with that board. I don't have time to run the numbers but does anyone know what probability of trips is the break even call on 5. Assume 6's up in the other most likely hand with a small (around 5%) chance of less than two pair.
The latter percentage is the key to this hand.
I'm a little lazy today(well I'm always lazy) so I won't run numbers today but when I ran numbers before I came up that it was not even close (favor a call). Now substitute(take away) some of those 2 pair hands by some busted hands and take away maybe 6's in a pocket and I believe a call will still be in order.
Maybe something like this:
trips = 6 combos
Kings up = only 2
2h6h = 1
Ah2hKh26 = 1 + 2 other hands such as this and it looks to me without doing any simulations as a call again. Anyway it should not be far off. And if it is not far off I think continuation is in order because I don't think you want to get noticed folding here especially if people believe you really do have Aces.
And why would Mason hope he responded?
CV
.
Chris
Stop asking such tough questions, I can't answer them. It makes us even because I don't know anyone else either except Mason.
Russ
Russ,
However, I think that you are downplaying the chances of sixes and deuces. The Mirage 40-80 games are quite aggressive and players tend not to hold back at all.
Russ your saying that he started with K62h I'm assuming since your post didn't state that and then caught a 6 then a 2. He might as well raise to see if the A caught. OK I see it now thanks for pointing this out.
Paul
Mason et. al.,
I see your point, but I still believe the King up had 2 pair and the Ace never improved his aces. Here’s why:
On 3rd st., with one player showing a 4 in early position and realizing he will have to deal with a King and Ace and probably a raise and calling, he must have either a straight or flush draw or a medium pair possibly with an Ace/King kicker (or he is an idiot). The King if he has only a pair might just call because of his position and the possibility of the ace raising. I feel if he has Kings wired, he might want to raise hoping the ace is a pair and might re-raise, or he might want to get some money in the pot and tie some players in. Aces would call an early raise by a King in front. Personally, I would raise with trip Kings in a tight game, and I think this is a tight game. If the Ace raises (which he did) I will figure him for Aces. If I re-raise (trip Kings), I will give away my hand, so here I simply call.
4th st., the ace bets--consistant with split aces. King only calls consistant with a pair of kings, or 2 pair concerned with aces up. If he had trips, I would expect him to raise; the ace will come along. He will loose the limper unless he has caught a flush draw or trips. Get the money while you can. If the Kings (assuming only a pair) calls the aces, it is only because all the King’s cards are live, and he lives dangerously. Why call Aces with only Kings??? I think he has 2 pair with live draws to a boat.
5th st., Ace bets and gets a test raise from the Kings. If the Ace reraises, the King is dead and probably folds the 2 pr. If the Ace just calls, I figure he is bare and has seen some of his cards on board. He sees 6th street intending to get a card for a single bet.--He checks, consistant with bare aces.
6th st. and river are consistant with Kings up and bare aces
I have seen enough players slow play wired trips and either get beat by a flush or have so little money in the pot that others just fold on 4th st, only to have the wired guy complain that no one ever calls him whan he has great cards. I think big trips wired in early position calls for an aggressive forceful almost boasting bet to lure in those players who “just do not believe you”. Remember too that a raise (really just a completed bet to $40) on 3rd st is a cheap raise, and in early position might be a steal.
comments please
.
I think for the majority of opponents this is sound advice. However, if i could find an opponent who would lay down aces after I raise on 5th street when I have a non-threatening board, I would go crazy with all sorts of hands.
There is also a small possibility that the K started with 2 Aces and elected to slow play them because he saw another Ace out.
"If this is the case the player with the probable aces should fold."
I suppose that all I would have to do is raise you in situations like this with my 2 Kings and you would fold. I think I'll give it a go next time. Sometimes we just think too much! vince.
The aces should definitely NOT fold if the king has hidden aces.
The major point of concern is how likely it is that the K started with a pair of kings or buried high pair. It's just that so many players at that limit NEVER play that way, so I put that probability at somewhere between 0 and 2.5%. If you think that probability is higher, then a call is in order.
You can't raise me on 5 and get me to fold because I am assigning nil probability to the chance that you started with kings.
Russ wrote:
"The major point of concern is how likely it is that the K started with a pair of kings.. "
Then Russ justified his estimate with:
"It's just that so many players at that limit NEVER play that way, "
This is a very misleading statement. I can make a similar statement that is just as true and contradicts yours. That is: It's just that so many players at that limit ALWAYS play that way.
This is especailly true in a tough game.
Vince.
..AND having no experience at 40-80 7S, I have to say I like the idea of hero having AA/K the best; esp. w/ that position and dependent on the recent 'history' of the game plus hero's take on A (and hero's take on A's take on hero). I think hero raises with 22/K, 66/K, and _62/K_; and I think he waits 'til 6th to raise w/ KK/K.
I think that rolled-up Kings w/ an Ace behind is a MONSTER in 40-80, and hero can be hoping for five bets minimum from Aces/Aces-up on 6th & 7th. If A catches another A and hero doesn't improve, he can just check-call; A doesn't have to have ?A/A, esp. since hero didn't raise on 3rd. If A makes a canoe(underfull) against Kings full... Isn't this the sort of situation high limit Stud players wait weeks/months for?
Also, just to be REAL goosey, how about a ~steal~ w/ _45(or 3)/K_62?
Russ, I know a guy who plays 40-80 Stud when he's in LV and he definitely fits your description of this game's 'tempermant'.
He had Rolled up Kings!
Yes the player with the Ace was correct in calling and probably should have called the river.
Vince.
This is a very interesting forum as two thoughts seem to be prevalent among the responses:
1) The K is most likely to have trips (around 75%)
2) The A should call.
[Disclaimer: These odds are off the top of my head, please improve upon them if you have the desire] These are mutually exclusive as if King has trips, Ace is around a 9-1 dog on 5 and 16-1 on six to improve to trips, which can easily be beat by King's full house. If K does have two pair, then Ace is still an underdog and Ace is a solid favorite over 1 pair but most people think that is unlikely. I guess the moral of the story is that most of us are pretty good card readers but hate to get bluffed out ever. Therefore, we imagine how terrible the future is if we allow ourselves to get bluffed out. Well, we could fold with a comment like "how did you know I was stealing" and reserve judgement about this player and other players making moves on us for the next time it occurs. It is true you really don't want 7cs players making too many moves on you but they make far less moves than you think and if you haven't seen this player play wildly in the past, give him the benefit of the doubt, THIS TIME but be aware of possible future moves.
Also, don't give away any information about how smart you are. On one of my first trips to Vegas, I was in a high limit game, playing mostly ABC poker because the game was fairly wild and I lost a hand to a regular. It was a tough beat and I had a strong hand. I mentioned that I was glad I didn't raise on the river and he replied "if you would have raised, I would have mucked my flush in a NY minute, you are so tight." Well, the next hand we played, he triple bet the pot with Aces, I played as 3rd man in with 456s. Caught a random 7 on 5 and raised him when the 3rd player folded. Bet on 6 and 7 and when he folded I told him he should have known better, as of course I was rolled up. He showed me aces and a straight draw and said he would not even have called with two pair. Goes to show you how a big mouth can get you in trouble.
PS: I hope I never play against any of you guys as you all seem to be very knowledgeable players. I try not to play with anyone that even tries to think. Then I don't have to either.
If you play high limit you probably won't be playing against me anytime soon. Your good fortune too. I am ass.
vince.
Your hand is only good if an A falls on the flop, so you need to look at the odds of an A hitting, which is a little over 20%. You also need a second low card to fall, which reduces your odds to about 13%. However, this does not take into account the implied odds - you will only lose one small bet if you miss the flop, but will make a lot more if you actually hit.
You will flop a nut low about 6% of the time. You will flop a low draw and hit about 5% of the time. You will flop a low draw and miss about 2% of the time. You will miss the flop 87% of the time.
So, 87% of the time, you will lose only 1sb. The 2% of the time you miss on the river, you lose maybe 2-4bb. The 8% of the time that you win, you will get half the pot, which we'll say, is approximately equal to Xbb, where X is the number of players seeing the flop (not actually a horrible estimate for a loose game). I didn't take into account getting quartered or making a straight, but perhaps these effects cancel each other out.
This all translates into needing about 6 players to see the flop to have a positive EV. So, if you feel like you'll get 5 other callers, you should go ahead and call one small bet.
(I hope I did these calculations roughly correctly) ~DjTj
Funny...I'm sure your calculations are correct but I find myself thinking (out loud...)"the more players that have called before I act, the less likely to see an ace hit the board." (which I need to even think about putting any more chips in the pot). Am I giving these other players too much credit?
Hmm...that is a good point...it almost makes 2-3-4-X completely unplayable unless you're the small blind or something.
Perhaps we should wait for Ray Zee to get back from California so he can give his expert opinion.
