How would you play this hand?

Pot limit Omaha. 25-25 blinds. You are dealt AA73 four different suits in the first blind. Everyone folds to middle position who brings it in for 100. All fold to you. You call 75 more. Big blind makes it 400. All of you have 8000 in chips. Opponents play well. Original raiser calls. How do you play from this point?

This is probably the naive answer, but I say raise the pot. Right now you're the nut. Assuming BB calls (or better yet he raises), middle stands a reasonable chance of folding, which would be perfect.


The only other plausible answer I can see is to fold, if you believe both of them have very strong draws. A simple call would leave you in a terrible position on the flop, and unless the flop is rags you would have to fear at least one of them having you beat already, so you'd be handcuffed and probably have to check and fold anyway.

You clearly cannot raise because you will be marked with aces and out of position when there is still a lot of money. My rule of thumb: only re-raise with aces before the flop if you can get half your money in.


You could call and hope to catch a well-concealed set of aces which would quite likely get paid.


Or you could reason that a raiser and a re-raiser who both play well (stipulated in the problem) are highly likely to have at least one ace between them (re-raiser could well even have both), which makes your price to flop a set really pretty bad. So you could fold. No one will ever know you folded aces. And the rest of your hand is horrible.


In the real world I would call unless I knew the big blind well enough to say with a high degree of likelihood that he had aces himself, in which case I would fold.


Oh no!! Not again!

Max raise.


I have the big blind beat. I want the middle position guy, who could crack my aces, to know I have aces. That way, when I jack it up, and then the big blind jacks it up, middle player is forced to fold, because he expects me to jack it up again. Or, the big blind folds?


I have never played pot limit, or Omaha, and I don't even know if Omaha has a "flop." But it seems the key factors are that 1) you can't "get all your money in there while you have the best of it" because later rounds will rise proportional to this round, and 2) I bet aces crack real easy in Omaha.


eLROY

I would call (and I have almost never played this game). Hand is too good to muck without seeing the flop, yet the chips are so deep it could be a serious mistake to re-raise (especially out of position). If the worst case has occurred and the raiser also holds AA then his sidecards are almost surely much better than mine. Even if he holds a very good hand that cannot beat Aces, such as QQJT with a suit or two, I'm not sure if I'm much of a favorite, and the playing difficulties later in the hand probably weigh more heavily. Even assuming he doesn't have AA since it is so unlikely, the real problems come on the Flop and beyond. Without spiking the third Ace, there are relatively few flops I can like much versus two (no guarantee a massive reraise will remove either of them) opponents who surely hold well-coordinated hands. Being out of position here with so much money left to be bet is, IMO, very bad. However the chance of spiking the Ace makes seeing the Flop at the relatively modest price of $400 worthwhile. I wonder at what stack size simply re-raising would be best (probably all-in). Just pulling numbers out of the air here, I feel that if I had $1200 in front of me instead of $8000, I would go all-in.

And therefore if I had a bit more than $1200 in front of me I would probably do the same since a few more hundred going in on the Flop would be virtually the same thing, and I have gained if I cause one or both opponents to fold pre-flop. So I will further guess that a maximum reraise is best up to a stack size of, say, $2200. Just a ballpark feeling.

With no suits, nut straight draws or flush draws, the only positive feature that I see is two aces; facing strong players, I should be looking at aces double-suited. It's doubtful that the BB, being a tough player, would reraise with kings from up front, leaving himself open to a pot- sized reraise before the flop, and being out of position if he doesn't win the pot straight away. There are better places to invest one's money, and more cards to be dealt in a few seconds- muck this one!!


perfidious

Actually, there is perhaps something of a contradiction in this question, since the big blind is probably making a mistake re-raising more or less whatever his hand is, yet the question stipulates that he plays well.


Oh no!! Not again!

eLROY,


Omaha has five cards come down, the same way

hold'em does, but that's about the only similarity.


The split (hi-lo) version is a terrific draw- out game, and could drive you out of your mind (of course, there are those who would argue that you must be nuts to play it!). With four cards in one's hand, there are a lot more hands that seem playable. This can deceive a new player into thinking that any four cards have a shot; then again, these are likely the same people who line your pockets by playing any two in hold'em!!


perfidious

However if you muck you are giving up the chance of flopping top set, and you might win a huge pot if you flop set over set, say AAA vs KKK. So while I agree that you can't like the spot too much, it ought to be worth at least an investment of several hundred dollars to see if you do indeed flop top set. Don't forget that you just might win 8K from someone in such a hand.

