O8 or better hand

I held A238 on the button ($5-$10 game), and all 9 players were in behind me (loose game). I only called as I figured the low cards were already out in everyone's hands. The flop came A83 rainbow. An early position player bets into me, he got 3 callers, and I raised figuring my high was good and the lows were counterfeited. I was re-raised by the early position bettor. The turn was the Q. This early position player bet out again, and 2 people call before the action gets to me. What would you do on the turn now? The river was the J, the same person bet out, and the other 2 players called again. If you make it to the river, what would you do now?

Tryn2lrn - Let's take the betting rounds one at a time.


Pre-flop: Your hand is probably worth a pre-flop raise. Once people have put in a bet on a particular round in a loose game such as you have described, they are prone to also put in another bet. However, it isn't necessarily "wrong" to not make a pre-flop raise with this hand, because a pre-flop raise from the button marks you for A-2-3-X, A-2-4-X, A-2-5-X, or A-2-6-X. You often can get more from people on later betting rounds if your hand is disguised. Had you raised pre-flop, the betting easily could have gone differently, with everyone checking to you after the flop.


Post-flop: Your hand (three pair) is very mediocre after this particular flop. Let's not consider any of the information based on the actions of the early position player which you have at your disposal and let's also not consider runner-runner draws. Very (too) simplistically, after the flop you will probably need to improve your hand to win, you have only 6 outs (A-A-8-8-3-3) to improve your hand, and you are only realistically playing for half the pot. When the betting gets to you after the flop, there are 14 small bets in the pot, the ten from the first betting round plus the four already in the pot from the second betting round. Try this: think of each small bet as two chips, stack up 28 white chips, put in two more red chip, and divide the pot in two, putting both of your chips in the same half of the pot. You can see there are thirteen white chips in one of the piles. Those thirteen white chips are what you would win if the betting was over after this round. Thus you are getting 13 to 2 (or 6.5 to 1) pot odds to call here. You also have some implied odds (see David Sklansky's book The Theory of Poker).


Often early position players, if they have decided to call a bet on the flop, bet themselves, rather than checking and then calling. Depending on the player, the early position player who bet after the flop could be holding almost anything. You might tentatively put the early position player on 2-4-5-X, A-A-X-X, 8-8-X-X, 3-3-X-X, A-2-3-4, or roughly the same hand as you yourself hold. Your outs may thus very possibly be reduced. After the flop you may have some runner-runner two card combinations on the turn/river, such as 4-5, or perhaps two runner-runner suited cards. (You did not specify if your ace was suited or not). However, for simplicity, let's not consider any of this.


You can see seven cards, the four in your hand and the three on the board. There are another forty five cards you cannot see. You have six outs to improve your hand and will probably need to improve your hand to win half the pot. Thus you want to see any one of six cards on the turn and you don't want to see any of the other thirty nine cards on the turn. Your hand odds are 39 to 6 against you, or about 6.5 to 1 against you. Since your pot odds, if you just call the turn bet, are exactly the same as the hand odds are against you, you have an even money call on the flop. Since you also have some implied odds, you have a clear call on the flop.


Instead of just calling, you raise, get re-raised, and there are presumably the same three callers (you didn't say in your post). Add another sixteen white chips and another two chips to the pot. There are now 48 chips in the pot. Change all the chips in the pot to white chips because they're not your anymore. There are forty eight white chips in the pot when the betting gets back to you and it will only cost you two more chips to see the bet. Since the odds were favorable for you to put in two chips to call the original bet after the flop, and since there is now more in the pot than before, you're clearly getting favorable odds to call the re-raise. however, had you known there would be a re-raise, you would not have had favorable odds to put six chips in the pot to win only eighteen chips.


Thus your raise was a blunder. Sorry, but that's calling a spade a spade. Oh well, that's spilled milk now. Your raise was a blunder but not calling the re-raise would have been even more of a blunder. Now there are fifty chips in the pot. Make them all white.


Turn: The turn is an unfavorable card, the jack of spades.


"This early position player bet out again, and 2 people call before the action gets to me. What would you do on the turn now?"