Zee discusses the hands 2345 and 23XX on page 188 of the Second Edition of his great book on High-Low Poker. The hand in question, 234X, is not discussed directly but maybe we can read between the lines.
Pot-limit ring game (dealers choice) with 3 blinds 5/5/10. 7CS Hi-Lo is called.
I'm in 3rd position with 6Q/Q and raise to 100 after 2 opponents have called with 2 low cards. It's passed to the most agressive player of the table in the 1rst blind who re-raises all-in to 250 with an A.
2nd blind folds, BB (loose player) calls with a 7 showing and the 2 initial limpers now fold. At this point I have 800 in chips and BB has a bigger stack. I call since I prefer too see what happens on 4th street before committing my whole stack.
1rst question: should I have reraised all-in to try to push out the BB and his low hand and play for no more money against 2 aces or a good low ?
4th street: I 6Q/QA, 1rst blind xx/A2, BB xx/73, all offsuit. I bet all-in for the following reasons:
- since I catch an A, 1rst blind is less likely to have 2 aces; so he must have a very good low and perhaps the 2 paired him
- BB has now likely a 4-low but perhaps with very small chances to back in high
2nd question: is it a check and call (or fold) situation ?
Anyway BB calls and I loose both the main and side pots with 6Q/QA47/9 (pair Q / no low) against 3A/A265/2 (2-pair A 2 and 6-5 low) and 56/7358/3 (2-pair 5 3 and 8-7 low).
I think I made 2 bad decisions on 3th and 4th street but would like to hear the comments from both the 7CS 8 or better and the pot-limit experts.
On 3rd street I would have called at best with open queens. With the A behind me, I probably fold. After the betting, I believe that both other players have obvious hands. Would the 1 blind jam with a low draw? Would the bb call with less that 56/7 (or 55/5 dream hand)? After you've wandered into the fray, on 4th street I would check/call. And this is why I rarely play big OPEN pairs in 8 or better: you're rarely in a position to drive the action. More than likely, you're sucking along while the low players take shots at you. For me to enter a pot with a high hand it has to be: 1. Disguised ex. 55/5 or qq/3 2. Definitely has to be the best high hand showing
ex. no A showing, no overcards have entered before me. 3. I have to be reasonably sure that 2 or 3 quality low draws will not enter the pot. Just my two cents worth. These hands have lost me a lot of money over the years, and when they've won, they've won little.
Without looking at the other responses, I have to say that 6Q/Q is garbage; esp. with the Q up, 2 low limpers in, and an aggressive Ace yet too act. You can't steal, and no one's going to put you on a set. I can't imagine this was a hand you wanted to risk your whole stack on. 4th street just made things worse; the best you could hope for was that the 3 paired up BB and you could get heads-up against a hand you were going to be a big dog to get even a split with.
I am fairly convinced this a marginal play due to the discussions I have been having with scott, but I think I'd like some input.
1) In a 1-5 no ante situation, how incorrect is it to try and steal the $1 bring in from late position w/ a marginal hand? I can understand that $1 is not a lot, but if I put in a five bet with live overcards, I'm not too upset getting called so long as I get to see 5th street for under five dollars. I think the math ends up saying this a pretty bad play, but what about when there's $3 in the pot, is this still a bad play? In the 1-5 at the mirage the early callers have a pretty good chance of folding to the five bet. Coming from L.A. I was just suprised to see that people were actually folding when I bet, but I think they folded correctly: there was no money in the pot.
2.) Same game, how important is it to narrow the feild. If I have wired tens, do I raise the bring in to three for 2 callers, or let 5 (including myself) limp in with the hope of getting a few more bets in later? I think it's a simple issue of a "made" hand prefering fewer callers even if their calls are incorrect (these calls coming from those who would have folded their hands had I bet).
James:
1.) This can go three ways. You are constanly stealing from the same player. (a)He can let you steal all night and not come back at you. (b) He can start steaming and call/raise with all kinds of junk. (c) Or he can wait for a decent hand and play back at you. What you do depends on who sits at your left. Actually if this situation comes up very often, you probably need a table change.
2.) I don't like tens. raise with a premium upcard in late position. otherwise limp and hope for help.
Fred M.
Greetings:
In my opinion, those folks who throw 5$ at 1$ are making themselves look like major tight asses and wimpish. If there's a 1$ in the pot and I have a premium pair, I will raise in the third round to set the stage, making it a two-pair rundown on average. If I carry the 1$, so be it. Yes, I'll be the first one to agree that it's better to win a 1$ than to lose 15$, but at the same time have a little latitude. Bet the 3$, and make it a 2 or 3 horse race (which often happens), pop'em again for 4$ or 5$ on fourth street at which will often carry the pot or go heads up, which is where you want to be and take it from there. However, as a word of advice to all reading, if one of your opponents pairs his door card after your original raise, there is a very strong chance your looking at trips NO MATTER the fact that the up card is lower than the high pair you've already defined. At this level, lower pairs often get held onto even when they should not (even their kicker will be lower than your defined pair)... As a worst case example, and if somebody knows the odds of this, please tell, I was playing 1-5 stud at the Bellagio, started with trip 8's with the other 8 already on the board, raised (though normally I'll wait to 4th, don't ask me why I raised in this case) and was called by two people. Fourth street rolls around and one guy pairs his 4 upcard and bets, the other guy folds, and I'm happy because I know this SOB has motivated trips and I'm on top of him. Well, you know my other 8 is already gone, but what you don't know is that the SOB is betting into me every street, I pop him for a raise on 5th of which he calls as expected. And then on 6th, the SOB catches another 4, and I juuuusssttt know I'm looking at quads in my gut, but for the blank of it called to 7th hoping to pair up and possibly have a higher boat. Well, that didn't happen, and he had the quads.... So what were the odd's, a lower pair overcoming higher trips on third street?
All the best,
JPN in Madison
James H. - I believe the first situation you mention is one of the few times position really matters in 7cs. I put in the raise with the overcard about 70% of the time and I'll win from 1 to 4 bucks about 70% of the time. However, where you really make out is when you bet $5 on fourth and they all fold, you are stealing. I firmly believe even with a big pair you need to get the fewest callers. In these 1-5 games they will play any pair and I've seen people call $5 bets on 4th thru 6th streets with nothing more than high cards. You have to make it expensive for them, make 'em pay to see those extra cards. IN situation 2 I think you take your one shot at getting them out either on third or fourth and if they're still there sit back and hope for improvement. I don't like tens either, so try to win it NOW and if the board turns against you get out quick. When i have a marginal hand I want them out of there and I'll take my few bucks which makes up for when i'm force bet. THE KOUNT
Saturday 1/29 at Sands AC 1-5 7CS. 25 cent ante puts $2 in the pot. I get a split pair of treys with K kicker and I am the force bet 3 callers ($6 pot). Its checked around on fourth street. On fifth street I get a trey (trips), an old man who has acted strange all the time he was on the table (thought he had a flush at showdown but didn't, making weird bets and was arogant to boot) gets an ace to go with two blanks on board and a guy we'll call small pair man (SPM), never saw a pair he didn't like, pairs his 4th ST 5 and bets $3, next player folds, I raise to $8 and the old man reraises to $13, of course SPM calls. Now I'm thinking the old man may only have aces up and think he is in command, SPM probably has two small pairs. I know they both we call to the river. Before I act there is $35 in the pot. I'm figuring it will take $5 on 6th and 7th streets so I will have to risk $15 to win a pot which would be $65 in the end ($15 on 6th and again on 7th) so implied odds are 4.33 to 1. My kickers are all live none out, SPM's 5's are dead both were out, no aces seen. I call the bet and it goes to 7th as I figured $5 each street from the three of us. My trey goes to SPM on sixth. The old guy shows Aces full of tens. He shows his down cards are 2 aces and a ten, he got a ten on sixth street, so he may have got an ace on the end. SPM shows 2 pair: 9's and 5's (yes he called all the way). I never improve. I figured it was 3.5 to 1 to get a full house with trips on 5th St and live kickers and I was getting 4.33. Should I have folded then or when my trey went out on 6th. If the old man was a strong player and not showing signs of being senile, I believe I would have folded when he reraised. Was my implied odds calculation correct? Was it a good call in the circumstances? If not, when should I have folded? Appreciate this great groups opinions, thank you. The Kount
Kount, Since the Senile Old Guy (SOG) let a free round go by on fourth, it's pretty hard to belive he started with pocket aces. So, on fifth street, you could figure he had either Aces paired, Aces up, or started with rolled up trips. Only if he started rolled up (presumably with something higher than your threes) are you in trouble. If both SOG and SPM (with two dead fives) have two pair it's still more than even money that they will both miss (5/6 times 2/3 = 5/9) and you are getting two bets for one of yours. If he has (as it turned out) only Aces, you are a two to one favorite. I'd have made it $18 on fifth street. If the SOG raises on 6th, it will probably cost you ten to see the river for a pot of $85.
