![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Don't know of any books entirely on 5CS, but Winning Poker Systems by Norman Zadeh has a chapter on it. This book was on sale at Barnes and Nomle for a couple of bucks recently.
Out of print, but may be available at a public library: Education of a Poker Player by Herbert Yardley. Has some info on 5CS and a frank exposition of the attitude it takes to win...
The game is almost dead, but I have fond memories of a lowball version where you rolled your own==and your hole card was wild.
Considering the price and the solid poker advice it contains, Norman Zadeh's book Winning Poker Systems is the best value, dollars per ounce, I've read. It deals mainly with PL draw, with an excellent short chapter on 5cs, and a rather outdated chapter on 7cs. Despite the absence of holdem and omaha, and the relatively poor chapter on 7cs, this book is well worth having around for when you get invited to a game of pl draw, or 5cs. (I've had several copies, but I keep giving them away, and it's a while since I've read it.)
There isn't a lot of theory associated with 5cs: the arithmetic is totally basic. It comes down to positional play, working your upcards, reading your opponents, and being able to put pressure on when you know what they've got, even if you know their hand is good: if you wait for winning cards all the time you'll go broke. Of course on your own part you should be unreadable, and be able to resist pressure. There was a game of HP 5cs which ran for a couple of years at the casino here (Perth, Australia) when it first opened in '87, and with Norman Zadehs's help I had a very good win rate right from the start. Admittedly a lot of the players knew very little about the game, or would say "All I know about five-card stud is that you shouldn't bet into an open pair". That's a really bad piece of poker misinformation! If you can't bet or bluff into an open pair reasonably often you won't win, except through luck. You must also be able to bet back at someone who is representing a big pair and you have good reason to disbelieve them, even when you have nothing and your highest upcard is small: backing your judgement with fearless betting is crucial to success. The HP 5cs game folded when HP 7cs was introduced, so I switched to PL draw and again, with Norman's help, beat the game, with a 5% uncapped rake too, hard as it may be to believe.
I couldn't beat the 5% rake playing HP 7cs against the same players who I took the money off at 5cs, and not because they played any better - if anything they played worse - which leads me to believe that in big-bet play 5cs has the biggest expert's edge of any game.
"which leads me to believe that in big-bet play 5cs has the biggest expert's edge of any game."
When no-limit 5-stud was spread at the World Series, the same player won it year after year, until nobody was willing to enter anymore!
Hi sir I want to aply with fun girls I mean sxe xxx girls Could you send to me full sex girls game .
3-6 Omaha/8
I'm in the BB with 2d4c7hJc. 5 players see the flop for one bet.
The flop comes Js7d5s. I check and there is a bet in middle position - I call with top two pair. Nobody folds. The turn comes 2s putting the 3rd spade on the board and making a low. UTG bets and the previous bettor raises. SB folds. I have 3-pair but am afraid of a flopped set - and with the flush and low out there even if I call now it may be capped back around to me. Is this worth a call to try to make a full house on the river?
Thanks,
~DjTj
DjTj - Your inital two pair (jacks and sevens) are so low that calling a bet after the flop seems marginal. I suppose the possibility of somehow winning low tipped the scales in favor of you calling.
Then a two appears, (1) ruining all hopes for a miracle low (ace, trey) for you, (2) enabling low for an opponent, (3) enabling a (probable) flush, and (4) giving you three pair. But what a horrid three pair! (jacks, sevens, and twos).
Did you take this all with equanimity, or did your agony show? Tough to take this calmly. I imagine you called time to think while some of the other players glared at you. At this point, low is "in," but not for you, so assuming you win for high you'll most likely end up with only half the pot. If the board pairs on the river you probably have a winner because your jack matches the highest card on the board. (Forget the possible flopped set. Your biggest worry is that someone has a spade flush and the board won't pair.) Lots of big bets to come. Only six outs.
Fold it.
The main reason to fold here, IMHO, is because you're playing for only one half the pot and you don't have anywhere near a cinch for that half. (In fact, IMHO, you're an under-dog for the high half).
So what happened?
Buzz
I play at a 4-8 $1 ante stud game, where $4 is being raked from the pot every hand and $3 if it is short handed. I figure I see 20-25 hands an hour. If the hands are short handed 25% of the time we are paying (3.75 * 22.5) roughly $85/hr for the table. Add in the $25 extra bucks thrown in for tips and the total is $110/hr or $13.75/hour/person. Can a non-expert player ever hope to beat this type of table?? Thanks for any input.
Chris
God, this game sounds horrible. The ultra-high ante means you can't offset some of the disadvantages of the high rake in the usual way, i.e., playing very few pots. If you could beat this game at all (which I doubt) your fluctuations would be tremendous in the process. Is this the only game available? Within 20 miles? 100? 3000? If so, I'd stay home and watch TV. (BTW, who ARE the greedy bastards spreading this game? They deserve a brick through the front window or something.)
T.J. Cloutier, in his Championship Omaha book, states, "The more people there are in the pot, the less important position becomes."
I disagree with his statement and believe that he undervalues the importance of position in limit games. For example, if your in last position you can save or get extra bets. If you are in the middle you could easily get trapped for extra bets.
Any comments welcome.
Mah - I think he means the more people in the game, the more likely someone is to have the nuts. If someone has the nuts, then the cards in your hand are obviously more important than your position.
Look at it this way. Would you rather have the nuts or the best position? Easy answer, isn't it!
If you were playing a game where you could get away with stealing, then position would increase in importance. However, in all the Omaha high/low games I have played, except for the final stages in a tournament, I have never seen anyone successfully pull off a steal. I have seen people try (usually Texas hold 'em folks) but it has always turned out to be a blunder.
Ray Zee keeps noting that he is able to steal. I wonder if he is talking about Omaha high/low. If so, must be a real tight game. If not, how about sharing your secret, Ray?
Buzz
I think he (T.J.Cloutier) means position is a lot less important then in other poker games.
On page 13 it reads "One of the most important things to understand about Omaha poker,is that all forms of Omaha are hand-value driven games.That is,the starting value of hands is usually paramount to position,which is far less important in Omaha then in limit or pot-limit hold'em." On a side note,the part of the book that helped my o/8 game the most,was when they talk about"The Danger of the Dangler" Good Luck, Howard
Howard - Yeah. Assuming the dangler is not suited to an ace, mostly danglers (IMHO) cut down on your chances of (1) hitting a playable flop and (2) making straights. As Badger has pointed out, the odds of making a full house are actually more favorable if you have four different cards than if you have a pair, so that danglers would not seem to make it more difficult to end up with a boat.
My current thinking is that hands with a low pair are even worse than hands with a dangler, at least in the loose games in which I play. It's dreadful to be trapped on the river when your pair matches the lowest unpaired card on the board. Hard for me to get away from such a hand by the time there are all those chips in the pot.
I don't generally play hands with low danglers. A hand with only one low card (and no ace) seems, in general, especially poor.
However, I voluntarily play A23X, A24X, A25X, A34X, and even A35X pre-flop in many situations, especially with a suited ace, dangler or not. (A45X no. You have to draw the line somewhere.)
Buzz
you can steal even in 0/hi lo. you mostly knock out a hand by raising that gives you a bigger part of the pot. this is in loose games. in tight games you can steal pots and antes at the higher stakes.
I get it. Somebody did it to me just this afternoon.
Thanks.
Buzz
There is a huge difference.
In any game, short-handed or not, you always have the ability to save or gain a bet or 2 from late position, as compared to early position. However, if a pot is being contested short-handed, then from late position you more often have a chance to steal the entire pot. Since this chance to gain multiple bets due to position disappears in a multiway pot, position becomes LESS important than in a short-handed pot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg - All the authors I have read agree with you about the importance of position. Position. Position. Position.
However, if you mean that being on the button is the preferred position, I just don’t see it in Omaha high/low, at least not in evaluating hands before the flop, and only coincidentally after the flop. In nine handed Omaha high/low, the odds are that someone will have a good opening hand. If no one after the blinds has it, and if you don’t have it, guess who probably does? Right on! If you are on the button you may have “position” but at least one of the blinds probably has a better hand.
I’ll agree that I would rather be the last to play in any betting action, but that doesn’t necessarily mean being on the button. Not at all. On the end, if there are three players, I can be in the blind, under the gun or on the button - it doesn’t matter - if someone bets and there is someone to follow me in the betting order, someone who I suspect might possibly raise, I’ll sometimes quietly muck a marginal hand rather than get whipsawed - all depending (of course) on my hand, my opponents, and the history of action on this particular deal. I could be on the button in this situation and be “out of position” if the blind checked and the under the gun raised.
I have had some success post-flop in short-handed situations being in first position (what would be considered “out of position”). It will occasionally happen when I am in one of the blinds that someone raises pre-flop and all but one of the other players fold, including the other blind. In this situation if the flop has three high cards, I come out firing regardless of the cards in my hand because there’s a good chance that neither of my opponents will like the flop. (Most frequently the hand is over right there.) Even with only two high cards and a rainbow flop I come out firing, again expecting that neither of my opponents will like the flop. I have noticed some of my opponents employing the same tactic. Even when I suspect someone is using this tactic against me it’s hard for me to call when I have missed the flop. Remember we’re talking Omaha high/low here.
At the showdown, the advantage is frequently with whoever makes the first bet. Sometimes it’s harder to call than to bet. It’s even harder to overcall than to bet. If you bet in last position after everybody checks, everybody suspects you may be trying to steal the pot.
Thus I don’t see much value in being on the button in Omaha high/low.
If you don’t mean the button, then there surely is no other, more favorable position. Give me a good hand! Position be damned!
On the other hand, maybe I’m missing something here. You wrote, “In any game, short-handed or not, you always have the ability to save or gain a bet or 2 from late position, as compared to early position.” That is a very logical statement, one I can’t disagree with. However.....
However, Omaha high/low is a game of peddling the nuts. If you have the nuts, then bet the nuts. Screw position. If you don’t have the nuts, whatever your position is, then hope nobody else bets and you luck out (sometimes it happens). All right - that’s in general - of course you have to vary your game enough so that your opponents are not sure of what you’re doing.
FossilMan, no disrespect toward you is intended here. I have the greatest respect and appreciation for your viewpoint. And like I wrote above, maybe I’m missing something here. If so, perhaps you can point out the flaw in my argument.
