Rank Five Marginal Omaha 8 Hands

Assume you are playing in a soft low to mid limit Omaha H/L game (3/6 kill to 15/30 1/3 kill). You are acting on the button or cutoff and have several weak, fishy limpers in front of you. Rank the following hands:


Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace


Hand B) KK23 unsuited


Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king


Hand D) K234 suited to the king


Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king


If you have time justify your rankings and try to quantify if it they are close and so on.


Regards,


Rick

From best to worst, I would say:


D) K234 suited to the K

E) KK23 suited to one K

B) KK23 unsuited

C) KQ23 suited to the K

A) AQ88 suited to the A


I think the first 3 are all easy but marginal calls. I like the K234 over the KK23 because it's so much easier to get away from on most flops. I find overpairs to be fairly tricky hands to play in O8 (I usually just wind up folding them on the flop unless it looks like I can get heads up, or if there is no action with a mediumish pair on board).


By including the KK23 suited and unsuited, it seems you are asking whether K high flushes are worth it. I think the K high flush is worthwhile simply because you can still draw to the nuts if an A of the suit is on board, which is especially nice with these hands when you may have a nut low draw with your 23 as well. And you can always choose not to draw if you only flop the second nut flush draw.


I wouldn't usually call with the KQ23 suited, unless I was getting 5+ way action and didn't think a raise was likely. I definitely don't play the AQ88, which just looks like a trap hand to me; you don't have any hope of a low, but one of your better high possibilities means helping a low get there.

Colian,


I think you made a good ranking but there is a famous Omaha player who disagrees with us.


Regards,


Rick

1. K3sK2

2. KK32

3. K4s32

4. KQs32

5. AQs88


Given several loose limpers I call with 1-3 nearly always, with 4 about 60%, with 5 almost never. Actually I might raise with 1 about 10% but prefer to await flop developments.

Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king


Hand B) KK23 unsuited


Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace


Hand D) K234 suited to the king


Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king


E and B are very strong high hands and have good low potential if the ace flops and negates your high.


A has very good high potential, and can make a runner runner emergency low. Great hand when no low cards flop.


D is not bad for a limp to try to snag a good low.


C is two second best hands in one.

Brett.


Keep in mind this is a call on or near the button after several weak limpers in lower limits than you are used to playing. I would think this negates the "emergency low" for the AQ88 suited to the ace.


For the KQ23 suited to the king, I agree it is weak but you are usually looking to flop the miracle ace of the suit with another low card and/or the flush draw.


Regards,


Rick

So how does Badger rank them?

I used to play a lot of O8, but haven't played in a while. From a straight EV perspective, I am sure the following are wrong.


Hand D) K234 suited to the king


I believe this hits less often then the 2 KK hands, but I place it first because if it hits, I can pound with it. If I get to 4th street with both the unbreakable low and the flush draw, or and unbreakable low draw with a good high possibility, I can raise from the button and start building a nice pot.


Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king


This is a nice hand: it's suit makes it makes it stronger than the next one. Hitting the KK might make low less likely to come than hitting AA. Easy to release on the flop if you don't hit. Only problem is that you will almost always await 5th street with trepidation. Unless the A of your suit is on the board, all sorts of things can go wrong, including higer flush, higher set and a ding to the low.


Hand B) KK23 unsuited


Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king


Playable, but you need a perfect board and you will always be in danger before the final card.


Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace


Real dog in a limit game. If you hit your set there will be a low made or a higher set to contend with, and you'll never be able to protect it.

Brett,


I didn't put all five hands in the RGP thread but he thinks AQ88 suited to the ace is much better than KQ23 suited to the king (which he thinks is total trash).


Regards,


Rick

Sorry I’m late responding to my own post. Two of the included hands were briefly discussed in an RGP post (see the link below). Steve Badger and a few other RGPers think the AQ88 suited is far better than the KQ23 suited (I used to think the latter was better, now I think they are close).


Here is my ranking, based on the above assumptions listed in the lead post:


Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king - This hand has good scoop potential and a decent low if an ace flops.


Hand D) K234 suited to the king - Good low if an ace flops and some high scoops on baby boards. Great when the suited ace comes with another low card and the suit.


Hand B) KK23 unsuited – This hand is obviously not as good as hand E but I still like the two way potential. You don’t draw to second nuts here.


Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king. This is about the weakest hand I will play on the button. You must flop an ace to go for the low. It occasionally gets a miracle flop where the suited ace comes along with a low draw and the flush draw. I wish Pac Bell Buzz would do the math for lazy types like me.


Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace. OK, it has flush potential but middle sets are not much and an A8 low is useless against a field. It’s not bad head up though. Out of respect for Badger I’ll play it on the button.


I’m still wondering if anyone on this forum likes the AQ88 suited hand as much as they do on RGP /images/biggrin.gif


BTW the RGP thread is linked below..


Regards,


Rick

My own rating:


KK23 suited

KK23 unsuited

K234

KQ23

AQ88


Basically the first two are *relatively* easy to hit; you "just" need a K on the flop. Granted things can still go wrong after that, but you have a big hand, especially if lots of people will chase. KK can win high on its own sometimes, too, especially if the board pairs. If an ace comes your KK is busted, though and 23 on its own is nothing to get too excited about. The suited KK23 is obviously better but the chances of a flush including the ace of that suit coming are too slim for it to be a big deal.


K234 needs an ace and at least one other low card, but if you do make a low or low draw the counterfeit protection will make it quite big in a multi-way pot.


I think KQ23 is rubbish. KQ is a weak holding. 23 is a weak holding. They do not complement each other at all, really.


The only reason I put KQ23 fourth is that AQ88 is such appalling rubbish. I think Steve Badger must only be defending it to be provocative or out of cussedness. You might make a nut flush or nut flush draw (neither very likely) and that's it. A8 is a hopeless combination for low with several players in. 88 has tiny value (A388 would be a different kettle of fish, of course, since an 8 would then make a set and promote low). You really might as well regard this hand as AQs and pretend you're playing hold'em for (quite likely) half the pot.


Oh no!! Not again!

I guess he's smarter than I thought.

Obviously, none of these marginal hands is great. But I placed the AQ88 hand 3rd, So maybe I belong on rgp.


I really think it is a lot better than K234 and KQ23. I would probably fold either of these on the button, but would be a little more likely to play K234 against a very passive field.

Brett,


I can see someone making a case for ranking the AQ88 higher, but Badger ranks it a LOT higher than the KQ23 hand (of course all these hands are suited to the top card).


I thought you were on RGP /images/tongue.gif


Regards,


Rick

Brett,


How smart did you originally think he was /images/wink.gif ?

Ohnonotagain,


I'm glad a top player like you weighed in. Badger has actually discussed the AQ88 suited hand as a hand playable under the gun (in a soft game) in a RGP thread started by Lee Munzer a while back. The link to that original thread is below. I really thought I was missing something.


Regarding the KQ23, I agree that is trash and I would never play it for a full bet. But in the original example it is suited to the king giving you a shot at a miracle flop. So I would play it in back for one bet against many weak limpers.


Regards,


Rick

I'm a man of multiple bandwidths. On rgp I post under the name "dsklansky"

I agree with you that it's a terrible hand utg.

Rick - Interesting question. Kept me busy most of the weekend. I’m going to post my response before reading anyone else’s response, but I’m going to be very interested in the other responses you have gotten while I was holed up with my computer working on the problem. I’m hoping someone has posted some simulation results, just for comparison with what I figured out.


Suppose there are five small bets in the pot before the flop, indicating five active players, and you are last to act. Suppose the flop is one of those flops with two middle cards and one low card (for example, J-9-4-rainbow), and everyone checks to you. The possibility of taking the pot right there with a bet has to run through your mind. You might make a bet with any cards in this situation, hoping to take it right there, or at least hoping for a free card on the next betting round.


But your opponents are usually either stupid enough to check and call with hands that do not really fit the flop very well (possibly foolishly hoping for a runner-runner low) or smart enough to realize your bet in this situation could well be a positional bet. Therefore your positional bet usually does not work in an L.A. low limit game.


Sometimes a single opponent stays with you - often stubbornly planning to check and then call all the way to the showdown even though he/she has a poor fit with the flop. Sometimes several opponents, each hoping for good cards on the turn and river stay with you after the flop.


All of the foregoing bears on the kind of hand you want to be holding when you make a positional bet after everyone has checked the flop to you. In this important situation, of the hands you have offered as choices, I would greatly prefer to be holding KK23, suited or not. AsQ88 would be my second choice.