DJ
Kount:
I see nothing wrong in the way you played the hand. You can't laydown trip 3's in light of your competition. I'm not a math person, so I will leave that to my friend DJ.
Fred M.
I recently (last saturday) saw something in a cardroom i was left w/the impression would never happen.
At the showdown several people showed down their hands. the dealer mucked the winner (and even announced the hand). And then realized she mucked ( the best hand after looking at a few more, she said something about being tired and then gave the pot to the person who 's hand she mucked!
Comments!?
I remember posting something about the dealer mucking someone's "nuts", as the player didn't realize he had the "nut straight" and some other player took dwon the pot w.trips. But it seems that post is nowhere to be found!
Curious:
It shouldn't have happened and it should have been a floor decision, but there was no apparent controversy over who had the best hand, so as they say in sports "no harm, no foul".
Fred M
It may vary from casino to casino or even state to state but I believe the dealer did the right thing. The hand in question was face up, seen by all as well as by the dealer. Under these conditions, I don't believe that it is mucked has any bearing on the awarding of the pot. At least this is what I have seen in the casino.
A couple of questions regarding the value of starting hands for open-raising the pot in double-limit lowball:
1) Is there a rule of thumb I can use for comparing the value of pat hands with the joker versus without the joker? For example, is an 8-6 without the joker approximately equivalent to an 8-7 with the joker? What pat-with-joker hand would be equivalent to an 8-7?
2) Same question for drawing hands. For example, a one-card draw to an 8-7 without the joker would be equivalent to what draw-with-joker hand?
Thanks
When drawing to eights and eight-sevens, the biggest value in having the joker in your hand is that you know it isn't in an opponent's hand. Drawing to a "big" hand with the joker is much more valuable because it gives you four more cards that make you a "big" hand. If you draw to 8-7-4-2, or 8-7-4-jkr, the joker gives you four more cards (the 2's) to make a so-so hand. If you draw to A-2-3-4, only 13 cards make you a 7-4 or better. Drawing to A-2-3-Jkr., you have 16 cards that make you a 7-4 or better, 12 cards that make you a 6-4 or better, and 8 cards that give you a "wheel".
Pat hands with the joker are worth more the better they are. A pat 9-7 with the Jkr is worth about the same as a 9-6. 8-7 with Jkr. about 8-5 without. 7-6 with Jkr. equivalent to 7-4 without. Straight six with the Jkr equivalent to 6-5-3-2-A.
These are my values based on many hours of playing experience. I haven't run any simulations to arrive at them. I generally play all my hands stronger if the Jkr. is present, but I'm not going to reraise with 7-5-4-3-Jkr. after I bet it and got raised after the draw. If I have the same hand and someone bets into me after the draw, I'll be more likely to raise them than if I didn't have it.
One mistake a lot of players seem to make is in thinking that the Jkr. in their hand makes them a favorite to make a good draw. I'll take my pat 9-8 against your A-2-3-Jkr. everytime if I can 3 bet you before the draw.
Do you have an opinion regarding the pat-with-joker equivalent of an 8-7? In his "how to play lowball" series of Card Player articles, Wiesenberg says you can open the pot with a pat 8-7 or better from middle position, but he did not specify the minimum pat-with-joker hand for opening in middle position.
In the games I frequent, I would open for a raise, UTG with any pat 8 that contained the joker. A pat 8-7, UTG, without the joker, would probably be brought in for a raise as well. If someone 3 bet me, I might have to break the hand against certain opponents. Normally, I'd stand pat and regret having gotten into the hand.
If someone had come in for a raise in front of me, I'd call when I had the joker working and fold the 8-7 without a joker. It is an unfortunate fact that you stand to lose the bigger pots when you start out with a mediocre hand that is difficult to improve upon. In truth, the play of marginal hands is so player dependant that your decision usually comes down to who you are playing rather than what you are playing. If you can find a game with weak opponents, pat 8-7's go way up in value. Against strong, aggressive competition, pat 8-7's are probably going to cost you money when played out of position.
Would you open with 9-8-7-6-Joker against 5 solid (not overly aggressive) players who have not yet acted (you're in middle position)?
No. The hand is too rough to try to jam through. If you get any play with it from behind, you are giving up post draw position and you have to throw it away if anyone sends a bet out there. I think rough hands into three people with position, and the blinds, is simply asking for trouble. The only exception would be if players were showing my bets and raises too much respect before the draw.
Makes sense. Would 9854-Joker be close to the minimum pat-with-joker hand with which to open in that position? (assuming reasonably good players, no special circumstances)
I have never played any PL games before. I am an accomplished middle-limit HE player, and I am learning stud from 7CSFAP. I may soon hve the opportunity to play some small PL stud high.
What are the best references to prepare me for this game?
Thanks! Dennis
.
The chapter on PL stud is pretty bad though. Reuben is really unclear, and the chapter consists mostly of anecdotes and obvious concepts.
True, but more than you can find anywhere else. Is there anything relevant in SuperSystem?
The closest thing in Super/System seems to talk only about limit Stud High.
Any other thoughts? I have Ciaffone/Reuben, and I am looking for more ammo.
Thanks! Dennis
Hi,
I am a big fan of the game 333, i dont know if any of you here have heard of it, but for those of you who have, I have a question about a situation that happened to me yesterday.
I am in the last position to open, and i am holding 8,3,8,K,J. I am about to say that i can open, as the guy to my left announces he only got 4 cards, another card is dealt, and two of his cards were stuck together, but he later admitted that it happened AFTER he was dealt. There was about $20 in the pot at this point (i am only 15, and this was the first hand, which would have meant that i'd have had the first leg.)
A few hands later, no action since, no one had any legs, as the player to my left (THE SAME GUY) is being dealt his cards, one of the cards being dealt hits his hand, and flips over, which means a misdeal. I look at my cards anyways, and am holding 6,7,8,9,10.
By the time the second insodent occured, i was fuming. I lost a near sure chance to win a good $50 pot.
My question is, what should be done in these instances of utter stupidity which cost me a leg? should be penilaze the idiot a leg? any suggestion are appreciated.
no idea how the game is played.
couple of comments though- buy a new deck of cards :). when a card is dealt up accidentally, it should not constitute a misdeal...burn the card and deal another to the player in question.
A popular game in my home games is 7-27 (closest to 7 and 27 split the pot - Aces are 1 or 11 and face cards are a half). Anyone out there play this game? I am curious if you have any basic strategies that you could discuss.
Unless you're sure you're the only one going for it, never go for 27. 6 1/2 is sometimes ok for seven, but anything less than 8 should be avoided. If you have a natural seven, give a few free cards to keep people in so that you'll have more of a freeroll. To make the pots gigantic try the variant where all red cards are worth zero, since it can take the bad players over 20 cards to get near 27.
That should read "anything further than 7 1/2 should be avoided"
Unless you're sure you're the only one going for it, never go for 27. 6 1/2 is sometimes ok for seven, but anything further than 7 1/2 should be avoided. If you have a natural seven, give a few free cards to keep people in so that you'll have more of a freeroll. To make the pots gigantic try the variant where all red cards are worth zero, since it can take the bad players over 20 cards to get near 27.
The key to this game is getting 7's or 27's or playing position to be the only player left going low. I think I read one poker luminary comment that the correct way to play this game is to only continue when you start perfect. Competing with close but not perfect hands is generally not profitable except with the poorest of players (many of whom I have played this game with in the past thankfully :).
There are many starting formats for this game which make game play and hand values very different. I have played versions where players get 1 down, 2 down, 1 down and 1 up, and 2 down and 1 up.
Obviously it is far easier to get a perfect hand with only one card dealt (7.7% for a 7, 0% for 27). As you add cards, it becomes less and less likely to start perfect. With two cards (3.6% for 7, 0% for 27). With three cards (.55% for 7, .27% for 27...and .036% for that ever-elusive AA5 hand).
I think the key to deciding whether to play is how many people regularly continue after the start and whether you have live cards that you can draw to perfect. In my home game, players rarely fold after the initial deal and usually not until they are over 27 or are clearly chasing a made hand. In this loose game I will usually take a card off if I have three or more outs to 7 or 27. I also make it a habit to draw early in a hand from 6.5 or 26.5 if there are more than one going clearly in my direction. Make the hand or fold.
Never draw needing two cards to get perfect. Example, you have 22 and draw for a five..pull a facecard..now you have 22.5 and fours are very live...rarely is it ever worth it to try for this unless you are the only player contending for high.
If the game is tighter, so should you be.
Hope this helps. Sorry if my math is wrong...I'm not as analytically savvy as most of the other posters!