Buzz
OK, how's this for an explanation.
The positional issues you mention (e.g., being next to act after someone bets, with potential callers/raisers behind) exist equally at all positions, no matter where the button is. So, these issues should even out over time, right?
However, the button is the only person who can give himself a free card. The button is the only person who gets to see everyone else do something before he has to act on every postflop betting round. These advantages will sometimes enable you to save a bet when you're beat, or get an extra bet when you're ahead, in any hand. Additionally, these advantages will sometimes allow you to win the entire pot when it's being contested short-handed. While it's true that early position players have the so-called "right of first bluff", this doesn't completely negate the button's edge, in that when the button bluffs, he can do it after everyone has indicated weakness by checking (or he can take that free card, see above). Also, the button can always raise when the early player uses his "right of first bluff", and can do this with a real hand or as a bluff resteal.
Admittedly, position is NOT as important in a full game with many players involved as it is in a short-handed game. And, position is NOT as important in omaha hi/lo as it is in HE. However, position is still VERY important in every poker game I've ever played.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg - Thanks. That’s as good an explanation of position as I have seen. However..... :-)
“The button is the only person who gets to see everyone else do something before he has to act on every postflop betting round. These advantages will sometimes enable you to save a bet when you're beat, or get an extra bet when you're ahead, in any hand.”
A main difference between hold ‘em and Omaha high/low is that someone is holding the nuts MUCH more frequently in Omaha high/low. Situations are common in Texas hold ‘em where it is proper to bet without the nuts. However, in a nine handed game of Omaha, unless the last two cards (the turn and the river) are both needed to make the nuts, someone is USUALLY holding the nuts. Good Omaha high/low players do some faking and will bet some hands without the nuts - but not much - and it’s usually for false advertising. At least that’s how it seems to me.
If you are out of position in a game of Omaha high/low where nine players were dealt cards (even if some have folded) and if you bet when you don’t have the nuts, then you probably will lose to someone holding the nuts. If some fool bets into you without the nuts, then it is true that you might get an extra bet if he called when you raised. Such a fool won’t last long before running out of money playing Omaha high/low. I think most of that particular species of fish became extinct before I started playing. (There may be some still left who visit gambling resort areas.)
“Additionally, these advantages will sometimes allow you to win the entire pot when it's being contested short-handed.”
I have to agree that it is more comforting to have the last position, better for your peace of mind, and that’s surely worth something (although it may take away from the thrill of the game for some). But I believe that the “right of first bluff” negates the buttons edge (see below). I will agree that the player in between is not in a good spot.
“While it's true that early position players have the so-called "right of first bluff", this doesn't completely negate the button's edge, in that when the button bluffs, he can do it after everyone has indicated weakness by checking (or he can take that free card, see above).”
All right. I’ll agree with you here, but only in part. Sometimes you can get a read on someone who acts before you. For me this is rare, and maybe that’s why I prefer Omaha high/low to Texas hold ‘em. I’m not very good at picking up “tells.” Sometimes I can read players but it doesn’t happen much. (Night before last there was a guy I had figured. In his case, I would have preferred him on my left, since I had a good read on what kind of hand he had, just because of his blatant pretending he held the opposite of what he actually held. I kept expecting him to spring the trap on me, but he apparently never caught on that I was reading him.)
When everybody checks to the button, it’s almost automatic for the button to bet, unless someone who checked is a known calling station. Everyone sees this bet by the button for what it is - a possible bluff. The button knows that he will be called by anyone with any kind of a hand for high and any kind of hand for low. But all right, on that 40% of Omaha-8 hands where low is not possible, it may be harder to call that (automatic) button bet. If you knew (or even were pretty sure) that the button would complacently make his automatic bet, you would sandbag. Right? Sometimes I sandbag in that situation with nothing, seemingly wasting a bet just to let the button (and everyone else) know that I’m capable of sandbagging. The fear of getting sand bagged takes away some of the advantage of being on the button in that situation. However, I’ll grant that being on the button is a slight edge in that particular situation. But very slight.
"Also, the button can always raise when the early player uses his "right of first bluff", and can do this with a real hand or as a bluff resteal."
Right of first bluff? Bluff resteal? Neat ideas. I like your style, FossilMan.
Thanks again for the very clear explanation, which I am unable to refute. I concede. Position matters. A little. But not NEARLY as much as in Texas hold ‘em.
:-)
Buzz
I'm thinking about trying out O8. I'm reading Ray Zee's book and comprehend the Basic Strategy. But I have no Hi-Lo experience and have what is probably a silly question. Which would be the best hand:
a) A-2-3-4-7 b) A-2-3-5-6
Thanks in advance and good cards
RA
Which hand would lose in regular highball poker, with the Ace being a "1", disregarding straights and flushes.
Red Aces,
If you are confused by my book i can see how you can get really turned around by seeing these guys advice. they have you playing 5 and 6 card omaha. stick with Badger's way as i have hired him to interpet my confusion. you can count on him being right at least 85% of the time he agrees with me.
Pot-Limit six card Omaha High is a fairly common variant of the game here in the UK. I've read that it's a game favoured by Dave 'Devilfish' Ulliot. I don't have the nerve or bankroll to play it myself and would be inclined to agree with Stewart Reuben that 'against the right opposition it can be an excellent money-spinner. It just isn't poker that you are playing.'
mike cunningham
There is such a thing as 5 card omaha.
Thanks for the info, Broncosaurus. I looked up Omaha in my Poker Talk book and the book states there are five and six card versions of Omaha.
This is the first I've heard of it. I promise never to mention it to anyone, but I'm mildly curious. Where is it played?
Buzz
Buzz, I'm not sure where five or six card Omaha is played,but there is a small chapter on just that,in "Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker" by Reuben & Ciaffone.
Thanks, Howard. I have 30 or so poker books. However, I don't have "Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker" by Reuben & Ciaffone.
I do have Bob Ciaffone's, millennium edition of "Omaha Holdem Poker" which I highly recommend for serious Omaha players. The one drawback, from my standpoint, to Ciaffone's "Omaha Holdem Poker" is that there is not enough space devoted specifically to limit Omaha high/low.
The reason is that I mostly play limit Omaha high/low in casinos, specifically limit Omaha-8.
Fossilman mentions (in this thread) that a five card version of Omaha is played in Indio. I've been through Indio many times, but have never gone TO Indio. The last time I drove through Indio was about twenty years ago. I remember Indio as a nice little town - kind of hot in the summer (an understatement if ever there was one), even at night. It must have changed a lot since I was last through there. Hard to imagine Indio (the way I remember it, as a sleepy little town) sustaining a poker casino.
When I read Fossilman's post, I thought of the days of the old west when gamblers were well armed and good shots. Imagine riding into some little town where there are a bunch of regulars who all know each other, sitting down to gamble with them, and playing a strange game for the first time. Kind of scary - and, at the same time, kind of intriguing. Dreams.
I'll probably never get to Indio again. Maybe it's better that I remember it the way it was, as a sleepy little town with posters about a date festival decorating the streets.
Thanks for the information.
Buzz
I haven't been there in quite a while, but last I heard the biggest regular game in the room is the 15-30 with a kill to 20-40, 5-card Omaha hi-lo. Lots of action for a regularly spread split game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
(Badger said) "74321 is a bigger number than 65321.
The smaller the number your cards make, the better a low hand you have, with 54321 being the lowest possible number/hand. "
In 20 years of playing lowball and hi-lo split games, I've never heard it put so simply.
You da Man, Steve!
ps..I will still be holding "all the friggin' aces" Monday night at 7:15
Thank you Niels and Buzz. It was as I suspected, something in Ray Zee's book made me wonder if I had it straight.
Buzz, guess I should have been clearer, I meant final hand, not starting hand. At least it started an interesting tangent.
Club game. Eight players. Dealer ante's $5. Two sets of 5 in the middle. Stakes are $2 preflop, $2 flop, $4 turn, and $4 river. It's Omaha High with 5 cards to each player. Leaving only 2 not used in the deck. The Lock or Nuts wins most of the time.
Here's a somewhat typical hand. Rotating bet. Bet or get out. All 8 stay for the flops. The top 3 are 5s6cJd. The bottom 3 are 3sKs7c. No pairs two-flush on the bottom. 2 drop six left I have JcJhQcTd7c. Turn is 9d up top and 2s down below making flush possible. PTR(player to right) raises, I call, and PTL calls. Three way on the river. The river is 6h up top making a pair and 3c on the bottom making a pair of 3's. PTR starts the betting, I raise, PTL calls my raise, and PTR calls. I figure I'm a winner with J's over 6's. PTL a calling station says good, PTR a worse caller plus I put him on the A flush hesitates for a while and then says he has K's over 3's I almost died. He did have the A high flush. Just thought I would post this in case they wanted to try in a home game.
Paul
ive played with 2 flops but we had 2 winners . you played on with the flop you wanted and dropped out of the other if you didnt have anything. your game seems to be the best hand out of both flops wins all the money (one pot). thanks for the great post Paul.
I notice you had the 4th nuts for whatever that's worth.
With all the cards in your hand and DOUBLE the chances for full houses, I suggest the following rules: (1) There is no such thing as a straight draw (2) There is no such thing as a "straight" unless its the nuts on the river which may happen once a night (3) The ONLY flush DRAW is the MADE nut flush+face card on the Turn. (4) There is no such thing as a "flush" unless its the nuts+face card on the River (5) There is no such thing as a "under full house" except when it accidentally wins a showdown. (6) There is no such thing as a "draw-out".
The above realities lead to the following corralaries: (A) There is no such thing as a "suited" hand (B) There is no such thing as a "connected" hand (C) There is no card less than Ten (D) Raising hands have big pairs in them (E) QQ is much better if you also have an A or K. JJ is much better if you have two of the higher cards.
This is a game of big full houses.
Unless you act last next round if you open this round, this is a game of late position.
- Louie
Louie,
Your right in your assumption of this game. It just killed me the way he bet. He was raising the A flush, but didn't reraise me with the K's over. He had a great hand, but he is a calling station that doesn't bet right in most situations. He had AKKxs but didn't see the K's over until he layed them down and the person to his right pointed it out or they saw it simultaneously. It's a very frustrating game. There are just so many possibilities it helps in looking at the board, so when you go back to HE that seems easy. You can also play with three flops if you have seven players. It's a good game to develop skills for board games and what other players have if they bet correctly. As far as playing it exclusively I think suicide would be better.