Since the stakes double on the last two bets, each bet, on the scale we are using, is now four chips. Add another twelve white chips to the pot. Now there are sixty two white chips in the pot and it will cost you four blue chips to see the next card.


You can now see eight cards, leaving forty four unknown. Of the forty four, you still like the same six of the missing cards. Your hand odds are 38 to 6 or 6.33 to 1 against you. If the pot odds are greater than your hand odds, you will have a call here.


Let's figure the pot odds. There were fifty chips in the pot after the second betting round. Add another sixteen white chips to represent the four big bets added to the pot at the point where the betting gets to you. There are thus sixty six white chips in the pot and it will cost you four chips to see the bet. For emphasis, make the four chips you are considering adding to the pot blue chips. Add the four blue chips to the sixty six white chips and again divide the pile in two, making sure your blue chips all are in the same half of the pot. Your half of the pot should now have thirty one white chips (what you stand to win) and four blue chips (what you are risking). The pot odds are thus 31 to 4, or 7.75 to 1. Plus, you have implied odds.


Since the pot odds are greater than the hand odds against you, you have a clear call here. You are stuck in this pot because of your post-flop raise and the subsequent re-raise.


River: You don't like the river card. Someone may have made a straight. Someone, perhaps the early position player who has been leading the betting may have a set. However, because of the size of the pot, and also to establish a favorable (non-weak) image, I think you need to call a bet on the river. Your two pair, aces over eights may win for high here; probably not, but maybe. Calling here with a loser might be a minor mistake, but not calling with a winner would be a major mistake.


Just my opinion. Sorry that I don't have time to check through this. I probably would revise some of it. Hope it helps you. Gotta go.


Buzz

WOW!--Buzz, you really said a mouthfull, and I do not want to disagree with any of it. I do , however, want to make a couple of misc comments


there are some more conservative players that never raise before the flop because it is so easy for the flop to totally miss even the very best hand.


with that many seeing the flop you can generally count on someone having the best possible hand...the guy raising and reraising probably flopped nut low, so you will not win that


your two pair are allmost certain to be beaten...some of that big bunch who saw the flop possibly made a set, if not that it is very likely that there is one or more hands holding an ace with 2 or 3 face cards, so since the last two cards were both face cards, your 2 pair has very little chance


I feel that in long run you will be better off to muck after the flop unless it is free to see the turn.

There is something wrong with your logic here. If it's a loose game, that doesn't imply that all the other limpers have an A23 with you, in fact, rather the opposite. Turn the 8 into another Ace: do you now figure, "7 limpers ahead of me, they must all have an Ace so my Ace's are dead too?"


Look: you are on the button with a monstor hand in a loose game with 7 people ahead of you who are probably playing 469J rainbow. Get their money in the pot now. Maybe you will get lucky and the pot will be capped.


Try the following experiment, deal out 9 random Omaha hands, and then 5 random flop cards. Keep track of how much you win and lose with 1 bet vs. 2 bets pre flop. Do this 100 times. Post the results here.

Pre flop you have a definite raise if you were suited to the ace. If unsuited you still have a good raise for value with your ABC counterfeit protection against a large field. In the latter case I assume that this many limpers in front of you is only slightly looser then normal. In a game where there are normally two or three limpers and now you have six then your ABC loses value and you should probably just call.


On the flop you have no realistic chance at the already made low so you are playing for half the pot. Your high might be good right now but sets are very possible with this large a field. Meanwhile any 2, 4, or 5 cripples your hand and almost any turn card but an ace and maybe an eight or three is bad for you. Come to think of it, even an ace is vulnerable to a redraw. I think you have at best a crying call on the flop due to the size of the pot.


Given you have gotten to the river and the pot is big you might have another crying call hoping the others are on low since there are no raises.


Regards,


Rick

Buzz,


Great analysis as usual. I have one nit. Where are the implied odds on this hand post flop? Is there any card that can come on the turn other then an ace or eight where you would want to jam? Even then it is for half the pot and you are vulnerable to redraws. This seems to be "reverse implied odds" IMO.


Regards,


Rick

Jellow - Thanks.


Your points are well taken.


You conclude "I feel that in long run you will be better off to muck after the flop unless it is free to see the turn."