We play the 1 down, 1 up version. The predominant strategy among my players is to sit and represent 7 (if they can) as long as possible to get others to go high. Then it is a pretty simple task to make the low hand (We play that you HAVE to be 7 or over when the game ends and you bust at 27.5).
I am going to dump that technique. It gets very expensive against made hands and when you later decide to go high.
I have come to the conclusion (as you have) that either I am going to play if (1) I have a made seven, or A5 -- for the chance of making AA5; (2) I have a big initial hand that should require only one or two cards to make a good high hand. Otherwise, I am going to fold.
here's an interesting twist for your loose gambling types: Any player who can hit 26.5 or less in 10 cards sweeps the pot. Keep in mind that each card carries an average point count of 4.35 (226/52) when A's are counted as 1. Most players will never realize this and will draw cards with any low looking hand.
Here are some other twists to 7-27 I have seen used at various times.
1) "Outsides" win. That is 6.5 beats 7.5 and 27.5 beats 26.5. Cuts down on splits.
2) "Five-Ace-Ace" rule. If your 1st three cards are 5AA, you win the whole pot, regardless of whether you declare high or low, and regardless of whether anybody ties you.
3) All three cards are dealt facedown and you roll your own doorcard.
4) Stop-and-start rule / 3 pass rule. Once you stop taking cards and/or once you pass 3 times your hand is frozen. [Huge advantage to dealer].
If someone is able to get to 27 or under with a total of 10 cards they win the whole pot. My advice for regular 7-27 is to hit right away until you can get 6.5 or 7, and as for the high you need to hit big # cards and get to 26.5+ fast, and fold 28's....
I'm going to play in a 10-20-30 Omaha Hi game this weekend and was wondering what are good starting hands for this game. I've played Omaha 8 before but I've never played just Hi. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated. Just found out about two plus two and I'm so impressed that I'm taking rpg off of my favorites. Thanks in advance for the advice.
The key is to have (1) high cards (2) that are connected to each other for pairs, straights, and flushes. Ideal hands are KcQdJcTd (a four high card, no-gap, double-suited straight run), AsAhJsTh, AdQdQcJh (an ace suited to a high pair), KsKdQsQh, AdJhTd9c (an ace suited to a high no-gap straight run). It also makes a big difference how high a pair is - you try to make the nuts in this game, so middle and lower pairs are worth next to nothing, as are middle and lower flush draws. Suited aces add significant value to a hand, as do AA, KK, and QQ. Straight runs are significantly weakened by gaps - QJT9 is far better than QT87. In late position of an unraised pot with many players in you can play hands like 8765, which can make the nuts although they do so infrequently. Omaha High is *very* positional unless the game is loose-passive. You should play very tight in early position. Don't play hands that aren't connected or that don't have a nut draw, except for steals. If you are stealing the blinds in late position, you want a hand with high cards. A hand like AsKhJd4c is normally unplayable, but is a good steal hand due to the high cards.
Thanks for the advice Dan!
me and my friends got drunk the other night, and came up with this great game called "down in the delta" the way it works is, each player gets 2 cards in their hands, and two showing, then there is a 5 card board like in HE.
betting after first 2, then after 2nd 2, then just like in HE, after flop, turn, and river
watch out for it in your local casino! its the game of the millenium.
i won a $9000+ pot on this game
I recently moved and the only game in town is 3-6-12 dealers choice - omaha, hi/lo. I have been playing for about a year and a half. I consider myself to be an average player, not as aggressive as I could be. I have mostly played in a good 5-10 holdem game and now I find myself playing in this bingo game.
The players are super loose and not very aggressive. No word of a lie, there are an average of 8 callers, pre-flop.
My game plan has been to raise whenever I enter a pot, but all that does is build the pot and keep them in until the river.
I don't know what to do? You have to show down the nuts or you lose. I have been playing here for a month and have made a little, but there is a lot more that I'm not getting.
Any comments on hand selection or betting strategy or any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Any good readings on hi/lo and hi?
Db
Db
You are in a dream game. Read Ray Zee's and Shane Smith's book and check this forum out. Also check old forum archives (the forum was split about two months ago so Omaha stuff will be in the poker archives). I would also search rgp using www.deja.com power search and look for anything with Omaha and (Steve) Badger in it. You can take his advice to the bank.
In short, loose Omaha H/L is a game of good hand selection (which means you need to be patient). Recognize that big draws to the nuts (preferably to both sides) are the best hands versus a vulnerable made hand (even if it is the current nuts). Gamble it up on your big draws. They will be a money favorite. Note that a good made hand with redraws to the nuts is very powerful. With this structure you will do very well as you will be getting paid off on the river and showing them the nuts at least in one direction. Stay away from one way hands unless you are getting a great price.
Regards,
Rick
You may not know it Dean, but you are in poker heaven. I play in one of these friendly brawls. Omaha 8, pineapple hi-lo, 7stud8. 9-10 players. 5-10 with kill and double kill. AT LEAST 5 players call every flop, more like 7-8. Drinking, jokes, and lots of loose gambling!
Sounds similar to your game Dean. It just doesn't get any better than this! Aggressiveness is not rewarded in these games, in fact hard nosed poker can kill the golden goose if you start to piss everybody off. They like to lose their money slowly to friendly players. Raising before the flop is pretty much useless with 8 players and 4 cards apiece. Wait and see what the flop brings before you committ a lot of cash. My hand selecton before the flop is rather loose (but still tighter than my opponents') for these types of games. I see flops with hands I wouldn't dream of playing in a casino. Others may disagree with this loose limping strategy.
Your main money maker is loose calling/drawing AFTER THE FLOP by other players. Now if you have the scooping nuts WITH DRAWS TO BETTER HANDS, raising is appropriate. My experience is that your raises will be called once loose players see a second or third nut draw. What is a nut hand can be decieving though. Don't think bare trip 7's with a flop like 247 is a good hand. redraws redraws redraws.
Yes you have to show down the nuts. Yes your chips may swing wildly. Its a game of bad beats and miracle cards. But it's pretty simple really. If you can read the flop and make better decisions after the flop than your opponents, you should be a winner.
five hours into my worst session yet at a loose 3-6 stud in San Manuel indian casino I limp in with AQ4, with the A and Q live overcards. The guy at the end of the table is a toothless maniac, super loose, but still up about $500, $100 of it mine. Everyone limps and fourth street comes, I pair my queen. I bet it the max and four people call, a two flush on my left, everyone else catches rags. Fifth comes and I make aces up. I'm excited, and the super loose guy picks up a king. I go for the check raise, the loose guy bets and I raise with the flush draw calling. On sixth, the loose guy picks up another king and he bets. I call figuring him for kings up, thinking he has me on queens up. (A raise won't get him out, and he might have trips so I call him then and on the river) He has trip kings and takes down a huge pot. This was one of four hands I played all night, and at this point I can't tell if I just got a bad beat, or if I was playing terrible. Any input would be appreciated.
My thoughts:
AQ4 looks like a weak hand. If you only played four hands all night, and this was one of your best, then you had a really cold night.
On sixth street, when you have aces up agaist toothless's likely pair of kings or kings up, and when the other opponent looks like he has a 4 to 1 shot at a flush, you should be raising. Why fear trip kings when toothless can have anything in the hole. I don't like your reasoning, "A raise won't get him out". You should be collecting money from your opponents when you are the favorite.
I'm surprised a "super loose maniac" won't reraise you again if he makes kings on fifth. Maybe he made trips on 7th...
--- Chris Callahan
Trips on seventh is certainly a possibility.
(The word super-loose maniac is probably an exageration. he bet/raised every hand he was in (about 4/5 of them) until 5th when he folded about 1/3 of those.)
4:1 shot at a flush? A two flush is not a three flush is not a four flush. She cold called my check-raise, so I have to put her on a pair, maybe two (and yes she would be calling a check raise with an underpair and three flush). I never saw her hand, she folded to the pair of kings.
What does a raise here buy me? I have to call him to the river, I raise, he'll probably still bet it out. The trouble was that I couldn't put him on a hand. In this scenario, what are the odds he has trips. In a heads up situation, if they are lower than 1/2, I should be betting.
You're right about the raise not getting him out being meaningless reasoning. If he has kings up, then I should be raising because I want him in. If he has trip kings, then I should be calling (80$ pot, I am close to having odds to the full house once you add in the raise on the river.) I just couldn't put him on a hand and that's that.
I don't have pot odds to call his trip kings. His odds of filling up are better than mine.
Have to agree with Chris here. With a very loose player after me and bad position, I would not play the hand. If I had better position and only 2-3 players, I might play for the bring-in. You will be in the lead with a lot of players and you will not be in a position to raise.
I would not have played the hand.
Not playing the hand has to be incorrect. The ante is one dollar, if i wait around for the three straights/three flushes that play best against all the callers that will be out there regardless of how I play, then I lose all of my money to the ante. Maybe the game is unbeatable, but sitting around and waiting for those "premium hands" costs too much. You don't win often enough even with those premium hands to beat the ante. The impled odds on the bring in are huge, why not play anything that has a chance? Does this hand win 1 in 100 times? If so then I should play it every time.
