badger confused about hi/lo split math?

I'm a holdem player just getting interested in Omaha. I looked at Steve Badger's article on Omaha Strategy at


http://www.playwinningpoker.com/omaha1.html


"Scooping a pot is not merely twice as good as splitting. Suppose you play a five-way pot. Everyone puts in $80. If you split the $400 pot, you get back $200, a profit of $120. But if you scoop, you get $400, for a profit of $320. That's not twice as good, it is 2.67 times as good. In a three-way pot where you all invest $80, if you split you get $120 for a profit of $40. If you scoop, you get $240 for a profit of $160 -- four times as good as splitting."


Commments?

Sounds reasonable to me. Apparently I missed the issue here.

$320 is 2.67 as great as $120. $160 is four times as great as $40. I can go into greater depth if you so desire. :^)

I think the point is to look for hands that

can scoop when making a big investment.

In Omaha, I'd rather have something like

A-A-2-3 (preferably with each a-baby

couplet suited), than A-A-K-K

Hmm, maybe, I'm confused? I don't think so. Let's look at what he said again.


"Scooping a pot is not merely twice as good as splitting. Suppose you play a five-way pot. Everyone puts in $80. If you split the $400 pot, you get back $200, a profit of $120. But if you scoop, you get $400, for a profit of $320. That's not twice as good, it is 2.67 times as good."


Let's play 10 hands and see what happens. You've got the best low draw and the best flush draw on the turn. Some cards will make both draws, some will make just one, and some miss you completely. Which is better, scooping 5 times and losing 5 times? Or splitting 10 times? According to Badger's logic, scooping 5 times should be superior.


If you scoop the $400 pot 5 times, you win $400 x 5 = $2000. You invested $80 10 times, so your net profit is $2000 - $800 = $1200.


If you split the $400 pot 10 times, you win $200 x 10 = $2000. You invested $80 10 times, so your net profit is $2000 - $800 = $1200.


Obviously hands that have a chance to scoop are much better to play than hands that don't have that chance. But once you are invested in the pot, scooping is twice as good, not 2.67 times.


Now, if you can get more bets in on the river with your scooping hand, that's great. But that's not what Badger was saying.


mashie

mashie gets the star here as scooping is exactly twice as good as splitting it.

Mashie,


You wrote: "Now, if you can get more bets in on the river with your scooping hand, that's great. But that's not what Badger was saying."


Note that in your scenario when you scoop you usually won't get as many bets in on the river (e.g., the flush comes without the low). But you still would rather scoop based on the dead money already in.


This is a very interesting thread so far with Louie and ray zee in on different sides. Too bad Badger won't post here to comment. Can I link to this on RGP?


Regards,


Rick

Rick -


You are right about getting more bets in on the river in my example. I was thinking more about the math than the likely betting.


Please do go ahead and link from RGP, the more the merrier. I haven't gotten a gold star since 6th grade!


Cheers,

mashie


ps my email is jim AT mine DASH control DOT com, I don't post my email because I don't want the robots to grab it and spam me.

ok i do agree that from a % of profit you do make more from a hog with mutiple players in the pot. but after the pot is made you make exactly double by hogging the pot. what it is is the old screwing around with numbers stuff from a relative position.

its actually funny to me that its even worth talking about although its is confusing. kind of like the thing with the people sharing a room and where does the extra dollar go. remember that?

Once you're in, I agree. But

I think it's essential to winning

at Omaha to not get too excited

about strong hands that have only

one way potential. That's how I

take Badger's observation -- and

many others have made it as well.

If you're going to decide whether

to get involved in heavy betting

pre-flop and to some extent pre-turn,

you want to have a shot at taking it

all. Otherwise you are investing

with no chance at winning half of

the money that's calling/raising

you

"If you scoop the $400 pot 5 times, you win $400 x 5 = $2000. You invested $80 10 times, so your net profit is $2000 - $800 = $1200.


"If you split the $400 pot 10 times, you win $200 x 10 = $2000. You invested $80 10 times, so your net profit is $2000 - $800 = $1200."