But that isn’t my answer.


In addition to giving consideration to how well the hand would play if there was a poor fit with the flop but the hand were checked around to the button or the seat before the button, I looked in great detail at how likely each hand would be to fit with all possible flops, at how well each hand would play out of postion. The numbers shown below are the percentage of flops after which I would feel good about playing each hand in question. As always, there is no guarantee for my numbers, but, also as always, I do try to get them right.


KsK23 26.0% fit with the flop,

KK23 24.7% fit with the flop,

Ks234 20.2% fit with the flop,

KsQ23 19.4% fit with the flop,

K234 19.0% fit with the flop,

KQ23 18.0% fit with the flop.


With AQ88 some interesting questions emerged. Do you want to play top two pair on the flop for half the pot? How about top set for half the pot? How about middle set for probably half the pot? How about bottom set where low is unlikely? These are all awkward hands for me to play.


Someone who is a better poker player than me, someone who is better at putting opponents on cards than me might do well playing top two pair on the flop for half the pot. However, such a situation is a potential disaster for me. I don’t think I want to be there. There were more of these uncertain hands with AQ88, suited or not, than for any of the other hands in question.


AQ88 ranged from 4.0% to 14.7% because of these uncertain flops while

AsQ88 ranged from 14.9% to 23.3%. Clearly having a suited ace adds enormously to the playability of a hand after the flop.


Before I did the work in respone to your post I would have played AQ88-rainbow on the button or in the cut off seat. Now I recognize that AQ88 is simply generally unplayable for me. Maybe I’d play it in an extremely soft game.


Although under certain circumstances you might play a non-nut flush draw, for a king high flush I only considered flops which otherwise would not have been playable if either (1) three cards of the suit flopped or (2) the ace of the flush suit flopped along with one or two other cards of the flush suit. In other words, holding KsQs2h3d, for the sake of comparing the hands, I considered flops such as AsJs9c or Ts6s5s playable, but a flop such as AcJs9s unplayable.


I thought it interesting how suitedness on the flop added different incrementals to different hands. In the case of AQ88, suitedness on the flop added enormously to the value of the hand, whereas in the case of KQ23, suitedness on the flop was only of marginal value. The difference here is that in the case of AQ88 we’re talking about flopping the nut flush or the nut flush draw.


Proceeding as described above, suitedness does not add much to the playability of a king suited hand. For example, the playability of KK23 on its own merits after the flop only went up from 24.7% to 26.0% when the king was suited, a difference of 1.3%.


Finally, to answer your question, here is my current ranking, best at top and least favorable at bottom. After I read the other responses, my thinking very well may change.


Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king

Hand B) KK23 unsuited

Hand D) K234 suited to the king

Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king

Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace


Regards,


Buzz

Buzz,


You wrote: Rick - Interesting question. Kept me busy most of the weekend.


I’m Catholic and am now feeling guilty that my question tied you up on the weekend /images/smile.gif .


I’m going to post my response before reading anyone else’s response, but I’m going to be very interested in the other responses you have gotten while I was holed up with my computer working on the problem.


Wait till you look at Badger’s thoughts on RGP regarding AQ88 suited.


I’m hoping someone has posted some simulation results, just for comparison with what I figured out.


I wonder if Wilson’s Turbo Omaha H/L plays reasonably well. It would seem that Omaha should be easier to program then holdem but I’ve seen very little discussion of this.


Suppose there are five small bets in the pot before the flop, indicating five active players, and you are last to act. Suppose the flop is one of those flops with two middle cards and one low card (for example, J-9-4-rainbow), and everyone checks to you. The possibility of taking the pot right there with a bet has to run through your mind. You might make a bet with any cards in this situation, hoping to take it right there, or at least hoping for a free card on the next betting round.


I would rarely expect to take the pot right there but a bet might be worthwhile if it buys a free look on the turn with a hand such as KQ23 suited (I might pick up a flush draw or nut low draw or another straight draw)..


But your opponents are usually either stupid enough to check and call with hands that do not really fit the flop very well (possibly foolishly hoping for a runner-runner low) or smart enough to realize your bet in this situation could well be a positional bet. Therefore your positional bet usually does not work in an L.A. low limit game.


As mentioned above, it won’t win the pot but sometimes has other benefits.