Greetings:
There are three reasons why you lost money on that hand, and avoiding any and all of these in the future will save you allot of money:
1) First of all, the 3 cards you described do not constitute a starting hand, especially against many players. Moreover, when you caught that queen sucking you in, it was salt to the wound. This is what you want, and overpair when your up against one or two other players, but against many players you still have an overall worthless hand.
2) You said you received only 4 playable hands in 5 hours. This too is very bad, even though it's not in your control. By not getting playable hands, there's a double effect. One, not catching hands has a cumlative irritating effect to you and as time passes, it becomes a greater and greater distraction. Secondly, although you think this may enhance your "semi-bluffing" abilities because obviously if your finally in a hand you must have something good, in reality it actually has a lesser effect in that the other players are going to make you post a win before they start recognizing your cards, which just aren't coming that evening. So in essence, you've got no momentum to speak of.
3) Loose maniac calling stations are something I seriously try to avoid. That's the nice thing about low limit stud in Vegas in that if I don't like a game, I'll get up and hit another casino. When your rather stuck at one place, like when I play at the Iowa riverboats, your more forced "to play the cards that are dealt", aka, you have to put up with calling stations. They can be (and have been) very, very annoying and have taken pots I normally would have won had they respected my up cards like the smarter ones. Of course, it seems it's those hands you never quite hit the flush or they make trips on 7th and beat your Aces up. To beat a calling station requires time and patience and bit of strategy change, while at the same time not drifting too far from your guns because by focusing too much on the calling station, the other players can sneak up and bite you on the ass. Essentially, what you want to with high pairs is to bet max on 3rd and 4th limiting the field to as few people as possible, and then make 1$ (assuming a 1-5$) on 5th 6th and 7th streets under normal times, only bringing your bet up when your in serious "striking zone". Moreover, I will play allot more starting low pairs with one on the door, because there's nothing more beautiful than watch than some dumb ass paying of your pair door card at 5$ a hit all the way to 7th street. All in all, you have to let time and math eat away at the calling station, and although time seems to last forever while your playing against them, you'll find that a calling station will go up and then go broke all in a few hours. Where I play, everyone will start tightening up allot and only playing sure quality against the calling station and then betting higher when their on, so it essentially becomes 7 against 1, and then it's just a matter of time.......
1. What are your requirement for a starting hand? In a low-limit games I prefer to go with a strategy to consider fourth street as third and play any hand that can improve on fourth unless there is a raise on third. It works for me really well. Many hands form only on 4th, and it costs only $2extra in $5-10.
2. Why do you consider QQA4 a folding hand? I would understand this on 5th but why on 4th?
Greetings:
In a nutshell, read Roy West's book and that will answer your starting hands questions. Secondly, the eventual Queens up will lost to either a flush or straight.
JPN in Madison
On fifth you've got AQ showing, he bets his K into you and calls your checkraise. What hand do you think he put you on? You said you thought he put you on queens up. That means he's a good bet to have at least a pair of K's, and probably hoping you don't have A's up. Then he pairs his K and bets into you. Ouch. It is a bad night when A's up get outdrawn.
On fifth you've got AQ showing, he bets his K into you and calls your checkraise. What hand do you think he put you on? You said you thought he put you on queens up. That means he's a good bet to have at least a pair of K's, and probably hoping you don't have A's up. Then he pairs his K and bets into you. Ouch.
This might be the case if we are dealing with a reasonable player. Here we are talking about a "super loose maniac". He does not have to have much to play, and he is likely not thinking a lot about his opponents' hands. I would not bet on him having a king in the hole on sixth. Moreover, you need to collect from the person in the hand that probably does not have anything yet. If it is more than a 1/3 chance that the maniac has trip kings or better, then IMO he is in fact not a maniac.
Maybe the original poster exaggerated the style of the player in question. In fact, in this hand he is not making the number of raises I would expect from such a player.
--- Chris Callahan
James H.
"I limp in with AQ/4" You don't have a 2flush, you don't have a scare card up, your in the game with a maniac. You did exactly what you were supposed to do with this hand LOSE!!!
paul
I had the qeeen up. Sorry about the notation. I check raised with the pair of queens showing and an ace. He calls this.
I came into the night pretty unsure about how to play against these guys. The pots get to be about $100 on a regular basis due to the calling stations. I figure that the large size of the pot allows me to pay 4$ to see fifth street with live overcards. I'm not sure that this is a losing play, maybe it is. 4 times out of a hundred I have to make something decent by fifth. The implied odds are increadible, and that makes marginal hands like this playable. I'd rather have a 3 flush or an overpair, but with a $1 ante, I lost a lot of money waiting for those hands. The ante and the implied odds force me to play more hands.
James H,
This type of hand A4/QQ is great if you have knowledgeable players who will drop when you pair your door card, but you said you have a maniac in the game who isn't going to drop if you make A4/QQQ these type hands go way down in value. It helps the reader if you put in the suits xx/KcTc then it makes it easier to read what is going on. Hang in there you really have to almost play multiway hands with these stakes. If you can move up to 5-10 you might have better luck.
Good Luck Paul
Jim: Let us go to square one. Where do you need to be seated from the maniac? If he is not close to your right, you will have to leave the game. You must know what he is going to do on a hand, before you act. Secondly, you must wait for a hand in which you think you have him beat, and I'm talking 3rd street. Put in the full max raise to attempt to get heads up with him. When you start better on 3rd street than he does, he cannot buck the odds forever. If you and him go to the river, heads up, do not throw in your hand if his board cannot beat your hand. Got it?
This is a question to which I think I know the answer from experience and intuition. I believe, however, that it is also very suitable for mathematical analysis, and I have neither the education nor the tools to do it myself.
Everyone who has played PLO knows that four running cards is a good hand. KQJT is a great hand, and lots of people say that, double-suited, it is "their favourite"/"the best" (how they are able to tell, I don't know, since you can't expect to get it more than once in a blue moon).
Now, I think that AQJT (suited ace) is actually a better hand in PLO, on the basis that the nut flush draw outweighs the one gap (put another way, KQJT carries the substantially increased risk of making the second nuts, which can of course be horrible in PLO!). Although a gap at the top end of a sequence can be a bad flaw (e.g. with 678T), because if the flop fills the gap you will or may be drawing to the wrong end of the straight, that does not apply much or at all with the top cards, I believe.
But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. A lot of people say that the lack of a ten in a hand of high running cards is a bad flaw, and from experience I agree. But is it really true, as a matter of mathematics? Some say that although you cannot make a straight unless a ten comes, if it _does_ then the chances to make a straight go up enormously, and these factors cancel out.
What are people's reactions to this (a) instinctively and from experience, and (b) based on mathematics?
I guess expressed mathematically, my questions are (generally) how important to making a straight is a ten in a hand of high running cards, and more specifically, given a flop with two or more different cards 9 or above (say), how many more straights does KQJT make when compared with, e.g. AKQJ. Finally, how often do AKQJ suited and KQJT suited respectively make the nuts following a flop with two or three cards 9 or above, AND a flush draw (including backdoor draw) in the suit in which the AKQJ has the nut draw?
I apologise for not being more exact about the questions. Obviously other examples could also be used.
Finally, you might ask if this really matters? Aren't these all really good hands and won't one play them anyway? My own feeling is that if you are going to get involved in a raised pot which looks like it could get really big, the lack of a ten is sometimes the deciding factor in playing or not, depending also on whether you think someone else has a similar hand or not.
Sorry for the very long question, but this bugs me!
Richard Meade.
"Everyone who has played PLO knows that four running cards is a good hand. KQJT is a great hand, and lots of people say that, double-suited, it is "their favourite"/"the best" (how they are able to tell, I don't know, since you can't expect to get it more than once in a blue moon). Now, I think that AQJT (suited ace) is actually a better hand in PLO, on the basis that the nut flush draw outweighs the one gap (put another way, KQJT carries the substantially increased risk of making the second nuts, which can of course be horrible in PLO!). Although a gap at the top end of a sequence can be a bad flaw (e.g. with 678T), because if the flop fills the gap you will or may be drawing to the wrong end of the straight, that does not apply much or at all with the top cards, I believe."
I agree that AQJT double suited is the better hand. Gaps at the top don't matter for broadway cards (ace through ten), since they only make the nut straight in any case. The suited ace is worth a lot.
"But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. A lot of people say that the lack of a ten in a hand of high running cards is a bad flaw, and from experience I agree. But is it really true, as a matter of mathematics? Some say that although you cannot make a straight unless a ten comes, if it _does_ then the chances to make a straight go up enormously, and these factors cancel out."