If there were fewer bets in the pot, I believe you would be correct. With fifteen small bets in the pot, I think whether or not to see another card for one small bet is a very close decision.


Tryn2lrn's post indirectly addresses a classical situation. The flop contains three unpaired low cards including an ace. You are paired with all three flop cards. Because ten players have seen the flop, several people almost surely have made low hands, probably including the nut low hand. Thus you do not have not much of a chance at the whole pot. Since there is an ace on the flop, a straight or better for high will almost surely be enabled by the time you reach the river. Thus you will probably need to make a full house to win the high half of the pot. What should you do?


Do you have favorable odds to continue play?


With a split pot, because your last bet is also split in half, you cannot simply divide the pot by two to figure your pot odds, even though when you win half the pot, you get half the pot. Instead you need to add the amount you will contribute to the pot before dividing the pot in two, then think of your own current bet contribution as being in the half of the divided pot you are going to get if you win, then subtract your current contribution from the half of the pot you are going to get, and finally compare your current contribution to the rest of whatever is in your half of the pot.


The concept is difficult for me to verbalize and more difficult for the reader to follow. It is even more difficult to do the necessary mental calculations while playing in a game.


In fact, there is so much else going on that has my concentration while I am in a hand that I simply do not have the where-with-all to do a split pot odds calculation. In addition, if playing for low, especially if using ace-deuce, or if playing for a high straight especially if using two paints, the chance of getting quartered needs to be considered.


My solution for myself, with my limited brain power, is to try to figure the odds for various situations ahead of time to get an idea if the odds are favorable or unfavorable. Then, when playing in a game, I have an idea of generally favorable and generally unfavorable situations.


In Tryn2lrn's post, all ten opponents stay to see the flop and then five opponents call one small bet on the second betting round. If I have done my calculations correctly, the number of bets in the pot has turned out to be exactly what is needed to justify a single-bet-call from a player with six outs on the second betting round.


There are a number of implications easily remembered in a game.


(1) If you only had top two pair, with only fifteen small bets in the pot, you would not have proper odds to call here. Top-and-bottom-two-pair and bottom-two-pair are obviously even worse.


(2) If there were fewer than fifteen small bets in the pot, then you would not have proper odds to call.


(3) If the pot was raised on the second betting round, then you would not have proper odds to call.


(4) If you did not have position, then, calling might be unwise, because of the possibility of a raise behind you.


Buzz

Rick - Thanks.


"Where are the implied odds on this hand post flop?"


No where. You got me. :o)


I think of "implied odds" (odds which are better than they seem) as mainly applying to situations where you do not currently have the best hand, but another card yet to come may make your hand a winner. If you get your card, you will be able to extract extra bets from your opponents. If you do not get your card, you will fold to a bet in the last betting round. Thus your opponents probably will be stuck calling your last bet if you hit - while you will not be calling on the last betting round if you miss.


Here Tryn2lrn may or may not have the best high hand after the flop. Whether or not does not matter because Tryn2lrn will almost surely need to make a full house to feel secure on the river. Thus Tryn2lrn is on a draw. However, all things considered, Tryn2lrn may be stuck calling a bet on the river even when he/she misses the draw.


Thus I agree "implied odds" is not exactly the term I want. Yet if the board pairs, Tryn2lrn, may be able to jam.


(As an aside, since all ten players saw the flop, and assuming anyone who made two pair, aces over, would continue play after this flop, if the board pairs there are about three chances in five that Tryn2lrn will have sole possession of the high side and about two chances in five that Tryn2lrn will be quartered for high. Thus if the board pairs, Tryn2lrn, may be able to jam, depending on his/her read of the situation and depending on the number of players still in the pot.)


I think of "reverse implied odds" as applying to a situation where an opponent is leading the betting and you cannot determine if you have the best hand or not because you cannot tell if your opponent is bluffing or not. If you call, you may become stuck in the hand but because the board enables a better hand than you hold, you will not be able to bet your (non-nut) hand yourself. However, you may miss out on a bet on the river when your opponent checks on the river and when you actually have the winning (but non-nut) hand. Your odds are thus worse than they seem.