Badger doesn't mention it, but ut seems to me that there's a second factor that you're ignoring here which is relevant, particularly in low only hands,


That is, the possibility that splitting the pot DOESN'T mean getting half of it, but a quarter of it or less, especially in five way pots. Perhaps some math person has a model that works out the impact of the multiple low hand split on this equation.

I'm not saying you are wrong ... Yes, once the money goes in splitting at a certain rate is worth the same as scooping half that rate.


... I'm saying you are looking at it from a worthless perspective. The key phrase is "once the money goes in". Well, Badgers perspective is to evaluate the situation BEFORE the money goes in, which can have beneficial affects on one's EV. Evaluating after the money goes in doesn't help.


Lets say that in the next 10 hands you get you are guaranteed to be up against 2 players going to the river, each person putting in $100. Would you prefer to get 1 scoop hand and fold 9 hands during that 10 or prefer to get 2 split hands and fold 8? One time you win $200 when you scoop; or two times you win $50 when you split (yes, adjust a little for the antes/blinds).


The one scooper is worth more than the two splitters.


Its like in regular Omaha, you prefer to have the straight and the flush draw in the SAME hand then in different hands. Or at holdem you would prefer to get 87s once than 87o once and 82s once.


I therefore suggest (and believe it was Badgers intent): a hand that can scoop is worth more than its split chances combined. I also suggest (and believe it was Badgers intent): starting hands that can scoop are worth a LOT more than starting hands that cannot.


- Louie. please don't hate me. /images/smile.gif


PS. That "where is the dollar" riddle is based on misdirected switching between adding and subtracting; not on reasonable logic.

I posted that one a bit prematurely but had to run an erand. On that erand, I realized what I wanted to say was:


mashie's calculation presumed a weak 2-way hand that goes to the river not knowing if its getting ANY of the pot whereas Badger's calculation presumed a strong 2-way hand.


I now assert that a weak 2-way hand may be worth about as much as a strong 1-way hand but a strong 2-way hand is worth more than twice a strong 1-way hand.


- Louie

Badger didn't say, "Scooping a pot is not merely twice as good as splitting a similar pot". He said. "Scooping a pot is not merely twice as good as splitting."


He's talking about each individual hand, not a series of 10. Your scenario is fine if the choice is between winning one hand in two, or splitting both, but that's not what he said. He's saying that your focus should always be on scooping, not just splitting.


Ed

Badger's right. You should compare scoop wins to low wins not scoop wins - scoop losses to low wins. If you take out the five losses you arbitrarely (sic) assign to the scoops the scoops come out ahead.


If you scoop the $400 pot 5 times, you win $400 x 5 = $2000. Minus the $80 for each pot 5 times = 2000 - 400 = $1600.


If you split the $400 pot 10 times, you win $200 x 10 = $2000. You invested $80 10 times, so your net profit is $2000 - $800 = $1200.


So 5 scoops is worth $1600 divided by 5 lows $600 = 2.67. The number Badger came up with. Not sure why you think scoops are only half as likely to win as lows.

there is no disagreement at all. its just a silly thing comparing how you do in a split. but true that having a good two way hand can be better than twice as good as a one way only hand.

It's better to scoop five pots than split ten.


Tom D

Why do get to split 10 times but scoop only five times?


Badger is 100 % correct


regards

Mike N

I apologize. Read this too fast while playing 2 games online.


It does look as if its 2 X as good. Must think about this.


Thanks

Some highs are non -counterfeitable (flushes). All lows can be tied.

You must account for 10 scoops and 10 splits.

Badger is correct.


Regards

Mike N

It's all a matter of perspective.


Scenario one: pre-flop and before all action. The player is evaluating the potential PROFIT of the hand. Then, the $320 -vs-$120 profit analysis pertains.


Scenario two: on the river after all action is done. Since all bets put in by the player are 'sunk cost', the proper comparison is $400 -vs- $200.


These two extremes place an upper and lower limit to the "how many times better is scooping than splitting". During the hand, this analysis is variable depending on the amount of sunk cost as a percentage of the total pot.


RW