If you have AKJT, you can only make *one* straight when there is no queen on board. So it isn't that huge a difference.
"What are people's reactions to this (a) instinctively and from experience, and (b) based on mathematics? I guess expressed mathematically, my questions are (generally) how important to making a straight is a ten in a hand of high running cards, and more specifically, given a flop with two or more different cards 9 or above (say), how many more straights does KQJT make when compared with, e.g. AKQJ. Finally, how often do AKQJ suited and KQJT suited respectively make the nuts following a flop with two or three cards 9 or above, AND a flush draw (including backdoor draw) in the suit in which the AKQJ has the nut draw?"
Can't answer the mathematical questions offhand. There are programs that do that I think.
In *pot-limit* Omaha, more important than making the nuts is considering what redraws you'll have when you make the nuts, and what action you'll get when you make that nuts. Having the nut flush draw when you flop the nut straight is *huge*. Flopping a dry nut straight will often trap you, and flopping the nut flush will usually win you a tiny pot.
"Finally, you might ask if this really matters? Aren't these all really good hands and won't one play them anyway?"
Yes, almost always. Precise differences in starting hand values don't matter much. The important thing is that these are all very good hands. How you play them will depend on the opponents, your position, and how deep the money is. Note that when the money isn't deep, these hands do very well due to their high card strength.
"My own feeling is that if you are going to get involved in a raised pot which looks like it could get really big, the lack of a ten is sometimes the deciding factor in playing or not, depending also on whether you think someone else has a similar hand or not."
The important factor for me is how big the pot will get. I don't want to go all-in with these against likely aces. If there is a lot of money left to bet, these hands are ideal even if the pot is raised. If a player makes a high set that also gives you a straight and flush draw, you can easily have the best of the situation (especially considering bluff equity, and that he'll have to pay off some scare cards).
"But, how far does this go? I would still rather have AKJT or AKQT double suited than KQJT, but when you get to AKQJ, my feeling is that the chances of making a straight go down a lot, because you CANNOT make a straight unless a ten flops. "
D.Rubenstein's response pretty much covered most of your comments, but I thought I would add a minor point: AKQT is no different from AKQJ. The former requires a J for a straight, the latter requires a T.
AX wrote:
"I thought I would add a minor point: AKQT is no different from AKQJ. The former requires a J for a straight, the latter requires a T."
Is this really true? This is rather what I was getting at. While your statement is superficially seductive, I think it is probably _not_ true. While AKQT needs a J and AKQJ needs a T, in the former case the result of getting the key card for the hand is likely to be an _up_and_down_ wrap, while in the latter case your straight draw only goes up. You might be right, but it is not obvious, is it?
While Dan Rubinstein said in his post that what really matters in PLO is the re-draws you have when you make the nuts, I think that cases where you get the nuts (they are not easy to find in themselves!) _and_ redraws are very few and far between. If you play AKJT or similar, much more often than flopping 9TQ with a flush draw (we can all dream ...), you will be faced with a flop like Q94 no flush draw. Still a big hand, but a _drawing_ hand. Since a lot of the value of the hand is therefore in flopping a big wrap, my question is still: how important is a ten?
As a matter of interest (I meant to mention this in my original post and forgot), I wonder if others joining this discussion would mind including in their posts a general indication of how much high-only omaha, especially PLO, they have played. The reason is that when I have discussed this with people in the past, their views have always seemed to depend quite a bit on their (poker) background.
Richard Meade
"Is this really true? This is rather what I was getting at. While your statement is superficially seductive, I think it is probably _not_ true. While AKQT needs a J and AKQJ needs a T, in the former case the result of getting the key card for the hand is likely to be an _up_and_down_ wrap, while in the latter case your straight draw only goes up. You might be right, but it is not obvious, is it?"
If you have AKQT against a board of J92 or AKQJ against a board of T92, you have 13 nut outs in either case. In this case, the two wraps are equivalent. The factor you mention makes a difference only when some of the "down" outs aren't the nuts - 9654 against K87 - you have 16 straight outs but only 6 are the nuts, while QJT9 has 13 outs that are all nut outs.
"While Dan Rubinstein said in his post that what really matters in PLO is the re-draws you have when you make the nuts, I think that cases where you get the nuts (they are not easy to find in themselves!) _and_ redraws are very few and far between."
You flop the nuts infrequently. Your objective is to make the nuts at some point in the hand, and on the flop you want at least a strong draw to the nuts. Then if you do make your straight on the turn, you have a decent chance to have flush and/or higher straight redraws over another player who just has the straight.
"If you play AKJT or similar, much more often than flopping 9TQ with a flush draw (we can all dream ...), you will be faced with a flop like Q94 no flush draw. Still a big hand, but a _drawing_ hand. Since a lot of the value of the hand is therefore in flopping a big wrap, my question is still: how important is a ten?"
AKQJ double suited is clearly a playable hand. The key is how the hand as a whole works together. There are many ways to get a good flop with AKQJ double suited. The fraction of flops you hit is of secondary importance in pot-limit Omaha, it's the strength of what you'll have when you do hit that really matters; in pot-limit holdem it's much better to have 88 than KJo.
Dan suggests:
"If you have AKQT against a board of J92 or AKQJ against a board of T92, you have 13 nut outs in either case. In this case, the two wraps are equivalent. The factor you mention makes a difference only when some of the "down" outs aren't the nuts - 9654 against K87 - you have 16 straight outs but only 6 are the nuts, while QJT9 has 13 outs that are all nut outs."
And I still wonder. In this situation, the draws are the same, I agree. But that does not answer the general question. Also, even if I were wrong about this instance (AKQT v. AKQJ), and I gladly admit that I might be, there are many others to consider. What about AQJT v. AKQJ, as I mentioned previously? I think Dan in his first response accepted that there was _some_ difference between AKJT and AKQJ (because the former but not the latter can hit 789). Also, so far we have only mentioned hands with a A at the top. Although one of my suggestions was that the suited A was important, it is not the only factor. Which is better: KJT9 or KQJ9, and how much does the answer depend on the presence of a T, if at all? KQJJ v. QJTT?
I don't think we disagree much if at all about the general principles of having a top wrap and whether or not AKQJ KQJT and so on are playable, (although I still would like to have the nuts _and_ redraws as much as Dan obviously does).
My (I fear really mathematical question) is still this: any top straight must have a T in it. Intuitively, one therefore feels that hands which depend a lot for their strength on making a top straight but which _do_not_have_a_T_ are at a disadvantage compared with ones which do (although there may be other factors). Because they can _only_ make a straight if a T comes on the flop at some stage. Is this intuitive view correct or not?
Genuinely uncertain,
Richard Meade.
"What about AQJT v. AKQJ, as I mentioned previously?"
Even needing a ten, AKQJ still makes a lot of straights. You can make one with a ten and two cards A-J, or with T9 and any of KQJ8. Without a nine, AQJT can only make straights with a king and two broadway cards, so it isn't that huge a difference. The important thing is that AKQJ does have significant straight potential; just because it doesn't have as much as some other hands doesn't make it unplayable.
"I think Dan in his first response accepted that there was _some_ difference between AKJT and AKQJ (because the former but not the latter can hit 789). Also, so far we have only mentioned hands with a A at the top. Although one of my suggestions was that the suited A was important, it is not the only factor."
Suited aces are very important in all forms of Omaha. In pot-limit, it's also important that hands without aces be double suited. There are many situations where you'll have the same straight as someone else, and a non-nut flush draw will give you a massive redraw.
"Which is better: KJT9 or KQJ9, and how much does the answer depend on the presence of a T, if at all?"
Both are excellent hands, and the precise difference in value doesn't really matter. My guess would be that the KQJ9 is slightly better, due to the higher cards and lower placement of the gap.
"KQJJ v. QJTT?"
KQJJ easily. Pairs decline sharply in value as you move down, and JJ is much weaker than KK. 99 is worth next to nothing.
"I don't think we disagree much if at all about the general principles of having a top wrap and whether or not AKQJ KQJT and so on are playable, (although I still would like to have the nuts _and_ redraws as much as Dan obviously does)."
My point is that the nuts and redraws are what you play for in this game. When the money is deep, you're not concerned with how often your hand will hit as you are with how strong it can potentially hit. You only want drawing hands that can flop those 13+ out draws, and that won't be on the wrong end of a freeroll when you make your hand before the river.
"My (I fear really mathematical question) is still this: any top straight must have a T in it. Intuitively, one therefore feels that hands which depend a lot for their strength on making a top straight but which _do_not_have_a_T_ are at a disadvantage compared with ones which do (although there may be other factors). Because they can _only_ make a straight if a T comes on the flop at some stage. Is this intuitive view correct or not?"