Here, if an ace, trey, or eight (six outs) appears on the turn or the river, Tryn2lrn will clearly make sure there is at least one bet on the round(s) after making the full house. Either A-A-8-8-8, A-A-3-3-3, A-A-A-8-8 or A-A-A-3-3 is clearly bettable from the button after everyone checks, even considering the possibility of getting quartered for high.


Considering the possibility of Tryn2lrn making a full house on the turn or river, and thus not missing a bet, do you still think the term "reverse implied odds" fits here? :o)


regards,


Buzz

I wrote:


(As an aside, since all ten players saw the flop, and assuming anyone who made two pair, aces over, would continue play after this flop, if the board pairs there are about three chances in five that Tryn2lrn will have sole possession of the high side and about two chances in five that Tryn2lrn will be quartered for high. Thus if the board pairs, Tryn2lrn, may be able to jam, depending on his/her read of the situation and depending on the number of players still in the pot.)


I should have written:


(As an aside, since all ten players saw the flop, and assuming anyone who made two pair, aces over, would continue play after this flop, if the board pairs there are about three chances in five that Tryn2lrn will have sole possession of the high side and about two chances in five that Tryn2lrn will be quartered or sixthed for high. Thus if the board pairs, Tryn2lrn, may be able to jam, depending on his/her read of the situation and depending on the number of players still in the pot.)


To be more specific, I think, since ten players saw the flop, and assuming anyone who made two pair, aces over, would continue play after this flop, Tryn2lrn will quartered about 37.7% of the time and sixthed about 5.3% of the time. I lumped these numbers together to come up with "quartered" about two hands out of five. Instead of writing "quartered," I should have written "tied by at least one other player."


Sorry for the mix-up.


Buzz

Rick - No nits to pick here. Well written response.


Interesting that you would raise with A-2-3-X from the button if fewer players than normal limped while you would limp with the same hand from the same position if more players than normal limped.


I follow your line of reasoning. If more players limp than normal, it would follow that there are more better than normal starting hands, thus increasing your chances of getting quartered (or sixthed) and thus decreasing the value of your hand. I think your line of reasoning tends to be true, especially if you are at a table where at least some of your opponents are focused on starting hand requirements.


But allow me to play the devil's advocate, for there is another important factor to consider which works in the opposite direction.


As more players enter the pot, aren't you getting more favorable odds? For simplicity, consider high only. If you only hit one board out of five with a certain hand, you might play that hand against six active opponents, but you might not play the same hand against four active opponents. Thus, as more and more opponents enter the action by limping, can't you justify playing starting hands that have less and less chance of connecting to the board?


If so, now turn it around. When you have a lot of active opponents, might not some of them may be playing weaker starting hands than they might normally play? With six limpers, especially when you, yourself, hold a nice hand like A-2-3-8, isn't it possible some of your opponents are playing only because of the number of limpers? Maybe they can't even figure odds. Maybe they're just looking at the money in the pot and as it increases they relax their possibly vague starting hand requirements more and more. Could the "family pot" calling sequence be triggered by the calling of normally tight players who hold good cards in early position?


What if at least some of your tougher Omaha-8 opponents are as focused on playing against the other players at the table as they are on playing their own cards? In that case, would more of these tough players limping than normal necessarily mean more A-2-3-X hands among them than normal? Mightn't it mean just the opposite?


Just some questions to consider. :o)


Buzz

Buzz,


You wrote: Interesting that you would raise with A-2-3-X from the button if fewer players than normal limped while you would limp with the same hand from the same position if more players than normal limped.


I wrote the sentence poorly. I think the offsuit ABC hand loses a little value when normally tight players limp but I'm generally going to call with it when the X card is weak no matter how many players are in.


But allow me to play the devil's advocate, for there is another important factor to consider which works in the opposite direction. As more players enter the pot, aren't you getting more favorable odds? For simplicity, consider high only. If you only hit one board out of five with a certain hand, you might play that hand against six active opponents, but you might not play the same hand against four active opponents. Thus, as more and more opponents enter the action by limping, can't you justify playing starting hands that have less and less chance of connecting to the board?