You have about two pot sized bets left and aces are a solid favorite (usually 2:1) over any single hand w/o aces. Moreover, chances to be ahead on the flop are about 4/5 and in these cases a single opponent rarely gets odds to call a pot sized bet esp. when it would make him pot-stuck.


So you should make it 1600 to get it heads-up (or win right there) and bet the pot (3600) on the flop. As you will have only 2800 left, your opponents knows that a call would commit him to the pot, so he's getting only 3:2 and would require either twopair or better or at least a 12-outer to call.


cu


Ignatius

Hardly had to think twice about this decision. I did however reread your post David to make sure there was not a tricky answer to this question.


I fold immediately and berate myself for calling the first $75 raise.


Jimbo

Don't forget that you flopping top set with AA makes it more likely that you're going to be splitting the pot with the low side. You already have only A3 for a realistic low hand and if the A hits for your set, that low chance is gone. I think mucking here is the right decision.

If you re-raise you will not be heads up, you will be against 2 players, since both of them will have had enough hand to call in order to make their earlier action. In addition, they will both have position on you and know half your hand. Good PLO players love running down aces in those situations.


The only time you will not be against 2 players is if one of them also has aces (which will definitely be better than your aces), he re-re-raises, and the third player folds. You will still be in a very bad spot getting more or less freerolled on for your whole stack. How do you like e.g. AA73 no suits against AA9T double suited for all your money? The only (inadequate) compensation on the assumption you get it heads up will be that you will be splitting the 3rd player's 400.


Oh no!! Not again!

This hand is a bit like the example given in Theory of Poker of a horse which always runs well and is a favourite against one inconsistent horse capable of running brilliantly, but an underdog against 2 such horses.


AA73 may be OK against one player with e.g. suited running cards or two small pairs (although with the stack sizes and bad position of the example I still don't like it much), but against 2 such hands it is awful.


Oh no!! Not again!

You are in poor position. You have a reasonable high hand and reasonable low hand although they are certainly be vulnerable if someone else hits the flop. You probably do NOT have the best low.


You cannot stand any heat ON the flop unless you flop an Ace or duece. You cannot go all-in now.


Yuuuuuck.


Folding looks like an option although calling hoping to snag an Ace or Deuce looks like a reasonable option.


- Louie

Normally, I tend to agree with you, and I readily admit that this is a marginal play (I'd probably also fold b/c of the huge variance), but it should still be profitable (and, more importantly, I think that this is the solution, Slansky had in mind. /images/wink.gif), since you have exactly the right stack size (it wouldn't work with either 5000 or 10000).


> The only time you will not be against 2 players is if one of them also has aces


I think that the stack-sizes are too small to worry about this remote possibility (and even against AdAhKdKh or AhAdTh9d you're still only a 3:2 dog). Also, the fear of being free-rolled works both ways and your limp-reraise would certainly get another player to muck a hand similar to yours.


> In addition, they will both have position on you and know half your hand.


True, and I think the point to this scenario is, that - contrary to conventional wisdom - this should work in your favor here. Let's assume your worst-case szenarion, that you get called by both players. You still bet the pot (4800) and have 1600 left. Your opponents still only get 7:4 to play, and would have to hit the flop very hard to be able to call.


Also, since they know you've got aces, they have to give you credit for any nut-flush draw they don't hold themselves, so a KsKcJsTc would still have to fold on a 9s8d4s flop, unaware that he actually is a 3:2 favorite.


cu


Ignatius

You have a weak hand. You have opponents who play well. The only way you can win is to hit the board big, and if you hit the board big, you won't get paid. One of the primary skills in Omaha is the ability to find an opponent who thinks a couple of dry aces is a big hand.

I don't even know if Omaha has a "flop."


More evidence that eLROY has never been in a poker room! /images/smile.gif

When I first started playing poker, I played 7-card stud. But hold'em was much more available. So I tried to figure out which one I woud win more at.