Your intuitive view is looking at the game the wrong way. There is a major difference between pot-limit Omaha and limit Omaha. In limit Omaha, it is very important how often a hand will connect. You can't play a hand that makes the nuts if it does so too infrequently, since it won't earn enough to pay for the times it doesn't. And the penalty for a second-best hand is much smaller, so it often pays to go to the river when there's some chance your hand is best. In pot-limit, that "some chance" will quickly get you broke. Since the potential win is so large compared to the investment, you look for hands that have the ability to win someone's entire stack, even if that chance is quite small. As long as a hand can hit some flops, that hand becomes playable when the implied odds permit.
Wow! You must spend ages responding to every point I suggest. Thank you for your patience.
In your latest:
'"KQJJ v. QJTT?"
KQJJ easily. Pairs decline sharply in value as you move down, and JJ is much weaker than KK. 99 is worth next to nothing.'
I'm not sure I get this, since neither of the hands mentioned has a pair of Ks _or_ a pair of 9s.
KQJJ has only a pair of Js. QJTT has only a pair of Ts. The respective values of the pairs for flopping trips is small in each case, since it is rather unlikely that either will make top set _and_ no serious straight danger on the flop (contrast KK). Both are exposed to the danger of an overcard making someone else bigger trips later in the hand. We seem to agree about this.
Since the hands are not worth much in respect of making trips, their value must come from straights (and flushes).
But QJTT makes it very hard for anyone else to make a straight, since they will find it extremely hard to get a T on the board, no? Obviously, it will be a bit worse than KQJJ in respect of flush draws, but neither will be drawing to the nut flush very often.
I know you think my question is not very important, or even misconceived, but what is the answer to it? How significant, mathematically, is a holding a T to a hand's prospects of making the nut straight?
We still do not really disagree about one's objectives in PLO, and if you look at Badger's posts, he says that a problem with top straights is when you make them early in the hand and put in a lot of money when someone is free-rolling on you. OK, I agree. But when I am evaluating a hand pre-flop, is it a factor that it does or does not contain a T?
Incidentally, I only can only appreciate your comparison between limit and pot limit Omaha at a theoretical level since I have never played limit high-only Omaha. But I have played PLO for quite a few years. What is your perspective, Dan?
Richard Meade.
"But QJTT makes it very hard for anyone else to make a straight, since they will find it extremely hard to get a T on the board, no?"
What if you're facing 8765? And much of the time you do play beyond the flop there *will* be a T on board.
"How significant, mathematically, is a holding a T to a hand's prospects of making the nut straight?"
AKQJ flops the nut straight with a ten and two Broadway cards, or T9 and one card K/Q/J/8. There are 216 ways for the former, and 208 ways for the latter.
KQJT flops the nut straight with an ace and two K-T, a nine and two K-T, or 98 and one Q/J/T/7. There are 216 ways for the first, 216 ways for the second, and 208 ways for the third. So KQJT is only about 50% more likely to flop the nut straight.
AKQJ flops a strong draw with T-K/Q/J/9, and an okay draw with AT. KQJT flops a strong draw with 9-Q/J/T/8, and an okay draw with K9 or A-K/Q/J/T. So again it isn't a major difference, and it will be even smaller if you add in the nut flush draw outs that AKQJ will often have.
"But when I am evaluating a hand pre-flop, is it a factor that it does or does not contain a T?"
No.
The biggest money losers in the game are when a bad player holds the nuts with no redraws and overcommits to a pot against a player also holding the nuts but with redraws. Like Badger, I think hoping for the Broadway straight is a bad play. You won't get too much action from good players unless you are in really bad shape.
Dear Mr Badger,
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the T question is immensely important. It is a curiosity, mostly, although when I have a hand like QJ98 and I am considering entering a contested pot, I do sometimes think "Ooh I wish I had a T". I would just like to know whether this is _exactly_ the same as thinking "Ooh I wish I didn't have a gap right in the middle", or is the T a special case?
On another probably more interesting note I find your suggestion that one should not look to make Broadway straights in pot-limit Omaha very surprising. I would be very interested to know your reasons, since your view seems at variance with what most players and writers think. Do you mean that AQJT or KQJT double suited are not playable hands, or rather that they are playable but that their strength does not lie in their ability to make a straight?
Also, if we are not to aim at making these straights, should we forget all straights? I mean, the great thing (I think) about these straights is that you end up with the ignorant end much less frequently (indeed with AKQJ or AKQT it is impossible, I think). Do you think that 5678 double suited is better than KQJT? Generally, or only when chasing aces (in the latter case I think a lot of people would probably be more likely to agree with you)?
Is your point something to do with sharing the pot, or finding an opponent with top trips, or the problem of having AKQJ against AAKQ? These are factors of course, but do they justify your rather sweeping statement?
Also, as a matter of interest, how much PLO do you play? This is not a snide question at all, but you are probably best known for hi-lo Omaha, and I wonder if PLO is also part of your "beat". I would also like to avoid any games in which you play, since I would not like to be against people for whom the biggest money loser is trying to make top straights (I assume that you did not mean that last sentence too literally).
Richard Meade.
A couple of the 40-80 7 stud players who responded to this post said that this game due to the high ante had most players, good and bad, either on tilt or making a lot of wild moves.
How applicable are the strategies outlined in 7SFAP applicable to these high ante games? Is a solid approach just not good enough to get the money in the end? Do you just have to have the innate natural ability to make the correct "wild" or "flashy" move at the right time consistently to enable you to win?
There is a great deal of discussion in SCSFAP-21 on correct hand evaluation. You are looking for the right spots to add in a few extra hands that are now profitable (in these particular spots). Being able to do this is crucial in these high ante games.
In addition, in stud, as discussed in the book, your hand is very sensitive to the cards that are out and the number of players in the pot. Thus you should frequently play your hand differently than what at first glance seems correct. As above, in these high ante games, being able to do this well is absolutely essential to your long term success.
Even adjusting perfectly, how much of an edge can an expert have in a game with that high an ante?
A lot depends on your opponents. I am convinced that a high ante does two things. First, it increases your fluctuations, and second it handicaps the better players.
This second concept is very important since it helps to keep the balance of luck and skill that all poker games require to thrive. This is very important in stud since the great players have the ability to put a tremendous gap between themselves and typical players (when it comes to skill). It is also -- I believe -- the reason why stud thrives at the very highest limits where hold 'em seems to choke itself off.
However, with this being said, I question that the structure in the $40-$80 game (with the $10 ante) or the $80-$160 game (with the $20 ante) has now gone to far. I have recommended to cardrooms that they quit spreading this structure and go to a $50-$100 game with a $10 ante and $15 bring-in. But so far no one is listening.
Mason,
I agree, the 8-1 ratio is just too high. The problem is, most of the players love it. You and I may not like it, but most players can sit in enjoyable games, with a lot of action, and not be giving too much away to the experts. It's a really tough sell to get them to change. I can't come up with a compelling argument against it for the casinos. I know the local Vegas rooms depend on regulars, but how many of those regulars are losing players and now will not be giving up so much of an edge to the better everyday players? Plus, tourists love it. You can come to Vegas for the weekend with 5-7,000 and have loads of action for the weekend. Before 40-80, there was either 75-150 (way big) or 30-60 with a bunch of tight players waiting for the 1 or 2 live ones. The action was not great and the live ones rarely stayed.
Please help me with this one, I would love to see 50-100 instead of 40-80 but I can't think of a compelling argument.
On another topic here, I think most regulars over adjust way too much to the larger ante. Many players natural tendency is to play too many hands and this just feeds the frenzy. You can never get the ace in the hole crowd out with this added justification to play (who wants them out anyway). I think a key is to move the hand somewhere down the line and limit the number of opponents with a double sized raise rather than having the whole table chase your big pair.
This being said, I don't know for how much this structure is beatable if you are playing against wild players who like to play many hands but play reasonably well. What do you think.
Russ
Card rooms need to understand that they need regular players to start games and keep games going. Without regular players, card rooms collapse.
What this means is that their poker games need to have a proper balance of luck and skill. Enough luck so that bad players will have enough winning nights, but enough skill so that the better players will do well enough in the long run to show up and play on those slow nights.
Most card room managers do understand that the $40-$80 game with the $10 ante does increase the luck factor. What they don't understand is that the exceptionally high ante has the effect of handicapping the better players too much putting them in jeapordy of remaining as card room regulars.
When the Bellagio poker room opened I stressed this point to Maury Eskan who essentially made the decision to spread $80-$160 (with a $20 ante as opposed to the $75-$150 (with a $15 ante) that had been successful for years. He would not accept the fact that a higher ante handicaps the better players, and the rest is now history.
In Las Vegas the $40-$80 stud game hardly gets spread anymore since only The Mirage offers it and they don't have the demand for that limit very much. (It does go on occasion, and the $40-$80 hold 'em goes more often.)
So the key to all of this is to convince the card room managers that it is in their best long run interest to spread $50-$100 stud (with a $10 ante) instead of $40-$80.