It depends what type of hands. When evaluating a hand in a loose game I look at how many “nut-making elements” it has. An Ax suited is one. A big pair is another. A naked A2 or A3 with backup is another. So after six limpers a hand with only two nut elements might be worth a play where after four limpers it just isn't good enough (you might want three nut elements - of course the A2 is always worth a play after weak limpers). An example might be Ah-Jh-Jd-7c. With no real low this hand doesn't hit enough flops to play against four limpers but with six limpers it will hold up almost as often when it hits but now is getting the right price.


If so, now turn it around. When you have a lot of active opponents, might not some of them may be playing weaker starting hands than they might normally play? With six limpers, especially when you, yourself, hold a nice hand like A-2-3-8, isn't it possible some of your opponents are playing only because of the number of limpers? Maybe they can't even figure odds. Maybe they're just looking at the money in the pot and as it increases they relax their possibly vague starting hand requirements more and more. Could the "family pot" calling sequence be triggered by the calling of normally tight players who hold good cards in early position?


You make a great point here! Terrible opponents tend to fold garbage if there is no one limping in front of them but will call after a few limpers with the worst hands!


What if at least some of your tougher Omaha-8 opponents are as focused on playing against the other players at the table as they are on playing their own cards? In that case, would more of these tough players limping than normal necessarily mean more A-2-3-X hands among them than normal? Mightn't it mean just the opposite?


The better players will open up with hands that can reasonably make a nut, even if there is only one “nut element” so perhaps you are right.


Regards,


Rick

Buzz,


It's late and I'm losing steam but how good can a three be for our hero? If the turn gets jammed he can easily be looking at eights full. And of course a higher pair can make the overfull on the river after our hero pairs the three or eight on the turn.


But let's be optimistic and say he makes aces full on the turn. Isn't the other ace almost always out and it will stay? Now trip aces on the turn can hit a better kicker than the eight giving our hero the worse aces full. That is real expensive since there is no way he can get away from the hand.


In a nutshell what I am saying is that he can fill on the turn and sometimes get nothing while paying off his opponents. But I'll let you calculate how often "sometimes" is. You are much better at it than me and even I need sleep /images/smile.gif .


Regards,


Rick

I have often wondered how paranoid one should be of a set when flopping 3 pair, so I took it upon myself to find out. /images/wink.gif The basic result (for those that don't want to follow the calculations below), is that each opponent has a 3.3% theoretical chance of flopping a set at the same time you flop 3 pair. Against 9 opponents who could hold any 4 cards, the chance one (or more) of them flopped a set when you flop 3 pair is about 26%.


In this particular case, only 1 opponent showed any aggression on the flop, so you have to think he is the only one who could have a set, making the chance that someone flopped a set against tryn2lrn much less than 26% in practice. Against the sole aggressive opponent (who could be pushing a low with some kind of high draw), the actual chance try2nlrn is against a set might be less than 5%, so he shouldn't let this fear overly affect his play. His main concern should be that he is extremely likely to be overtaken by another ace or a straight on the turn or river, and that he is only playing for half the pot -- as many posters in this thread have already pointed out.


Now, on to the calculations. /images/wink.gif


Making the flawed (but necessary for simplification) assumption that our opponents can each have any combination of 4 cards, first I'll figure out how likely it is that one of your opponents has made a set at the same time you flopped 3 pair. In actuality, you can probably adjust this chance up or down, depending upon how likely each card on the flop is to be in a playable hand. So, A and K are better than usual candidates for a set on the flop while 44-TT are probably less likely than usual, since players seeing the flop should hold AAxx or KKxx more often than something like 66xx or 99xx). Anyway, there are 45 unseen cards, or 45C4 = 148995 ways for your opponent to have a 4 card hand.


Now we need to find out how many of these hands make a set. There are 39 non A28 cards left in the deck; I will denote such a card as "x" while constructing the hands that make a set on this flop. So, the basic hands which make a set on this flop are:


AAxx 22xx 88xx: 3(1*1*39*38) = 4446 ways

AA2x AA8x A22x 228x A88x 288x: 6(1*1*2*39) = 468 ways

AA22 AA88 2288: 3(1*1*1*1) = 3 ways


This means the base theoretical chance of one opponent having flopped a set when you flop 3 pair is (4446+468+3)/148995 = 0.033 (3.3%). Now, in this case we have 9 opponents. So there is a basic (1 - 0.033)^9 = 0.739 (74%) theoretical chance that none of these opponents flopped a set.