The only thing I had any idea what to do, was call or muck my first cards. So I figured, if I really focused on that, I might be able to do it better than someone else, and make money. As such, I figured stud offered me a better deal, because I could make a more meaningful decision with three cards to go on rather than two.


In other words, my whole theory - or hope really - was that other people at the table would call too loose (though I had never heard the word at the time), but not recognize the finer points of value in certain three-card combinations. So, naturally, I next asked if there wasn't a 4-card game, and somebody told me I should go for "pineapple" or "omaha."


So, I looked into these games, but it wasn't plain to me where I would have a chance to make a better decision than somebody else more than stud with its three-card opening decision. And so I quickly forgot them. Course, as soon as I learned the first thing beyond opening hand selection, I quickly switched to hold'em.


eLROY

fold...hope to flop very strong..i.e. A or 2, but not both...unsuited..no hope for flush,,,roach them rags quick...gl

David,


If the big blind is a good player he probably has the same two aces, probably suited, with better sidecards for posible straight draws. I think this is clearly a fold. That 400 bet means you are playing for your stack.


Good Luck


Mark

push it all in...this is high only omaha...and david is on one of his crusades...he wants us to see the power of all-in betting....shove it all in...


it feels better when it's all in...gl

I assume you would have said O/8 if you mean O/8, therefore this hand is a lot more powerful than some of the responders think it is.


However, with a stack of $8000, you need to be very careful here. Unfortunately, you can't put enough pressure pre-flop to chase out other strong drawing hands, and there's a chance the other raiser has an edge over you with a better AAxx hand. Re-raising here is just out of the question, because of the stacks. If you had $2k or less, a raise would probably be a no-brainer.


Personally, I call the $300 and play it like any other pair. No set, no bet. I simply will not commit my stack with an unimproved AA in pot limit omaha when I'm that deep. Therefore, folding is probably not unreasonable here, as long as you know you won't to go to war on the flop without a set. Folding is also reasonable because your upside on flopping aces is mitigated here by the following:


a: You act first on every round and a scarecard may freeze you up or even freeze you OUT. You can't get committed on the flop (unless there's a raise, and then you are probably behind) cause the pot is only 1/8 your stack. You can easily end up with $1600 in the pot and have to fold the turn.


b: You are facing TWO opponents instead of just one. Therefore, even if you flop an ace, you could be facing under the half the deck as "outs" to win.


c: Your side cards are terrible and the action almost certainly means your opponents have two well-coordinated hands, and could even have the other aces.


In fact, I now lean toward folding. With stacks that deep, and players who (seem) aggressive, I can pick a better spot for to put my 8K at risk.


I'd rather call the $300 with 6789.


natedogg

One of the primary skills in Omaha is the ability to find an opponent who thinks a couple of dry aces is a big hand.


So true! Brilliantly and succinctly put, Phat Mack.


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

raise 1200 before the flop...who will call...will both call???

What? Are you telling me my gut instict never having played PLO didn't do the math kept it to myself because I thought I didn't know enough answer was right? I might have to retire while I'm ahead or something. Wait, the 1500 (rebuys for 2 hrs) PLO event is Friday and I'll be there. I'll skip the seminar and Scalf will put me in with a couple rebuys. I've gotten to like page 30 of TPFAP. Watch out.


And don't call me dead money. At least to my face.

Fold.


Vince

gee dave, for the expert on this forum, you sure let us do all the explaining. be nice to hear your thoughts on these questions you give us, not just your answers... i for one don't trust your answers until you explain them... you guys talk all the time abou the authors are held to a higher level of responsibility, yet you never explain your stuff lately. maybe you're busy. thats fine. but i think you have a responsibility to live up to here. if anybody else on this forum put up questions like that, and then just posted one word answers, the forum would be all over them to defend their answer...


im not callin you out or anything. it just seems like you're slacking on the explanation part lately... i mean wait awhile for people to think it over if you want. but an explanation would be nice after a good period of time...

i love how this came after david's answer...


vince cracks me up

he can't get it all in.

I don't claim to be an authority, but I will try to give you some more thinking on this.


The first thing to consider is what the other two players have. They are both identified as playing well. They are both in a raised pot, so it's quite possible that all the A's are accounted for, but one thing is certain: they both have good hands. I realize it can vary, but in a quarter-quarter PLO game, betting/calling $400 by good players can indicate they really have something.