Good points. The other factor here is that 8-1 ratio games have such high variance, that many players either go broke because they were unaware/didn't care about the variance, or get on a good run, move up and then go broke. Either way, most end up broke.
This being said, there has been a fantastic 80-160 going for quite some time in L.A. Who knows? But it's too bad Vegas stud has broken down.
I think saying that Vegas stud has broken down is a little too strong. If I implied that I went to far. It is, however, definitely damaged.
I'm a ways away from these stakes, but Wouldn't this imply that the standard $30-60 game is more profitable than a $40-80 game for a highly skilled stud player?
With the same group of players, 30-60 is probably every bit as profitable as 40-80 with a lot less variance. Of course, the players that run good in 40-80 think it's because of their skill but. . .what can I say about that one.
Thanks for your answer. I think we more or less agree that if you flop the nut (Broadway) straight and there is a lot of action you can be in a lot of trouble, either because one player has you tied and another has top set, or (worse) because a single player has both those holdings. Part of the skill in PLO is identifying and escaping from these situations, no? However, with these holdings you can also flop the nut straight (to the K or Q ot J) and be free-rolling yourself. It's on of those cases where you really want to make your second or third best hand early on, rather than your best, and then improve.
As to your comment that you would rather flop QQJ than AKT to KQJT, who could disagree? If only we could choose!
Richard Meade.
Who the hell is this guy Richard Meade, he sure seems to me like a terrier with a bone. This guy worries if he has a ten in his hand and also when he don't have no ten. Maybe he just likes to worry. As for me, I just like to play my own cards. Most of the guys I play with seem to be obsessed with marrying their cards to the flop. Me, I think life's too short for that kind of phonus balonus. So what if you got a ten or you ain't got one, life was never meant to be perfect. By the ways, what does PLO mean? Is this a new terrorist group?
5-10 7CS.
Low card (forget what it was) brings in
Qc calls,
I raise with Kh showing and Ah,Qh under (after about 5 prior successful ante steals with the high up card, I was caught so I decided to raise with 3 suited high cards hoping to get some callers and build the pot.
Small card folds
J calls,
9 calls
bring in calls. No hearts showing
4th st. --Queen gets a 4 off suit, I get 6 h, Jack gets a 9, the 9 gets a suited card, the bring in gets garbage. I bet--the J9 calls; the 9 suited calls, Queen 4 calls. Others fold.
5th st: 4 players. I get a 10h (a flush with a draw to a straight flush--my 2nd of the night). Queen makes a pair of 4’s. jack gets a close card --an 8 I think. Queen bets, I raise, Jack calls 9 folds, queen calls.
6th st: Queen gets a blank. I get a 4c. Jack gets a 10 -possible straight. I bet, J poss-straight raises, queen calls. I re-raise, J-poss straight puts on his glasses looks for a few seconds and reluctantly calls. Queen calls
It seems pretty clear to me that the straight has exactly that, possibly with a queen high. I figure the Q (person to my right) with either Queens up or Aces up, yet he has not raised. I hold a queen and a 4. --have not seen any aces.
7th street: Queen --pair of 4’s bets, I raise. Jack high straight throws his cards in cursing. The Queen re-raises (what???). I crying call (did he get the case Queen or 4? Has he been calling raises with 2 lower pair and against a flush which might have included his Q?). The answer is, “Yes”. Queens full takes a very nice pot away from my AK flush on 5th street. That sucked.
I figure I made a costly error, but where did I go wrong. Help.
Similar hands cost me a lot last night. I lost 3 more hands over 6hrs with early A high flushes to full houses. How can you push people out of 2 pair draws? Do you point out to them that their cards are essentially dead hoping they fold on 6th street, or do you let them chase?
ratso,
"How can you push people out of 2 pair draws?" I don't think you can showing a flush, because they know they win if they catch.
Do you point out to them that their cards are essentially dead hoping they fold on 6th street, or do you let them chase? Even though he thought he just missed with the 4 he was probably locked into the Q for his full house. He doesn't know you have a Q in the hole so he hangs in. He knows if he catches he gets a monster pot with his full house against a flush and a straight. He also kept improving his hand started with Q's on three, 4 on 4th, 4 on 5th, blank on sixth and Q on 7th. Had he not hit the second 4 on 5th you're up against the straight because I believe he would of dropped.
The only thing I would of done differently was when he bet on 7th street I would of called.
Tomorrow you will be the full house.
Good Luck Ratso
When he bet into you on the river you should have just called and I'm not just saying that because you lost the pot.
When he bet into me, I raised to get another bet out of the straight who was a calling station. I miscalculated, of course, but it was the first time the calling station did not call me. I should have looked at his stack. He only had about $60-70 left and I supposed he wanted to save it for the next round.
Since the guy was a calling station and you fully expected him to call 2 bets then your raise is not as bad. Assuming the guy behind you will call 100% then it looks something like this.
40% of the time when you can beat the bettor you will collect 2 from the caller with a straight and 1 from the bettor 40 x 3 = 120
60% when the bettor beats you it will cost you 2 more for the same total of 120.
So it would seem you should raise when you think you have the bettor beat more than 40%. Of course the guy behind might not always call and he might not always have a straight.
It does make things much better though.
By the time it gets to the river it's pretty obvious that you have a flush. It's strange that he didn't try for a checkraise on the end. (You would have bet if he checked....wouldn't you?)
Anyway, even though it looks like I'm beat when he leads on the river I'd just call him for the size of the pot...I would not raise on the river.
TY to all. The river raise seems not to be wise. The winner of the pot acknowledged he got the queen on the river. I probably should have paid more attention to him when he looked at his river card. He did shuffle them.
One other question here is, "when does it become unwise to continue a draw to a full house when (1) you know the other person has at least a flush early with a possible draw to a st flush and (2) 2 of your 4 cards needed to complete the full house are dead, and possibly one other of your cards is dead based on another player's hand.
Putting it another way
Assume: Someone almost certainly has a relatively high flush on 5th or 6th street (only 1 suited card showing on the board (except for the 3 or 4 in the hand of the flush holder) and he has been betting strongly from 4th street.
You hold 2 pair on 5th street; with your highest pair lower than the flush guy's board and no kicker higher. You see 2 of 4 of your nut cards on board. There is a real good chance another one of your cards is "in use" leaving you only the case card to complete the full house against 2 players. Pot contains about $230
At what point do you abandon the draw to the full house, or do you play it to the river.
25,000 hands simulation using Turbo 7CS showed the hand with the 4 flush draw beat the draw to a full house 2:1 when there was only 1 live card for him and 1.5:1 when there were 2 live cards. I still think 2 pair with one of them lower than the showing flush card vs a live flush draw should be abandonded on 5th street
What is more probable in five random cards on board (1) any board that contains a pair (I calculate 48% for this) or (2) a board that has three of a suit but WITH NO PAIR PRESENT ?
If (1) is more probable than (2) then full houses may win a higher percent of the hands than flushes (or at best about an equal number) in low limit, loose OMAHA/8 games where most players see the flop with almost any pair. My limited experience indicates that this anolomy may be the case.
O.K. Maurice, I bombed out of the Omaha-8 tournament early tonight so I decided to do your math for you. (The hand that caused my demise tonight was so good that it would bring tears to your eyes if I reproduced it for you here, so I will spare you that pain).
If I’ve done the math correctly (always a good question), then there are 429000 combos with three suited cards and no pairs, 77220 combos with four suited cards and no pairs, and 1287 combos with five suited cards and no pairs.
The total of these is 507507.
507507/2598960 = 0.195
Nineteen and a half per cent of the time there are three (or more) suited cards on the board with no pairs.
Roughly one time out of five a flush is enabled by the board in Omaha and there also is no pair on the board enabling a full house.
However, I don’t see how that gets you anywhere.
Buzz
Buzz, well, er, if we assume that:
(1) a full house is present 75% of the time that the board is paired in a ten man, loose game ( a set or two pair is flopped most of the time) then a full house is made 0.48 X 0.75 = 36 % of the time and
(2) that a flush is the nut hand 20% of the time (plus a few times when the flush is made with a pair on board but there is no full house).
Then it looks to me that full houses are more common than flushes in full table, loose Omaha/8 games. If, indeed, flushes are really harder to get than the full houses thay lose to, dosn't that mean that maybe we should downgrade the value of our flush draws?
Good point, Maurice. (Depends on how much value one gives to a flush draw in the first place, I suppose). My thinking has been that flush draws to anything but the ace are, in general, poor investments. If flush draws (to the ace) pre-flop add about 3% to the value of a hand in straight high Omaha, then they must add about 2% to the value of a hand in Omaha high/low. Is that about where you rate them?
Buzz
15 30 pot was 3 handed whole way no raising except complete the bring in.
i had kings up with one K and one