Paul
I am a 19 year old who lives in Nebraska. The closest casino I can get into is 2 hours away. This place has a four table poker room, and the main games they play are $2-10 7Shl, $2-5S, and $4-8Ohl. About half of the people are loose passive, and the other half are loose aggresive. My question is how much money should I put into play in these game?
Are you a winning player? If so, which games can your bankroll afford?
If you're new and just trying out your game, I would recommend that you invest in educating yourself BEFORE you go to play in these games. Pick a game and buy some books from 2+2 or other authors. Really understand everything you can about the game first. Play with some friends in your hometown for very low stakes (nickel, dime, quarter) to get used to the flow and procedures of the game. Maybe purchase one of the turbo poker software games from Wilson Software (while far from perfect, I believe they are the best thing available by a significant margin).
Once you feel ready to enter, take a little notebook with you, and bring about $200-300 to play with (if this is too much for you to risk, then forget the whole thing until you can easily afford this amount). Play very tight early in each hand, doing a lot of folding on the first betting round. Take notes in your book about every issue that comes up where you're confused, either about the rules and procedures, or about the correct way to play a hand. Come back here and ask for more advice.
Generally, to get the most effective advice on this forum, you should ask a single highly-focussed question. If you have lots of questions, make a series of posts (each on the correct forum, please). No one will mind if you post a lot of questions.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
First of all,Thanks for the advice.
I have been playing for about a year in a very low limit($.50-$1.00) home game structured the same way as the casino, and in December I started playing in the casino. I have read books by Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Mike Caro, Lee Jones, and Andy Nelson. I am confident in my understanding of the game of poker.
My main question is would I be ok with about $150 in a $2-10 7Shl or a $2-5 S?
What casino can you play at being only 19yrs old
Probably all of them.
You still need to provide more details. What do you mean by OK?
I'm guessing that you mean, is this enough that I shouldn't have to worry about going broke very often. Even then, it's hard for us to know. If your style is very tight, then you need less money. If you play a lot of hands, even if you play them well, you need more.
If you want to guarantee not going broke early, I would bring much more than $150 for game with $10 bets. 5 betting rounds, at $10 per, you could go broke in 3 hands with no one even putting in a raise. Plus, there are quite a few busted draw situations in stud hi-lo, where you invest 1 or 2 bets early with a great low start, catch a brick or 2, and fold. I would want to have $500 in my pocket, or be willing to go home early some days. Half that amount, maybe less, for the stud hi game (half the betting limit, and fewer reasons to pay a bet on 3rd and fold on 4th street).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Brian,
My sons name is Brian. He is 29 and has a masters degree in physics. He likes playing low limit poker. When he was 19 I literlly "persuaded" him to go to college. He spent a lot of years figuring out that Dad was right. If you have the time and energy to read and understand the material of the authors you've mentioned I suggest that you find yourself a nearby school and use that energy and intelligence in obtaining a college degree in a profession you can use for the rest of your life. Maybe you do that already? Like our Columbia wiz Scott and a few other college students here on the forum. Don't short change yourself and get the idea that a life playing poker is worthwhile and meaningful. Most of the authors you have mentioned earned a college education before becoming full timers at poker.
Of course that wasn't the advice you were looking for. But then again Fossilman and Badger gave you all the advice that you need to answer your question.
Vince
So basically what your saying is that these people wasted a bunch of time, and money, going to college and then decided to become professional poker players anyway. What is the point of going to college if your not going to use it to go to work for someone else. Vince college is not for everyone, there are alot of people who like to make their own money instead of making it for someone else, and since college only teaches you how to work for someone else maybe you should let the kid try and make some money, instead of asting it on college.
For what it's worth, Joshua
you ask (paraphrased) : why bother reading or writing or thinking if it doesn't translate into material gain?
i am sorry, but you have everything wrong.
by the way, i am not going to work for anyone else. if i can help it, i wont work for myself either.
college is more than job training. you also forgot the sex, alcohol, and drugs.
scott
Vince,
Actually, I am a student at the University of Nebraska. I have no serious plans of playing poker for a living. I think of it more as a hobby. I agree with you when you said if I can study and understand those authors, I should be using that same energy in school. I actually think that my poker hobby and my college study habits go hand in hand. I find that the more effort I put into poker, the more effort I put into school.
Normally, as HLSFAP writes, you should just limp with a strong low hand.
When there are many players in the hand with low cards up, a lot of them probably have razz hands or small pairs. In this case, would it become correct to raise with a premium low hand (three low cards to a live ace, a low 3-straight or a low 3-flush)? Let's say a king raises, there's no ace showing, and a three, seven and four call. You have (A4)5, (34)5, or (Ac7c)2c, and your cards are live. Assuming typical opponents and a moderate ante, how inclined should you be to raise here?
You're probably not getting anyone to fold - unless maybe the K re-raises and one of the low cards had a wired pair or something, so this raise is simply to put some more money into the pot.
I don't think there is much incentive to do this with the 3-card wheel (what would you do if you caught a high card on 4th street?). Also, the other low draws decrease your own odds of making a low.
Assuming the other low cards are going for low, there is a good chance that any low straight draw would be atleast partially dead, so I don't think raising with the 3-straight is a good play either - save it for when you're 4 to a straight/low and have much better odds.
There might be some incentive to reraise with the flush as you have a realistic chance to scoop the pot and building the pot could be potentially valuable. Still, I think its still better to wait until later - your low draw probably isn't much better than the others.
Your low is never secure until the last card falls, so follow Ray Zee's advice and take it a little slow.
~DjTj
there are many things to think about here. one is that by limping you may get to fold cheaply when you bust on four. while your opponents may still call so you make them make a mistake you dont. but once its raised already to you when you have a real premium hand you most likely wont fold with a bad card on four unless its double poped and you are facing strong looking hands. so their mistake is no longer available to you so getting more money in with a great hand deserves merit. actually by making the pot huge they may make a very bad fold later on with a hand that still has value. and your hand may be one that can go to sixth street without helping unless you are being charged too much. you have to judge your players.
Steve Badger hits the nail on the head. I agree that you should play in the smallest game (1-5 7CS). The 2-10 HL and the Omaha is best left to more experienced players. I would buy in initially for $100 and make sure I had another $150 in my pocket. I would play very tightly until I got the feel of the game. When you have a very strong hand, play agressively. Make sure you read at least 1 book on 7CS. For beginners in casino games, I like Roy West's low/medium limit poker. Next I would get Sklansky's green book. I did not even attempt Omaha or H/L for the 1st 3 years until I was able to win consistantly (>75%) in low/medium stud. I usually just play weekends.
I have recently moved from a very tough holdem game to a new city with only one Casino. The game here is 3-6-12 dealers choice, holdem, omaha, omaha hi/lo. The game is very loose, often 9-10 callers. A raise seems to do very little to discourage players, if anything more come in anticipating a big pot. They are for the most part very passive and it is extremely tough to put anyone on a hand before the river. I am struggling for an effective strategy. I recently check raised the nuts on the end and I was treated like the DEVIL. They were saying " There's no need for that is this game!" I don't know if it would be in best interest to become the villian in this game. Any suggestions would be appreciated.......
Thanx
If they play with home game customs then so be it.
I actually LIKE the no-check-raise rule since although I check-raise better than most typical opponents, THEY will have so many more opportunities than me since I respect position and they don't. I LIKE late position when the opponent's actions are generally real.
You don't need to start with "Power Houses", just hands that can make big hands. In holdem play every suited-connector and every pair and every Axs. Add more suited hands in late postiion. Trouble hands remain trouble or get even worse. In Omahaha you need combinations that make the "nuts", meaning any 8 or higher 4-straight, A or K or Q high 3-straights, AA, KK, QQ, or Axs.
Forget this notion of needing to peg certain players with certain hands. If you flop bottom two pair just about EVERY card CAN make someone else a bigger two pair. So what? You'll know your beat when raised. You'll win a high percentage of the pots you play but you will often not know which once until you win the showdown.
In holdem, flail away with your big draws on the flop if you really expect more than 3 callers.
- Louie
Amen!
Vince
Maybe you died and went to heaven -- to be in a game like that is great for your pocketbook/bankroll. Try to behave in a way such that you fit(are accepted) in with the game and enjoy the ride....
Hi! I'm pretty new to poker (about 50 hrs), playing mostly in small games here at school. I would like to get involved in better games to build experience, but in the mean time I'm going to San Juan soon, and was thinking it would be nice to play in casinos there. I am wondering, has anyone has played in San Juan before? Could you give me some idea as to what the game is like there? Any tips? Thanks a bunch.
-David
hi, blum. this belongs on the other topics forum. i am sure someone will tell you about san juan. reading this forum is a great way to learn strategy. i'll get you the books. bye.
scott
Was there for two afternoons and my pathetic search and inquires found no poker games. The harbor fort was very nice.
you should have directed this post to the exchange. dont let your interest in a particular post cloud your duties.
Thanks for the info (despite my wrong choice of forum).
-David
I play in friendly thursday night games with nice fellows. Stakes are 20/40, dealer choice, with any exotic variations and wild cards. Since I am not familiar with wild cards play + declarations, I often call regular games, especially Omaha8 or Omaha High. I feel more comfortable since I know those games better than any other games.
However I have won a couple of hands recently while dealing, getting a miracle river card in pots where I shouldn't have stayed from a odds point of view: straight flush wheel, backdoor straight and so on. A good friend in the table warned me that people are starting to be suspicious, thinking that I might be a mechanic. Since I have no way to prove my innocence, what do you think I should do?
I guess playing good poker and folding early is the best option. however, I sometimes stay in the pot in late position for the purpose of deception or when cards have been good for a while (well, i know i shouldn't...). Asking somebody to deal for me would totally clear the issue but like my friend said, this would generate an awkward atmosphere.
thank you for any suggestion
PS TKC, I know you read this page often. I didn't write this message to get an alibi!
My advice, for what its worth, would be not to hold the deck in a mechanics grip when you deal. Just leave it on the table and deal by slipping the cards of the top of the deck (wich means no second deal, no bottom deal..). Also, using burn cards would be a good idea. When you shuffle, use a clean standard riffle shuffle followed by a cut at a third of the deck.Do this 2 or 3 times. This is said to be the best shuffling method. And of course, have the deck cut, and once the cut is done, leave the deck on the table and dont pick it up.
ps: by the way, your on the wrong forum.