The best our hero can do is flop an A, but flopping an A is a trap. If an A comes with a broadway card, I have to assume that there is a big straight wrap lurking. One poster mentioned an AK coming for set over set, but if AK flops it's set over set with someone drawing to more nuts via the straight. Remember, whenever an A hits, there's a straight draw, although if it comes little there may be no wheel cards in the opponents' hands.


The next thing to consider is the flush. The flop would have to come rainbow for there to be no flush draw, and then there would be a runner runner draw that our hero would be denied. If the pot gets big and some one picks up and additional draw by a flush card coming on 4th St., they'll stay in for another card. Plus, there'a a large possibility that if an A hits the flop and it's not rainbow, someone has a straight draw and a flush draw, and it will be hard to get them off their hands.


Big bet poker is about exploiting big advantages, and our hero need a miracle flop to be ahead, and then will need to hold on for dear life. I feel he would be trapping himself by playing this hand, and trapping himself by hitting it.


just some thoughts...

baggins,


I don't know if you noticed yet, but his answers either end up in a book, or a poker article. I hope he's considering writing a big bet poker book in the future.


Good Luck


Mark

You're starting with no flush draw, you're basically hoping to make a full house. And your opponents are acting like they have a nut flush draw, i.e., they have an ace suited with another card. Very probable that at least one of your aces is burned.

ok, if vince says fold, that's goota be right...gl

good post...gl

Given everything the same except your own stack size, approximately for what ranges, if any, would your answer be different?


Also, approximately what minimum sidecards would you need to change your answer in the original scenario?

While these considerations do somewhat weigh against the hand, I don't feel they weigh against it so much that our hero wouldn't want to hit an Ace. If the flop comes say AK then the "big straight wrap" is only a 9-out draw because it is at the far end of the spectrum--the set is a huge favorite. The same is approximately true for a flush draw. Only the best combined straight and flush draw holdings are favored over sets. Yes, the redraws are lacking with this hand and this offsets things a bit (perhaps quite a bit), as do position, and not being able to get the whole stack in on the flop, but does this really mean the Aces wouldn't want to flop an Ace? Let's say all call preflop, so the pot contains $1200, then the Flop comes say A Q 7 or even A T 9. If our hero bets the Flop he may get into trouble as someone may make the straight or represent it on the Turn. However that is not the only way he can play it. He could check and see if an opponent with a draw, a set, or an inclination to take it bets. If they do so he may now be in position to checkraise a huge amount. Or he may fill for free on the Turn and then have the luxury of hoping they improve so he can "sell" his hand at a modest price on the River. Also worth noting is the fact that well-playing opponents are not too likely to lose their whole stacks with a lower set. However the pot is already built somewhat and if it gets built a bit more they may find themselves up against a tough decision as to whether to release those 3 T's or not, for example. For instance with a flop of A T 9: if someone held a set of Tens and say an 8-out straight draw (TTJQ), they would almost surely make a large flop bet and now if our hero check-raises the max they are put to a tough decision.


All in all I feel the hand is dangerous but with judgment it can be played if it is cheap enough. Is acting first on every street with money left to bet such a bad thing that you can't play it vs. two opponents no matter how cheap it is? I don't see why it should be. You always retain the right to fold later on. I hope Sklansky elaborates.

I'm trying to get a feel for just how bad it is for the one who must act first on each betting round if a lot of the deck (possible Turn and River cards) makes it possible for the latter player(s) to bluff or to have the nuts, assuming there is still plenty of money left to be bet. Assume the latter players will bluff at roughly optimal game theory frequency. Even if the Aces flop a Set, they are subject to be either facing the nuts, or facing a bluff, fairly often, since by 4th street any unpaired board containing an Ace will also contain a possible straight. Now the given example is quite complicated but it can be simplified. I'm not sure just how to go about doing this but it is important. Perhaps a very simplified card game would illustrate this more easily than poker. Since future betting rounds hurt the one who must act first, let's extrapolate this by extending the number of betting rounds. If the nuts can change on every street and there are enough betting rounds and enough money, intuitively it seems that the first player will likely get screwed eventually (in pot-limit) even if he starts out with a relatively strong holding. So maybe this somewhat hidden factor is working very strongly against the Aces even if they flop a set. It would be nice to see this effect outlined in a very simplified picture but I don't see how to proceed with this train of thought at the moment, or how to get a feel for how strong this effect is.

i hadn't noticed. i haven't been to the cardroom in over 2 months so i haven't gotten my free copies of pokerdigest and cardplayer magazines. what books have these questions appeared in?