Coilian,


I'm glad you and Buzz do these calculations. A few thoughts.


You wrote: In this particular case, only 1 opponent showed any aggression on the flop, so you have to think he is the only one who could have a set, making the chance that someone flopped a set against tryn2lrn much less than 26% in practice.


Good point. But note that the lower sets might tag along on the flop without raising in fear of seeing set over set. Also, had the board been two toned, it isn't such a bad idea to wait until the turn to raise even if you have the best set (and little else).


Against the sole aggressive opponent (who could be pushing a low with some kind of high draw), the actual chance try2nlrn is against a set might be less than 5%, so he shouldn't let this fear overly affect his play.


I think it is a little higher for the reason mentioned above.


His main concern should be that he is extremely likely to be overtaken by another ace or a straight on the turn or river ...


Another problem is that a straight draw can turn into a big wrap and almost all running flushes are live (unlike holdem). Then there is the problem of redraws to bigger full houses getting there on the river even if our hero fills on the turn. I'd hate to do the calculations (hint /images/smile.gif ).


... and that he is only playing for half the pot -- as many posters in this thread have already pointed out.


Let's say he fills on the turn and it turns out he gets beat anyway about 10% of the time or so (because of the other factors). He loses so much when he gets beat that his situation may be worse then it seems. Only an ace is a real jamming hand on the turn and even there the other ace can hit his kicker on the river. In fact any river card above an eight (after hero gets aces full on the turn) could slow him down if someone new starts jamming.


Playing vulnerable made/drawing hands for half the pot can suck no matter how many opponents you have.


Regards,


Rick

Rick - You probably have noticed how often more than one person has a full house or better when there is a pair on the board. In full, loose games multiple full houses are more common than single full houses when the board is paired.


There are two ways to make a full house in Omaha-8: (1) you use a pair from your hand and (2) you use two unpaired cards from your hand. When you use a pair from your hand, you either make quads, an over-pair full house, or an under-pair full house. When you use two unpaired cards from your hand you either use one of the cards from your hand to match the top card on the board or you don't. Let's call the full house you make matching the top card on the board a top-pair full house.


My rough rule is to generally throw in a re-raise with over-pair full houses and top-pair full houses, but generally just call with under-pair full houses and non-top-pair full houses. There's obviously much more to it, because you're also playing your opponents.


Playing for low when ten players see the flop, you want the nuts to feel secure. Playing for high if a flush or straight is the best high, you also want the nuts to feel secure. However, playing for high when the board is paired, quads is the nuts. Even though quads is the nuts, in general you will lose more money in the long run by not betting and raising with over-pair full houses or top-pair full houses.


That's full houses in a nutshell for Omaha-8.


Here if the turn is a three it is true that Tryn2lrn doesn't want to see any card higher than a three on the river (except an ace). If, for example, the board became A-8-3-3-Q, Tryn2lrn, holding A-8-3-2, would not have the lock high because someone could have started with a pair of eights or a pair of queens and would have an over-pair full house.


However, Tryn2lrn would have the next best hand, a top-pair full house. Tryn2lrn would still have favorable odds. First note that a specific pair, such as eights or queens is not common in a particular deal, and less so when an eight or queen is used for one of the cards on the board. Second note that although someone would probably play a pair of eights after a flop containing an eight, someone might be inclined to fold a pair of queens to a bet after a flop not containing a queen.


Although a top-pair full house is not the nuts, it certainly is favored to win. If the board is A-8-3-3-Q, then A-A-3-3-3 is going to beat Q-Q-3-3-3 and 8-8-3-3-3. Yeah, you'd rather have quads or an over-pair full house, but a top-pair full house is still pretty good, with a much better chance of winning, in general, than the second-nut flush when a flush is the best possible high hand, or the second-nut straight when a straight is the best possible high hand.


Just my opinion.


Buzz