You can always forfeit when you win the hand or take your cards and go home.
A Beginner's Apprentice
?
It sounds as if someone is getting stung at the limit you are playing, then looking for an excuse to blame someone or something else for their loss. My experience is that either they will probably leave the game or you will, if things are not resolved. I would suggest getting things out in the open before the first hand of the next game is dealt. I have seen this before, and it can be uncomfortable, to the point of taking the enjoyment out of the game.
I don't think suspicions came from people who wanted to blame their losses on something. Again, the suspicions are rationnally understandable, if not legitimate. The most observant players at the table, those who can read cards and players (thus who play better in that matter than those who don't), are certainly the ones who got the suspicions, not the non-observants. I would have had the same doubts if somebody catches a miracle card too often.
Like you said, the situation is uncomfortable but only for me and the 'observants' for the time being. I first wanted to sort things out in the open like you suggested, but it would then put the non-observants in an uncomfortable situation as well: it might scare them away from a game where there is potential cheating. Since I hope the situation will be cleared fast, there is no use to involve them unnecessarily.
But you're totally right, things have to be resolved quickly.
Show up to the next game with a bandage on your hand. Claim an injury. State the injury will not allow you to deal. If you are concerned with giving up the positional advantages of dealing, ask the player next to you to deal for you or something like that. This should remove any issues for the time being.
Excellent advice. Will do. Thanks.
Screw them. let them think what they want. if they suck then it's their hard luck. if you aint a mechanic and they accuse you of it then learn to really be one and kick their asses. sound like your buddies are getting taken. maybe they should read more books on kookie card games. who plays those stupid games for 20/40. theses guys must have more money than they know what to do with . are they doctors and lawyers?
Set this up as a regular cut ritual with the players, should eliminate the suspicion:
Deck after deal (top to bottom) 4 sections ABCD
Placed on table by cutter: A B C D
Picked up by cutter: B D C A
Handed to dealer (you) BDCA
You deal this way, use burn cards in between rounds.
Note that this eliminates top card and bottom card issue (a mechanic could probably still get them, but degree of difficulty goes WAY up... especially if sections are different sizes.
It's obvious you have no friends in this game. You are probably the best player at the table by far and are getting sour grapes from some know-it-all who is jealous that you are winning so much money with inferior hands. You should challenge that asshole to a heads up game for serious money...let someone else deal...and prove that you are the best player anyway.
Fuck em, I say!
c
I have been playing, learning (and unfortunately getting my ass kicked) at 10-20 Omaha high on Paradise Poker. I am still wet behind the ears on Omaha strategy. [BTW, my thanks to Dan Hanson who has given me many valuable tips on Omaha play via E-mail]. However, here's a hand that I thought I would post on the Forum for feedback.
I get 5c6c7d9d UTg and call.
Question no. 1: Should I call?
7 way action with a raise from the button.
Flop: 2c4d8c
I bet.
Question No. 2: Do I bet?
One call. One raise. Button cold calls. I call.
Question No. 3: Do I possibly reraise?
Turn: Kd
I bet. Same guy raises. I 3 bet it when it gets back to me and he caps it. All 4 players are still in for the river card.
Question no. 4: Rate my turn play
River: Qd
I check-call the button. He shows the nut Dimaonds and takes the pot.
More help:
Are these hands playable under the gun?
KdQd9c7s
Ac8c4h3d.
9977
AdKc10s2h.
Thanks for the help.
The flop was 2c4d8s and not 2c4d8c as initially stated.
i can see why you are getting kicked. you dont understand the game. all the hands you showed are folding hands under the gun in a full game even if you improve their value alot. the hand you played should have been folded. after you hit the flop your hand was maybe about as strong as a straight draw in limit holdem at best. why you raised after 4th street when a blank came for your hand i dont know. the diamond kills alot of your straight draws and i hope you dont believe small flushes win anything in omaha except when you back into one headup. im sorry to be so forward but you need a kick in the axx quickly to get you going in the right direction. good luck.
1. Fold UTG. In limit Omaha high, that hand is marginal even in late position.
2/3. You have 13 nut outs on the next card, but if you hit one you'll lose to a flush or full house on the river a large fraction of the time. Also, someone else can easily have some of the same straight outs as you. Check and call.
4. With four players in, someone probably has a higher diamond draw. Assuming diamonds aren't good, you have 10 outs, and those might share with someone else if you hit. Check and call again.
Omaha High is a highly positional game, and very few hands are playable in early position.
I'll add my .02 to this one...
>>I get 5c6c7d9d UTg and call.
>>Question no. 1: Should I call?
Nope. You have no big card value, meaning you're not going to flop top set or top two pair. The gap on the top of the straight draw means any big straight draws you flop are probably not going to be to the nuts.
If you are playing hands that primarily build straights, then you want them to be able to flop BIG, nut straight draws, or multiple hands that can flop straight draws with two big pairs, etc. An open-ended straight alone isn't that great a draw in Omaha - you make them as often as in Holdem, but lose or split when you make them much more often.
Because the pots are generally much larger in Omaha, when you hit these straight draws you usually have to play them, but the variance is sky-high and the EV is pretty low.
>>7 way action with a raise from the button. >> >>Flop: 2c4d8c >> >>I bet. >> >>Question No. 2: Do I bet?
I don't like betting draws like this UTG, especially in agressive games.
In Holdem, the reasons to bet a draw are for value, or if there is some chance of winning the pot outright with your bet. In Omaha, the chance of winning the pot with seven callers and this flop is approximately zero, and someone is probably going to bet if you check anyway. If you bet, bad stuff can happen like an immediate raise which chokes off your action.
If the flop is rainbow and you have a 13-out draw to the nuts, you can check, and if there is a bet to your left and a bunch of callers you can consider raising for value. The hand is slightly better than an open-ended straight in Holdem, so your requirements for raising for value are similar.
>>One call. One raise. Button cold calls. I call.
>>Question No. 3: Do I possibly reraise?
No. Not enough callers to warrant a raise for value, and with this action on a low rainbow flop there's a chance that you're up against a set and maybe the same straight draw. You've gotta call, but your situation isn't as good as those 13 outs would indicate.
>>Turn: Kd
>>I bet. Same guy raises. I 3 bet it when it gets back >>to me and he caps it. All 4 players are still in for >>the river card.
>Question no. 4: Rate my turn play
What were you trying to accomplish with the bet? The King doesn't change the board, other than if you have two kings. But you aren't going to get a set to fold anyway. So you have zero chance of winning the pot.
The only good thing that can happen here is that your bet and a raise by the guy you've put on a set might force out larger diamond draws, giving you a few more outs. But I certainly wouldn't be playing the hand as if my diamond flush was going to be good if it came in - a running small flush with three people in the hand has maybe a 50% chance of being good if the diamonds come in.
I think you are still thinking like a Holdem player, trying to power your way through the hand and get your opponents to fold. In Omaha, especially with the action you got on the flop, it's highly unlikely. The more likely result is what happened - you got raised.
The re-raise was particularly bad here. You're losing money on every dollar you put in the pot against the probable cards you are up against.
>>River: Qd
>>I check-call the button. He shows the nut Dimaonds >>and takes the pot.
I'd play the river the same way, against one player.
>>Are these hands playable under the gun?
>>KdQd9c7s
No. Maybe on the button, but even that is pretty weak. The only way I'd play this hand is if the game was weak enough that I'd get lots of action from smaller flushes if I made my King-high flush.
>>Ac8c4h3d.
Hands with suited aces in them are usually playable, but this is just about the worst hand you can get with a suited Ace. If the game were absolutely passive and very loose I might play it, but in any normal game I'd fold it.
>>9977
Another marginal hand. Bottom set is a lousy hand in Omaha. Middle set is somewhat better. Same comments apply as the hand above. Fold it in your average Omaha game.
>>AdKc10s2h.
Fold. If the Ace was suited it's a call, except maybe if the Ace is suited with the King (in that case, if you make your flush it's hard to get action that you want). If the 2 was a card that connected with the ten I might raise with it in late position.
Ray, Dan, and Dan, thanks for the responses. While I don't doubt that you guys have got it right, I wanted to get some clarification. Let me try and offer my rationale for my play. I would appreciate it if you would tell me where *my thinking* is wrong so that I can avoid the same mistakes next time.
Pre-flop
I can understand the advice to fold here. 'Nuff said.
Flop
Now, I have got a 13 outer - all to the nuts. Of course, I need to worry about redraws and lockouts. I gather that's what you guys mean by saying that my 13 outer here is really no better than an 8 outer in Hold 'em. That I can understand. The reason why I bet was because although there is a much lower chance of the action checking to the preflop raiser in Omaha (as compared to Hold 'em), I wanted to ensure that there was a bet on the flop to "purify" the flop and get out some of the backdoor club draws and Diamond draws. I certainly realize that the object of Omaha is not to make a 6 high or 9 high flush (which were the backddor draws that I had) but I thought that the chances of having those flushes hold up would be much less if no one bet the flop. I did not want to have everyone check to the preflop raiser only to have him check his hand. If he raised with a big pocket pair, there was a good chance that he missed this flop completely and would check along. Now, if a Diamond or Club came off on the turn, I would wish that I had bet the flop.
Dan, I do take your point that by betting, I open myself to a raise from my immediate left which could choke off my own action.
Flop reraise?
I just called. I did not reraise. I think you guys came to the consensus that I finally did something right:) phew:)
Turn
The board now has 2 Diamonds. Once again, I was actually not very enamoured with my flush draw. Now, by this time, I certainly suspected that the guy who raised the flop had a set (probably a set of 8's). I also knew that I would probably get raised if I bet. However, my thinking was that if I bet, the guy to my immediate left (immediate right of the guy holding the set) may be forced to throw away a hand which included 2 diamonds bigger than mine because he has to fear that there will be a raise behind him and he may not want to proceed with a hand that may not be the best even if he hits. Of course, he proably is not going to fold Ace high Dimaonds but he might fold Queen or Jack high Diamonds. The same can be said about the button. Once 88xx puts in his raise, my hope would be that his raise knocks out the button.
Is the reasoning here correct?
Is it realistic to assume that this may happen?
Is it worth the price of paying 2 big bets instead of one.