I agree with his play here.


But....he doesn't bother explaining because he might be wrong and have to defend himself. This is becoming a common, annoying occurance. Like the professor who doesn't bother explaining himself to a grad student because 1) he is too arrogant or 2) the grad student may poker holes in his theory.


Weak.

This is an interesting idea. I had thought that first and last position would be OK as far as potential bluffing was concerned, it would be the middle who was vulnerable. In the situation originally described, the player's two dry aces might be good bluffing tools for the lead-off bettor if their suits either made or threatened. If I was going to bluff at a pot with an unsuited ace, I think I would prefer to do it as first to bet.


As a post script, I think bluffing with dry aces is one of the few situations in omaha the lends itself to a neat 'optimal bluffing frequency' analysis.

Hmmm, or maybe he just didn't feel like goin' to the trouble? Nah, couldn't be that simple, could it? Let's go with all the arrogance and the hole pokin' and stuff. It's a lot more interestin' I reckon.

He'll post his logic soon. He just likes to wait until people have discussed it for a few days. He's not scared your pokering holes in his theory. . .

he hasn't posted explanations for the pocket 55 question, or the one about the really old people dying off.

It gets more interesting too. As you say, middle position might be worse. Heads-up in PL Omaha with deep money, I think first is very dangerous because the board will so often be conducive to a bluff and the problem the first player has is twofold: he not only doesn't know if he is facing the nuts, but if he decides to try and protect a vulnerable but strong hand such as a set he may have to take the risk of betting into the nuts, and giving a free card may give his opponent the nuts. Additionally, last to act in PL always has more leverage--so even if first to act holds the current nuts, last to act may call knowing that if he makes the nuts he can bet far more on the next round, or sometimes bluff in accordance with game theory. I really wonder just how strong this concept is. The increased leverage that last-to-act has, combined with optimal bluffing, may be extremely hard to overcome unless first position holds a tremendous hand with redraws. The presence of several betting rounds only exacerbates this difficulty for first to act.


As for bluffing with dry Aces, straight boards are more common than flush boards and he holds only two aces not four. Also I think the dry Ace bluff probably will often look suspicious somehow in practice. However it could be worthwhile in certain spots.

you must have read tpfap, top, and followed this forum...or know what all-in means to follow...


at first glance it seems david is on a mission...


1. remember post where david asked if weak player shoved it all in...very strong player had kk..it was universally agreed that folding was correct....


2. tpfap says shove it all in pre-flop..under certain restrictions , and assume a strong player will not call preflop without 220-1 shot aa...


3. remember earlier post where david responded...i do not necessarily have the greater poker world's best outcome, i may be doing things for my own personal gain....rough paraphrase....


4.last post deals with omaha hi a,a, rag,rag hand where it is not even reasonable to limp in a pot-limit g before the flop when you are last to act...he is pointing out the huge difference between no-limit he and other forms of poker..


5. but...however..the real genius of david is...someone will pick up on this, and do well in the big one this year...there may be enuf players doing this that the better players will have to now cal with kk(and below)..


6. david will get gr8 exposure as a genius of poker...


7. sales of tpfap will soar...


8. maybe the world's champ will be pot-limit..limit..combo of various popular games....


9. just some ramblings...see ya may 20...do not call when i shove it in...it does feel better when it's all in...gl

Well...I think there is a low probability that he is lazy on this. I think the higher probability is that he is just scared to put his reputation on the line. After all, when he started playing poker the industry was full of low life idiots. It was easy for a bright guy like him to stand out as such.


The low lifes are still in poker today, but there are certainly lots of bright young people who don't fit the mold of the past generation of poker players. Sklansky may be realizing his day in the sun is over. His disasterous foray into writing tournament poker books (without any significant tournament success) is an unfortunate example of him cashing in on his reputation. Though I have no doubt all the concepts he writes about are solid...there is no reason to read a how-to book where the author has not accomplished anything significant in that endeavor.


Just my opinion.