The turn 3 bet:
In retrospect, this was a crazy play. In the heat of the moment, my thinking once again was to try and get the guy to my left to lay down at this point. As well, I thought that the fellow with the 88 would not cap it fearing KK in my hand. Wrong! Although I did not know the exact number during play, I felt that I had a whole bunch of nut outs still left. Am I safe in assuming that I had 10 outs to the nuts (i.e. with all the betting that is going on, is it reasonable to assume that if I catch a non-Diamond straight card, I would take the whole pot and not have to split with anyone)?
On the other four hands, actually the only one I played was AdKc10s2h. I folded the others. I thought it had sufficient high card strength. I gather what you guys are saying is that the deuce just messes up the hand big time. I understand that.
One final question:
On average, how many hands do you generally voluntarily play per round? Based on your response to the AdKc10s2h question, it would seem to me that a good player probably cannot voluntarily play more than 1 hand per round (outside the blinds). If this is true, it is pretty frightening because so many hands "look" playable in thi scrazy (but fun) game.
Thanks for the help.
If the questions are stupid, please excuse me. The game is a bit of a puzzler to me right now.
skp wrote: "On average, how many hands do you generally voluntarily play per round? Based on your response to the AdKc10s2h question, it would seem to me that a good player probably cannot voluntarily play more than 1 hand per round (outside the blinds). If this is true, it is pretty frightening because so many hands "look" playable in thi scrazy (but fun) game."
They only look good because you are a holdem player first and foremost. The same used to be true of me (and probably everyone else who moved from HE to omaha). If you play more hands than this, you had better be really good at outplaying your opponents postflop, or it will cost you.
BTW, outside the blinds, how many hands per round do you play in HE? I find I also average about 1 (up to 2 in a loose, passive, calling station game) in that game as well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In HE, I am probably at 5 voluntary entries every 3 rounds (I have to admit that I am guessing a bit here as I really haven't put my mind to the question before). Realize though that I play in games where you stand to get paid off pretty handsomely any time I flop well. The possibility of getting unreasonable action when I flop well gets me in there a lot more often than say games in Edmonton or Vegas (about the only 2 other cities that I have ever played poker in. I had one 5 hour session at the Commerce so that doesn't really count).
middle straights get drawn out on all too often to push and you didnt even have one yet. with lots of people in the pot any pair, flush card or higher straight card will make your hand dead if you hit it. thats what did happen to you. the game is not like holdem and you dont push hands with lots of opponents that arent big nut draws or made hands that are vunerable. all four cards should be working together unless you have good reason to play.
While I agree in general, I have to point out that the texture of his straight draw is very good in this case. Several of the cards that make his straight give him redraws to the bigger straight, and with three cards in the middle to make his straight, it's less likely that someone else will make the same straight. And, it's a rainbow flop.
The hand wasn't very good before the flop, but this is just about the best flop you can get.
I have not played any Omaha 8/better but I have played some omaha HIGH so here it goes even though I probably will get blast for it. But here is my 2 cents anyway. Omaha high right?!.
I really like this hand and dislike this hand. I dislike this hand in your situation with a 7 way action that you got under the gun. I would not like this hand much in late position with 7 way action either. But if I could get to play this hand 3 or 4 way (myself included) I would go for it almost everytime. The reason I like to play it short is because my straight draws will gain a lot of value short handed + my little flush may actually be good + with less people in the pot I will not run into a full house nearly as often as with 7 people + I may win with two small pair. I think I would gamble here and raise it under the gun trying to get 4 way action. If I thought this was not very likely I would think muck and then call (raise/muck/call)
P.S I would muck the other hands. I think they are total garbage.
skp,
5c6c7d9d UTG=Never
KdQd9c7s UTG=Flop Adxdx no pairs play on.
Ac8c4h3d. UTG= Flop ccx no pairs play on.
9977 UTG=Never
AdKc10s2h UTG=Never
The reason I would play the flop would only be in a passive game if there was raising I wouldn't even play those hands. There all trouble. This is not middle fiddle this is HIGH. If you were playing middle fiddle where 8's are the best, then 7's, then 9's, 6's, T's, 5's, J's, 4's, Q's, 3's, K's, 2's and finally A's in that order then you would have some playable hands.
Good luck paul
Well, it sounds like our Omaha games are at about the same place. I thought your turn play was pretty astute, which I guess just goes to show how little I know about the game... :) Anyway, re: starting hands. Bob Ciaffone's O high book has some great sections on this, so you may want to check it out. When I'm playing O high (which I like a lot better than O 8, although neither game gets me real giddy) I employ the following starting hand requirements. 1) four cards to a straight, where the lowest card is no smaller than a four. 2) four cards nine or higher. 3) Suited A's if the other two cards can make a nut straight together. 4) Big pocket pairs where both of the other cards are 8's or higher.
This is pretty rough, I know, but maybe it will help. (Then again, maybe I'm just completely on the wrong track). I'm sure there are a ton of other playable hands, but since I suck at the game I'm not real anxious to start playing marginal hands. Too, I tend to tighten up A LOT in early position, and get a little liberal with my calls when I'm cuddlin' with the button. Good luck to you, skp. If you're going to play that crazy game I'm afraid you're going to need it. :)
I've posted this stuff before, and elsewhere, but not here for a while:
7cs players have missed out on the NL action till now: here is a way for 7cs to be played at NL, and it's better for HP and PL than 7cs is too: Deal the cards 3-2-1-1 and turn the last card face up, instead of 3-1-1-1-1 and last card down. The game is called mississippi 7cs.
Mississippi also plays as a limit game, and it's more active and faster than 3-1-1-1-1 7cs. For limit betting you can turn the last card down if you prefer.
Anyone who runs tournaments or home games might like to try it out.
I thought I'd start this as a new thread so it doesn't get buried in SKP's thread below.
He wanted to know how many hands are playable in Omaha, as a general rule.
I find that I play significantly more hands in Omaha than I do in Holdem, but I don't think that's as much a reflection of the nature of the game as it is the quality of the typical games that seem to be going on right now. If I were continually getting the kind of action in Holdem games that I get in Omaha games, I'd probably play a similar number of hands.
I've been playing quite a bit of 3-6 and 5-10 Omaha on Paradise Poker. I won't step up in limits until I'm satisfied that the games are okay and no serious collusion is going on.
The quality of players in these games is currently very bad. And bad players in Omaha give the good players a much bigger advantage. In Holdem, having 8-9 callers in a hand presents all sorts of unique problems that can trip up a good player (Morton's law, implied collusion). But in Omaha, since you are building hands that make the nuts, you generally welcome as many players as you can get.
If you are playing in a game with sane players who won't draw to 2nd and 3rd nut straights, small flushes, or call raises with bottom two pair, then you have to play pretty tight. In games like this, you usually have 3-5 way action before the flop, and when you make nut hands it's hard to get action with them. So you want to play hands that have multiple nut potential, to raise the chances of hitting a flop that you can continue with.
But in these weak games where 7-9 players are seeing the flop and many of them will call to the river when drawing dead, it's acceptable to play many more hands, provided you don't make the same mistakes they do. The overlay you are getting after the flop is large.
For example, in a tough game a suited king is worth roughly half of what a suited ace is worth, partially because of the number of times you will lose to an ace-high flush, but also because if you make a king-high flush you'll get no action since good players won't draw to make a queen-high flush. But in these soft games that is not the case, so suited kings go up in value by maybe 20% before the flop.
The same can be said for straight draws. When you make a nut straight in a tough game, it's hard to get action that you want (you'll get action from nut flush draws and sets, but you'd generally wish they would fold). Where you DO get action against another player with the same straight, you really want to have a freeroll against him. So you play multi-way hands that can flop multiple draws.
In the weak games, if your nut straight will get action from three people with smaller straights, and from two people drawing to the same flush, the requirement for extra outs is not as important. However, your variance goes up quite a bit when you have no backup for your draws or made hands.
So, if you play much better than your opponents you can loosen up a fair bit in Omaha, especially in late position where you get lots of information to use with your superior judgement before you have to commit money.
It's true that if you play against morons as a rule then you can loosen up your starting requirements considerably. This is not only true of Omaha, but any other poker game as well. The trick is, as you imply, to play the potential second-best hands/draws very carefully after the flop. My starting-hand requirement is that of the six holdem hands that are contained in an Omaha hand, four or more (five/six in bad position) must be hands that I would call one bet with in Holdem. For example, QJ103 is unplayable because I would never call with Q3, J3, 103. Anyway, it seems to work for me.
What about AsAhKs9d? You wouldn't play any of the others with the nine.
In Response To: Re: General Comments on Omaha High Starting Hands (Kevin L) & In responce to Dan Rubenstein wrote:
What about AsAhKs9d? You wouldn't play any of the others with the nine.
Like we have all repeatly heard, there are no bad hands in Omaha -- only bad flops.
AsAhKs9d is not one of my premium starting hands. I would maybe(usually) call with it -- especially in good position. A hand like this very seldom wins big pots. If nuts (or high percentage nut draw) are not available on flop -- I would not chase with more money to win half the pot. The King kicker is very valuable if an Ace flops -- but many times a low develops when an Ace flops and the three Aces wins only half the pot. In a multiway pot(lots of players)I would rather play As Kh Ks 9d. If a King flops -- there is a lessor chance of a low developing and I might scoop.
In the later stages of a tournament when going one-on-one, the AsAhKs9d many times can be a very go hand.
Carl William James
I made a mistake thinking that the game was Omaha HiLo 8.
We're talking about Omaha High, and this is a premium hand. I'm playing it in any pot.
Actually, I do consider K9 and A9 offsuit worth a call of one bet in late position in Hold Em. Barely. So this AAK9 hand is playable...but I'm not all that thrilled with it. The 9 essentially IS a wasted card. I'm not one of those persons who orgasms every time they pick up a pair of Aces in Omaha-Hi.
I have used a system similar to Kevin's to play omaha high. One change that makes it closer to accurate is to count hands slightly differently. In your example of AsAhKs9d we would count AA, AK, AK again, and Axs. The AK twice just helps us count high pairs as good, but we also end up counting lower pairs like jacks as good sometimes, while they aren't that great so... It's a bit rough. But counting AK and Axs as different is actually fairly valid in Omaha high IMHO.
I am wondering in Hi/Lo Stud 8 or better if an open pair shows on 4th street whether you make a double bet like in regular Stud? Or is the Hi/Lo game different, and you can not make a double bet?
Thanks a lot.
depends on the casino I think, but in general, it stays a single bet.
~DjTj
I recently started playing poker in the casino, so I play at the $1-$3 stud at the casino here. I had a situation come up, and I think the dealer made the wrong call, but I'm not sure. This is what happened: It was just me and one other player, and the dealer dealt out the last card, and the other player bet $3. I threw my chips in to raise him, but apparently I only threw in $5 instead of $6, on accident. The dealer saw it, and said I needed to bet one more, so I did. Then the other player said that I couldn't raise because I didn't say "raise". The dealer said he was right, I could only call him. I didn't want to make a big deal because I wasn't sure of the rule.
What do you think? Did the dealer make the right decision? I guess now that I look back on it I probably should have called over the floorperson to make a decision, but I didn't think about that in the heat of the moment.
Thanks for your help
Gamblerbri
perhaps I'm not the greatest authority on these things, but I've heard it said that if you throw in more than half the amount required for a raise rather than a call, it should be treated as a raise.
~DjTj
Where I play this is the right decision. In other places it is not. Somehow I'm pretty sure the dealer made the right decision. Post a casino where it happened and someone will let you know for sure.
Good luck.
Depends on the casino and to some extent, the dealer. One does not have to say "raise" if he/she puts in an amount of money equal to doubling the initial bet. The double bet speaks for itself as long as it is put in all at one time (i.e. no string bet). However, if one throws in am amount less than 2 times the previous bet it becomes a judgement call by the dealer who has do decide if the raiser simply grabbed the wrong amount of chips by mistake and it was actually his/her intent to raise. The easy decision is to not allow the raise. The correct decision is in the eye of the dealer.
Consider this: a person means to call and picks up what he thinks is a single chip. The chips (which are always dirty) stick together and 2 chips are tossed in. Is it a raise? Probably not, and this happens often.
One last point: when a player bets and squawks about not allowing the caller to raise thus putting himself in a position to have to call the raise, he is usually weak. If it is not the river, the raiser should raise next card if the squaker gets a bad card and expect to take the pot.
The dealer new that it was my intent to raise, and that I had accidentaly grabbed one less chip. Everything was fine until the other player piped up and said I couldn't raise him. So the dealer sided with the other player(probably becasue I am only 18 and us kids never get any respect). I play in Arizona, and yes, I won the pot with a flush over a straight.
Live and Learn, I guess
Gamblerbri
In every Arizona casino I've played at (Gila River and Casino Arizona) the rule is that you must have all the chips out for a raise for it to be a raise, or must verbalize that you are raising. If you don't do either, an opponent, not the dealer, can call a string raise and force you to take it back.
I've already posted the rules of mississippi seven-card stud: (3-2-1-1 instead of 7cs's 3-1-1-1-1, with the river card face up for big-bet games, or optionally face down for limit games) The same game plays very well with an extra hole card: each player gets three hole cards and an upcard to start, then two more upcards, then a fourth, then a fifth upcard. (no comunal cards). A maximum of two hole cards may be used at the end. This game (called murrumbidgee stud) is a great short-handed game - it can only be dealt for six at a time: you get a lot of multi-way starting hands, like (3h,Kh,Ah)3h, or (Jh,Kc,Kh)Qh, or (8h,10c,Jc)9c. You can make trips or two pair on the flop, and have a straight and flush draw as well: you can make twenty-three way straight and flush draws. There is a lot more variety in possible hands in murrumbidgee than in a communal card game like omaha: highly recommended when the numbers drop in home game and you don't want to strip the deck. feedback welcome on play of the game.
3-6 Omaha/8 on Paradise Poker.
I'm holding Ah4h4cKc on the button. UTG is a new player, and is in with a posted blind. All folds to two off the button who calls. I call (playable hand?) and the small blind folds. 4 players see the flop:
AdAc5d
BB checks and UTG bets. I raise (good play?). BB folds and 2 off button calls. Turn is
Js
UTG bets again. 2 off button calls. I raise again (is this a good play?) and he reraises. 2 off button cold calls. I'm pretty sure I'm up against a full house now, but if not, I still have the best kicker to the trip aces and have 3 outs in a K. I call (should I have folded?). River is
3c
UTG bets again. 2 off button folds. I call (is this right?)
As expected, I lost to the AJ full house...should I have gotten out of this hand earlier - or played it less aggressively?
~DjTj
When he bets again on the jack, I think you can assume he has a boat. Call but don't raise. On the river consider folding since you can only win 1/2 the pot now and he would likely not bet without a boat. Although in these low limit games it is hard to tell.
Raise on the flop is good in order to get rid of other draws. Raising the UTG on the turn is good and should have told you to get out when he reraised at that point. Unless he's an idiot, he is not going to reraise you unless he has the current nuts.
Wouldn't you rather call a big bet on the turn and a big bet on the river than raise the turn and fold if reraised? If your king hits you'll make the same money most likely, and you can get out cheaper if you decide it is necessary for some reason.
It depends who I am up against. The UTG betting out only still tells me he has the other Ace. If you raise the UTG and that Jack did not help him he may fold and you could win the pot without seeing the river.
I think you could play it either way depending on your opponent.
DjTj - The pair of fours is a liability. If you hit a four on the flop and the board pairs, you will usually lose to a better full house in full a 3-6 game of O-8. I'm refering to a home game or a regular ring game in a casino. I don't know about Paradise Poker.
The best feature of your hand is the suited ace. However, a suited ace in Omaha is overestimated, in my opinion. I don't think it adds much value to the hand (only about 2%) partly because of the high/low split and partly because you get only get a board with three or more hearts and no pairs only about 3% of the time). Two per cent added equity is not much, but sometimes it tips the scales. However, I don't think it tips them enough here.
A-4 is not a good low hand. Not at all. It's fine for an incidental low, and, like a suited ace can be another scale tipper. You need to see a two, a three, and another low card on the board without an ace or a four. Pretty tall order. Odds are slim. You sometimes end up tempted to chase with a second or third rate low hand.
A-K is a nice combination, but the king has nothing much else to go with it. The suited king adds less value to the hand than a suited ace, only about 1%. In Texas hold 'em a suited king is MUCH better than in Omaha, but even there most of the equity of a suited king is due to the high card value of the king.
All you really have here is a mediocre hand. You played it and got in trouble. That's what happens all too frequently when you play mediocre cards. You hope to hit the flop and you end up catching just a piece of it but staying anyway, hoping for favorable cards on the turn and the river. Here you caught trip aces on the flop and felt obliged to stay hoping that your trip aces with a king kicker would stand up, or hoping to improve. Not a likely scenario. Not impossible. Just not likely.
Indeed, once you decide to see the flop you're stuck with this hand when you catch the trip aces. Pretty hard to fold trip aces after the flop (at least for me).
You want a small field for trip aces to stand up as a winning hand. Thus you correctly raise and induce the big blind to fold.
The raise on the turn, however, does not seem to me to be a good bet. Why? Simply because you don't have the nuts. This is low limit Omaha-8. Low limit Omaha-8 is a game of drawing for the nuts and peddling the nuts. You're not going to bully anyone out of the pot in this situation, and you're opening yourself to being re-raised (which is what happened) by the holder of the nuts.
The three on the river is ugly. Now you're probably only going to get half the pot even if your aces do hold up, and it doesn't look as though they will. Nonetheless, against unknown opponents, I think your call on the river is correct. You never know in Omaha.
Buzz
I agree that this is a mediocre hand (but on the good side of mediocre). However, given the situation, I think it is a clearly correct play.
This is apparently not a typical low limit Omaha8 game, since so few people are in the pot. The post indicated that there were the blinds, a post from a new player, and 1 caller before our hero on the button. Thus, he is only facing 1 player who is voluntarily playing, so the chances of being up against a bunch of A2, A3, and 23 low hands is much less likely than normal. Additionally, his suited K is now MUCH more likely to be the best flush if it hits. Finally, if a 4 flops, his biggest concern should be losing half the pot to low, not a higher set of trips (because he is facing only 3 opponents).
For a short-handed pot, and especially since only 1 player has a hand that was voluntarily played, I think this hand is completely playable, and mucking it preflop would have been a big mistake.
Let's get Ray Zee to post, and then we'll know the answer.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Z has athritis in his joints (OMD) today raining in Montana he hasn't trained Coke to type yet.
A Fellow Duncer
Greg - Sometimes I wonder if maybe I'm playing too tight. This hand does not meet my standards, yet you seem to like it a lot. Moreover, much of your reasoning is compelling.
"....he is only facing 1 player who is voluntarily playing, so the chances of being up against a bunch of A2, A3, and 23 low hands is much less likely than normal."
Agreed. (However, with only two low cards he could be easily counterfeited and beaten by someone with a 78. One gets "rivered" a lot with only two low cards, including A2.)
"Additionally, his suited K is now MUCH more likely to be the best flush if it hits."
Agreed.
"Finally, if a 4 flops, his biggest concern should be losing half the pot to low, not a higher set of trips (because he is facing only 3 opponents)."
Perhaps.
I wasn't thinking about facing a higher set of trips. Rather, I was thinking about the danger, if there comes to be a pair on the board, of facing a higher full house. Low trips (with the pair in your hand) are playable if no one has a straight or a flush, but the danger here is catching a full house and being beaten by a better one. (Admittedly this is slight because there are only 3 opponents).
However, you have pointed out another liability of the hand. If a four hits, the chance is greater that DjTj will be gambling for only half of the pot.
".....especially since only 1 player has a hand that was voluntarily played"
Good point. A small field obviously makes any hand more likely to be a winner. Yet this particular hand would seem to do better with a larger field (not win as often, but win bigger when it does win).
As an aside, an aspect of my game that I feel needs attention is my play in small fields. That is to say, I tend to do better in full games.
"I think this hand is completely playable, and mucking it preflop would have been a big mistake."
Maybe a mistake. Certainly not a "big" mistake. And maybe not a mistake at all. The most likely scenario is that this hand would be a drawing hand, post flop. Since, in general, you want more opponents for a drawing hand, it seems unwise to me to enter the action with a mediocre drawing hand.
Lastly, Greg, I would not classify this hand as being on the "good side" of mediocre. Being on the button adds value here. Without that advantage, the hand is not even mediocre, at least in my opinion. (I would agree that the hand is generally playable in the blinds, pre-flop). But as already noted, maybe I'm playing too tight.