BTW, Mason Malmuth always follows up on his "Hand to Talk About" and defends his opinion vs. others in the forum. I don't think he has always been right...but he certainly shows us his depth of knowledge.

As for bluffing with dry Aces, straight boards are more common than flush boards and he holds only two aces not four. Also I think the dry Ace bluff probably will often look suspicious somehow in practice. However it could be worthwhile in certain spots.


Your points about position are well taken. I constructed the idea of bluffing at a flush-is-the-nuts board with a dry ace because then I would know what the nuts are and where they were. Also, I would only do it in a game where I had already established an image. I assume that in a laboratory environment (ha!) against one opponent, if you bluffed a dry ace with a frequency of 50% of the time you had a suited ace, you'd be optimal. The reason I like the bluff from up front is that it can be done before my opponent does it to me.

"Well...I think there is a low probability that he is lazy on this."


Well son, I reckon there's a real high probability you don't know ol' Dave real well.


But I tell ya, this here thing you say:


"His disasterous foray into writing tournament poker books"


It just looks kinda funny put next to this here thing:


"I have no doubt all the concepts he writes about are solid"


Always real glad to hear from a prodigy though, son. Don't be no stranger!

You wrote:


But I tell ya, this here thing you say:


"His disasterous foray into writing tournament poker books"


It just looks kinda funny put next to this here thing:


"I have no doubt all the concepts he writes about are solid"


Always real glad to hear from a prodigy though, son. Don't be no stranger!


In my opinion, solid doesn't equate to great. My main point is he has no basis to write such a book since he has never accomplished much on the tournament scene. It's pretty simple I reckon.

Well now, just what do you know about what he's accomplished, son? What's your guess. Could be it's off a might. And don't be tryin' to talk my way. You ain't from my side o' the holler.

Oh boy.

recap:

Money deep.

competition: strong (2)

hand: AA73 no suit

position: blind (bad)

What flop do I have confidence in:

a. AA,x

b. A,77

c. A,33

d. A, pair (not faces) x 6

e. 777

f. 333

total: 22 possible flops (limited possibilities)

Almost any other flop suited and connected gives me check and fold option.

FOLD, WAY to many loosers to risk remaining stack.

This is 'gambling hand to max.'

Calling another $300 preflop represents an additional commitment of merely a bit over 3% of your remaining table stake. You certainly don't have to get married to unfavorable flops, and flops containing an Ace have the potential to be both profitable and dangerous. However until I am convinced that the playing difficulties and backdoor redraw disadvantages outweigh the high implied odds you are receiving and your potential to flop top set, I'm inclined to think calling and seeing what develops is probably best (except for Sklansky's terse answer which of course puts considerable doubt in my mind).


Are you saying you wouldn't want to play if the flop was something like A 9 4 rainbow?

To put in $300 more here isn't much of a commitment; I agree with you, but practically the only type that's even worth looking at with dry

aces is of the type you mention. Any two high cards, suited or not, with this kind of pre- flop action, likely give someone a big draw. If one of those cards is not an ace, your hand is unplayable after the flop. This seems to be what

Mason Malmuth would term a 'self- weighting strategy'.


perfidious

PL/NL poker are largely about implied odds. Your chance of flopping a set is about 1 in 8 1/2. You and your opponents each hold very large stacks relative to the current bet. Therefore you are getting excellent implied odds IF the combined drawbacks of the playing difficulties later in the hand and the redraws do not make your hand unplayable, AND if there is a reasonable chance your opponents will pay off in some spots, or may pay heavily while taking the worst of it on an uncertain outcome (such as TTJQ might get heavily involved on a flop of A T 9. There are other scenarios where the inferior hand might pay heavily, depending on the board and how the betting goes). So to me the primary issue seems not to bethe $300, but whether the playing difficulties later in the hand combined with lack of redraws will make the Aces an overall loser even when they hit the set.

Since we will assume you dump the aces when you miss the set, you are giving away $300 on 7.5 out of 8.5 flops. Now this, combined with the possibility that the playing difficulties later in the hand, and lack of redraws, and needing just the right situation for these good players to pay you off, may indeed combine to indicate a FOLD as the best preflop choice.

I agree, but consider the difficulties of playing this hand insuperable since, after all, you won't win all the time even when flop your set, and will probably be behind virtually all those times you don't.


perfidious