I do appreciate the clarity of your writing.
Buzz
its always tough to tell the right play without being there. but the hand plays ok headup and goes down fast from there. you were going to be at least 3 way so the hand is very marginal at best. raising to get headup would be the better try in a larger stakes game but in smaller games that doesnt work too much.
the raise on the flop is about even. if you want to play it headup against someone who has at least an ace and maybe full already and likely drawing at a low then go ahead. or just call and hope to win all or half and be able to get out cheap when the board gets bad(another low card).
4th street if you know the player at all you can fold as the king is your only hope here. if you dont know the player and can be at all convinced he is not a cronic bluffer then a fold is also in order. bad to bet and crazy to call the raise.
5th st. there is no reson to put money into the pot
Thanks for everyone's responses.
Omaha/8 just drives me nuts - 'cuz all the time you just know you're beat but sometimes it hard to act on it...
~DjTj
you have to be prepared to throw out your holdem hand values.
"Omaha/8 just drives me nuts - 'cuz all the time you just know you're beat but sometimes it hard to act on it... "
Omaha is the only game where I find it easy to act on it! Get used to throwing away non-nut hands.
Can anyone give me an overview of poker in the casinos around the Phoenix area, particularly size and availability of games, house rake, and general strength of opposition? I'm going down there for a week for baseball spring training (and to get out from under all this snow) and would like to make expenses--nothing more ambitious than that. Thanks in advance.
What do you do when you live in St Lucia and there are no poker games...You go to PARADISE POKER. I've been playing a lot..mostly the 8/16 stud but I've been dabbling in 8 or better stud since they started it.
I read Ray's book a long time ago and I will have to brush up but I remember that a Pair of Aces with a wheel card to start is a premium hand...here's an example of what can happen when you play it strong:
Transcript of last 2 games requested by James Mogal (RickG2) This email was computer generated and emailed to mogalj@hotmail.com ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #3945369 - $8/$16 7-card stud Hi Lo - 2000/03/10-22:50:08 (CST)
Table "Moorea" (real money)
Seat 1: RickG2 ($681.25 in chips)
Seat 2: wheee ($209.75 in chips)
Seat 3: hogleg ($259 in chips)
Seat 4: smooth ($294 in chips)
Seat 5: Rambler ($189.50 in chips)
Seat 6: JAMax ($621 in chips)
Seat 7: goliath ($704 in chips)
Seat 8: Casper ($366 in chips)
RickG2 : Ante ($1) wheee : Ante ($1) hogleg : Ante ($1) smooth : Ante ($1) Rambler : Ante ($1) JAMax : Ante ($1) goliath : Ante ($1) Casper : Ante ($1)
Dealt to RickG2 [ Ah ]
Dealt to RickG2 [ Ad ]
Dealt to RickG2 [ 5s ]
Dealt to wheee [ Qc ]
Dealt to hogleg [ 2d ]
Dealt to smooth [ 3s ]
Dealt to Rambler [ 9d ]
Dealt to JAMax [ Ac ]
Dealt to goliath [ 5c ]
Dealt to Casper [ 8c ]
hogleg : Bet ($8) smooth : Call ($8) Rambler : Fold JAMax : Fold goliath : Fold Casper : Fold RickG2 : Raise ($16) wheee : Fold hogleg : Call ($8) smooth : Call ($8)
Dealt to RickG2 [ Tc ] Dealt to hogleg [ 3h ] Dealt to smooth [ 6h ]
RickG2 : Bet ($8) hogleg : Raise ($16) smooth : Call ($16) RickG2 : Raise ($16) hogleg : Call ($8) smooth : Call ($8)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 5d ] Dealt to hogleg [ Kd ] Dealt to smooth [ Jd ]
RickG2 : Bet ($16) hogleg : Call ($16) smooth : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 9h ] Dealt to hogleg [ 4h ] Dealt to smooth [ 7h ]
RickG2 : Bet ($16) hogleg : Call ($16) smooth : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 7s ] RickG2 : Bet ($16) hogleg : Call ($16) smooth : Call ($16)
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $269 | Rake: $3 RickG2 bet $89, collected $269, net +$180 (showed hand) [ Ah Ad 5s Tc 5d 9h 7s ]
HI: two pairs, aces and fives wheee lost $1 (folded) Qc ] hogleg lost $89 [ 2s 3c 2d 3h Kd 4h Jc ]
HI: two pairs, threes and twos smooth lost $89 [ 3d 6d 3s 6h Jd 7h 7d ]
HI: two pairs, sevens and sixes Rambler lost $1 (folded) 9d ] JAMax lost $1 (folded) Ac ] goliath lost $1 (folded) 5c ] Casper lost $1 (folded) 8c ]
first move away and save yourself from skin cancer. 2nd keep playing well and get rich. reread the book good luck
with aces slow way down at 5th st. when facing 3 low cards
But I already had Aces up by 5th street! Did you see the hand summary at the bottom?
yes i just added a point worth pointing out.
The other great thing about Paradise Poker...it keeps me out of the tropical sun
Situation: Weekly Country Club game; I'd been playing infrequently last few years as invited guest; just joined the club; dealers choice, mostly HE and Omaha, with a little 5-card stud; one $5 blind, table stakes no-limit, with the average player having about $1,000 by 2 hours into the game. There are only about 12-14 "regulars", 8 seats in the game.
Problem: I am normally a relatively quiet, tight but selectively aggressive player. I'm "afraid" I may be winning "too much" (nice problem to have). The guy who runs the game, has been commenting on how tight I play, and how much I've been winning.
Question: How can I "improve" my image without damaging my (long run) profitablity?
Take Care, ~Gare
Gare - Two suggestions.
(1) My grandfather had a well (water) in his yard. He always "primed the pump" (poured water down the pump shaft) to get more water from below.
(2) Try to neutralize your enemies and make friends of those who are neutral.
Good luck.
Buzz
Depends on what you mean by long run profitability- if you are booted from the game, how profitable would that be? Take some flyer bets/raises (4 flush on turn, middle pair with overcard, etc) every once in a while when you were going to call anyway.
Bluff raise on the river once in a blue moon, then show the hand if prompted.
Show some (only once in a while!) of your losing river hands when you were calling down with a higher draw or when you doubted the strength of the winning hand.
In short, give a looser image without loosening too much or too often. Hopefully that should help. If the play is as weak as I'm inferring from your note, would be worth giving up some % expectation to continue in the game...
Just my 1 1/2 cents
How is your demeanor during the game? If everyone else is talking and joking, and you're sitting there quietly concentrating, this might hurt you more than playing tightly. Try to stay involved socially throughout the game, whether you're in the hand or not. This will give the impression of full participation on your part, while you still are folding a lot of hands. Also, try to avoid the long-think if possible. Even when you have a tough decision, try to make it at least as quickly as everyone else in the game.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Need opinions on the BEST book to improve my Omaha/8 game. Forget Bob C. he played here a few times and the local yokels spanked him bad. Thanks!
John
John - I like Ray Zee's Omaha high/low book (but I also like Bob Ciaffone's book and several others).
Any great player can have a bad session or even several bad sessions. I don't know if Bob Ciaffone is a great player or not, but it doesn't even necessarily matter.
Sometimes strong writers and strong teachers are also strong players, but not always. Writing, teaching and playing skills do not necessarily go hand in hand.
I imagine you can think of a number of great coaches in sports who were not great players.
Good luck to you.
Buzz
Something which Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee agree on (if I understand it correctly) is that it is correct to reraise a probable higher pair - of queens say - to thin the field if you have an underpair with a king/ace kicker. Sklansky said in a recent post that it was better to reraise with (7,K)7 into probable (75%) queens, especially to knock out pairs between 7's and queens. This seems counterintuitive, since you are investing extra bets to get head to head in a situation where you are only going to break even, at best. Can anyone explain why it should be true?
Given the ante, your kicker, and the times you have the best hand, you will show a profit if you get it head up.
David,
Would it be fair to say, however that if you KNOW he has a pair of queens, (for this example lets say you saw his hole cards) then the 7K7 is not playable for a raise if you have nothing invested in the pot.
Jim Mogal
Jim Mogal wrote that if you knew for sure that he had queens then you wouldn't play for a raise: that's what I think too Jim, but it is not the view of the authors mentioned, as far as I know.
He says in his post that you are also considering that sometimes you have the current best hand.
I am pretty sure that Dave will agree with you to fold if it is 100% sure thing that the opponent has a higher pair, especially if we are left to doubt whether it is a pair of Qs (i.e., the Q up with a Q in the hole), or a pocket pair of Ks or As.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
From the sims shown in MM's post it seems that it is worth playing even if you are sure (which is never possible in a real game) that your opponent has an overpair smaller than your kicker. I'm not sure that makes it correct to raise, however.
You reraise to make it a very likely heads-up pot. If it is not heads up, you lose out a lot. If you can be sure no others will join, it is obviously correct to just call. But this is not very often (if you are the bring in, or duplicated low upcards are the only remaining hands and their owners are tight, etc.).
That would depend on (1) how large the ante is, (2) whether your opponent is the passive type who will slow down if he doesn't improve, (3) whether you are last to act or are there more players who could potentially enter, and (4) whether you have a 2-flush.
David Sklansky wrote: "given the antes, your kicker, and the times you have the best hand, you will show a profit if you get it heads up."
Niels put the view that putting in extra raises in an atttempt to thin out the field would increase your win rate with marginal hands like (7,K)7, 2,2, which would tend to lose in multi-way pots.
(7,K)7 is essentially a drawing hand, because it most probably has to improve to win: the rule concerning drawing hands is that they should be played as cheaply as possible, and that more players in the pot increase your profitability by improving your pot odds when you do improve. The idea that in this case the opposite strategy is true needs some backing up with evidence: The fact that the three authors Sklansky, Zee and Malmuth agree gives the view some authority, but is there any evidence?
Has anyone done any methodical simulations on this question? I've run a few very basic ones and got results which varied enormously according to the strategy followed, with amulti-way pot being more profitable than a heads-up pot in many cases.
More players in the pot increase your profit when you are drawing to a hand that is better than the hand they are drawing to but usually not otherwise. As to whether it is right to call if you KNEW he had two queens, the answer is close but I think yes, mainly because of the bets you save when you lose and the money you make when you don't. (but ony if you are head up and your kicker is higher)
In the back of our book SCSFAP-21 there are lots of simulations. Here are two of them.
9. KsKc8h (55,804) versus QhQdAd (44,196) Dead Cards: none Comment: An overcard kicker does make a difference. Also, the two-flush is of some help. Now you must play.
44. KcKh3s (41,511) (versus) QdQs2c (26,591) versus JhAcJs (31,898) Dead Cards: none Comment: The small pair with the big overcard kicker is playable in this three way confrontation. The pair in the middle has the worst of it.
Notice that in the second example even though you have the third pair, your hand is playable.
Now here's a simulation for: 7cKh7s (41,964) versus Qd6hQd (58,036). Notice that because of the ante if each of you were to put in a bet regardless of the cards that come you should break about even on the hand. However, since you can play better than that, unless you are in a game with a very small ante, you should show a profit heads-up.
Also notice that this simulation did not account for any other cards. If your hand is even a little dead, it might be wrong toplay. If your opponent's hand is a little dead that changes things. Also, two flushes and/or two straights add value to your hand.
That was the best use of simulation numbers I've seen in a while.
- Andrew
Thanks a lot MM for the details of the sims. 7cs played with limit betting is very rare in australia - it's played with HP betting out here, as are most open poker games, with manila the most widespread limit game. So my view is coloured by an aversion for playing a hand as poor as (7,K)7 beyond fifth street if there has been no improvement, if you even bother to take it that far against some solid HP action.
The point in question is whether it is better to reraise a player with an overpair card showing if you have a kicker higher than his overcard in order to drive out other overpairs and to try to get head to heaad.
There are a number of things which affect the answer to the question:
1. putting more money into the pot with the inferior hand will reduce its profitability - you will probably be raised again by the queen so it's two extra bets you are committing.
2. the reraise may not drive out the other pairs anyway.
3. the raw win-rates don't show (as far as I can see) that putting in a re-raise and calling the probable third raise and all subsequent bets (raising if you improve), head-to-head, is more profitable than simply calling till 5th street in a multi-way pot, and then folding if there is no improvement.
also, it seems to beg the question if expert play is inserted into the equation on the side of the inferior pair: one might be able to play better than the computer, but the player with the overcard showing might be a better player than one - especially since the book is aimed at students. (One never knows, do one?)
I'm not saying that you (and the other authors who concur) aren't correct, but I don't see that the raw win-rates, show that you are. The simulation required to prove the point is much more complex.
DS says "More players in the pot increase your profit if you are drawing to a hand which is better than the hand you are drawing to"
Is this consistent with your view that it is better to raise in order to try to force such players out? It would appear that a raise would force out players who would otherwise improve your profitability, and leave only those who were probable favourites against you. (BTW, this is an illustration of the point I tried to make in the FTOP discussion, about playing in order to keep inferior hands in the pot, and to force superior hands out: it is possible to do either, but not both at the same time. I presume that you never meant to imply that it was possible to do both at the same time, but your phrasing inadvertantly suggested that it was, hence my remark "that would be a good trick".)
DS says: "as to whether it is correct to call if you KNEW he had to queens, the answer is close, but I believe yes." The sims seem to bear you out in this, but it depends on the strategy followed: (calling till fifth then folding if you don't improve, raising when you do, seems to work best, which loses to bluffs: calling till the end even without improvement might be more profitable if we factor in bluffs.)
Whether it is also profitable if you have put in two extra bets on 3rd street (your reraise and the queen's third raise) is another question: I don't think it would be, yet that is the strategy you suggest.
If you define a drawing hand as one that probably need s to improve to win the pot, then you would have to consider all hands on 3rd drawing hands except rolled up trips. Which means, by extention, that you would never raise with something like QQT, since it's unlikely that the Q's will be enough to drag it. This, clearly, is wrong.
GD: QQ isn't a drawing hand against an inferior hand,though of course you hope to improve it. If you are leading you should raise to make the drawing hands (which I define as those hands which almost certainly have to improve to win) pay more for the privilige of playing, and to increase your profits in a hand which you will win more often without improving if there are fewer opposing hands: QQ wins pretty often heads-up, but rarely multi-way, and that's the main reason for raising. (these threads get long when individual replies are given, don't they?)
If you can get it heads up you might take the pot with two small pair (say, 7's & 2's) which wouldn't have held up if you let other players in. You are investing the extra bets in order to improve your odds of winning the pot.
Yes. One of your ways of winning with the smaller pair is if you make two pair while the higher pair does not improve. So, if you leave the pot say 3-way with another opponent with 9's, if you make two pair with your 7's,(I don't mean K's up.) you now must hope that the 9's do not make two pair, along with the K's. 9's up beat 7's up, allowing the dark-horse to win.
(above), I meant to say that you must hope the 9's do not make two pair, if say the Q's do not pair up(not K's). It's getting late.
neils and Michael M suggest that by knocking out the middle pair you increase your win rate, whichis undoubtedly true: it doesn't increase your profits though, as the sims quoted by MM above show: when you are in the 3-way pot you win about 30% of the time, in the 2-way pot you win about 60% of the time, which is less profitable. Also you must improve to win, and when you improve you beat each of the the other hands a majority of the time evn when they also improve: this makes the small pair/big kicker combination a drawing hand which should be played as such.
"This seems counterintuitive, "
This is certainly not counterintuitive. S&M&Z explain this type of situation in 7CSFAP. When you understand the "how and why" this "PLAY" can be profitable you will begin to move away from the pure mathematical side of winning poker. When you make this play you will usually find yourself faced with a critical decision on each of the remaining streets. Your judgement in applying the correct tactic for the situation will determine if this play is a winner or loser. The bottom line is that you need at least two pair to win this type of hand, although I have gotten good players to fold big pairs on board strength alone when in this situation. Since you need two pair you want to start with a big kicker. Bigger than your opponents probable pair. In fact I normally prefer an Ace kicker and if I feel the situation is just a little out of whack I will not play the King kicker. By reraising on third street and betting to a check on fourth street you may get free cards from there on out. See any profit in that? Well enough is enough.
Vince.
Hi vince: the crucial point is the one you made: you need to make two pair to win. That makes a small pair/big kicker a drawing hand, and it should be treated like other drawing hands, ie, get in cheap, and don't try to knock out hands which improve your profitability when you improve: higher pairs improve your profitability in this situation, as the sims prove. See a fuller discussion of this point in the later post on scsfap sims above. Most of the time when you raise you are decreasing your profitability by committing extra money to a pot in which you are an underdog, and by knocking out players you will beat when you improve. Tap dancing on the way might help a little, but you're still a dog in this pot.
"That makes a small pair/big kicker a drawing hand, and it should be treated like other drawing hands, ie"
"What we have here is failure to communicate"
Small pair/ big kicker is not a drawing hand. It is a playing hand. Because you normally need to improve to win does not in any way, shape or form make it less playable heads up. In fact it is normally a poor playing hand multi way (against 2 or 3 opponents it's horrible, more than 3 opponents, it's not too bad).
Vince.
I started with three Jacks and built a big post which I scooped when noone hit a low...Nice payoff for 8/16
I think the initial frenzy for the high low game at Paradise is begining to fade. Last night after there were three full tables early the game actually broke up while the 8/16 stud high went all night. I played till 7:00 AM EST
by James Mogal (RickG2) This email was computer generated and emailed to mogalj@hotmail.com ----------------------------------------------------- Game #4006123 - $8/$16 7-card stud Hi Lo - 2000/03/11-22:36:28 (CST) Dealing... Dealt to RickG2 [ Jd ] Dealt to RickG2 [ Jh ] Dealt to xzmoo [ 6d ] Dealt to RickG2 [ Js ] Dealt to Riverrat [ 7d ] Dealt to JAMax [ Qh ] Dealt to tevad [ Tc ] Dealt to budheiser [ 2h ] Dealt to 3betr [ Kd ] Dealt to HOLMES99 [ 3d ]
budheiser: Bring-in ($4) 3betr : Raise ($8) HOLMES99: Call ($8) xzmoo : Fold RickG2 : Call ($8) Riverrat: Raise ($16) JAMax : Fold tevad : Fold budheiser: Call ($12) 3betr : Raise ($16) HOLMES99: Call ($16) RickG2 : Call ($16) Riverrat: Raise ($16) budheiser: Call ($16) 3betr : Call ($8) HOLMES99: Call ($8) RickG2 : Call ($8)
NOTICE HOW I DID NOT RAISE AND ITS STILL CAPPED
Dealt to RickG2 [ 9c ] Dealt to Riverrat [ Jc ] Dealt to budheiser [ 5s ] Dealt to 3betr [ Ah ] Dealt to HOLMES99 [ Qs ]
3betr : Bet ($8) HOLMES99: Call ($8) RickG2 : Call ($8) Riverrat: Raise ($16) budheiser: Call ($16) 3betr : Raise ($16) HOLMES99: Fold RickG2 : Raise ($24) Riverrat: Call ($16) budheiser: Call ($16) 3betr : Call ($8)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 7c ] Dealt to Riverrat [ 3c ] Dealt to budheiser [ Td ] Dealt to 3betr [ As ]
3betr : Bet ($16) RickG2 : Raise ($32) Riverrat: Call ($32) budheiser: Call ($32) 3betr : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 9h ] Dealt to Riverrat [ 7s ] Dealt to budheiser [ 5c ] Dealt to 3betr [ 7h ]
3betr : Bet ($16) RickG2 : Raise ($32) Riverrat: Fold budheiser: Fold 3betr : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 4h ] 3betr : Check RickG2 : Bet ($16) 3betr : Call ($16)
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $525 | Rake: $3 xzmoo lost $1 (folded) 6d ]
RickG2 bet $145, collected $525, net +$380 (showed hand) [ Jd Jh Js 9c 7c 9h 4h] HI: a full house, jacks full of nines
Riverrat lost $97 (folded) 7d Jc 3c 7s ]
JAMax lost $1 (folded) Qh ] tevad lost $1 (folded) Tc ]
budheiser lost $97 (folded) 2h 5s Td 5c ]
3betr lost $145 [ 9d Kh Kd Ah As 7h 6c ]
HI: two pairs, aces and kings
HOLMES99 lost $41 (folded) 3d Qs ]
Who's that 3betr idiot and why did he give you so much