Sometimes a single opponent stays with you - often stubbornly planning to check and then call all the way to the showdown even though he/she has a poor fit with the flop. Sometimes several opponents, each hoping for good cards on the turn and river stay with you after the flop.


If you have several opponents, you need to have a hand/flop combo where you can big up a big draw on the turn.


All of the foregoing bears on the kind of hand you want to be holding when you make a positional bet after everyone has checked the flop to you. In this important situation, of the hands you have offered as choices, I would greatly prefer to be holding KK23, suited or not. AsQ88 would be my second choice.


On flops you miss I like the hands above if I can get head up or close to it.


In addition to giving consideration to how well the hand would play if there was a poor fit with the flop but the hand were checked around to the button or the seat before the button, I looked in great detail at how likely each hand would be to fit with all possible flops, at how well each hand would play out of postion. The numbers shown below are the percentage of flops after which I would feel good about playing each hand in question. As always, there is no guarantee for my numbers, but, also as always, I do try to get them right.


KsK23 26.0% fit with the flop,

KK23 24.7% fit with the flop,

Ks234 20.2% fit with the flop,

KsQ23 19.4% fit with the flop,

K234 19.0% fit with the flop,

KQ23 18.0% fit with the flop.


I’m not sure how well “quality of fit” works here. For example, I think the small increase in percentage for a suited hand adds a lot to the quality when it comes in. BTW, the last hand seems unplayable IMO since you will rarely get a great flop.


With AQ88 some interesting questions emerged. Do you want to play top two pair on the flop for half the pot? How about top set for half the pot? How about middle set for probably half the pot? How about bottom set where low is unlikely? These are all awkward hands for me to play.


Me too.


Someone who is a better poker player than me, someone who is better at putting opponents on cards than me might do well playing top two pair on the flop for half the pot. However, such a situation is a potential disaster for me. I don’t think I want to be there. There were more of these uncertain hands with AQ88, suited or not, than for any of the other hands in question.


Badger. Lee Munzer, and Russell Fox on RGP believe this hand can be played UTG in a soft game.


AQ88 ranged from 4.0% to 14.7% because of these uncertain flops while


AsQ88 ranged from 14.9% to 23.3%. Clearly having a suited ace adds enormously to the playability of a hand after the flop.


The unsuited hand is unplayable. When Badger speaks of this hand, he is speaking only of the suited version.


Before I did the work in respone to your post I would have played AQ88-rainbow on the button or in the cut off seat. Now I recognize that AQ88 is simply generally unplayable for me. Maybe I’d play it in an extremely soft game.


Just about everyone on this forum didn’t like this hand. One poster (I think Brett) liked it but against a short field (I stipulated a large soft field and late position).


Although under certain circumstances you might play a non-nut flush draw, for a king high flush I only considered flops which otherwise would not have been playable if either (1) three cards of the suit flopped or (2) the ace of the flush suit flopped along with one or two other cards of the flush suit. In other words, holding KsQs2h3d, for the sake of comparing the hands, I considered flops such as AsJs9c or Ts6s5s playable, but a flop such as AcJs9s unplayable.


I agree.


I thought it interesting how suitedness on the flop added different incrementals to different hands. In the case of AQ88, suitedness on the flop added enormously to the value of the hand, whereas in the case of KQ23, suitedness on the flop was only of marginal value. The difference here is that in the case of AQ88 we’re talking about flopping the nut flush or the nut flush draw.


The AQ88 needs to be suited, no question. Although suitedness only adds a little to the KQ23, I’m really looking for that miracle flop with the ace of the suit and another suited card with a low draw. This is a long shot but a great flop when it comes.


Proceeding as described above, suitedness does not add much to the playability of a king suited hand. For example, the playability of KK23 on its own merits after the flop only went up from 24.7% to 26.0% when the king was suited, a difference of 1.3%.


But don’t you agree that the 1.3% meant great flops that have the potential to win big?


Finally, to answer your question, here is my current ranking, best at top and least favorable at bottom. After I read the other responses, my thinking very well may change.


Hand E) KK23 suited once to the king

Hand B) KK23 unsuited

Hand D) K234 suited to the king

Hand C) KQ23 suited to the king

Hand A) AQ88 suited to the ace


This was close to my ranking, but I just winged it /images/tongue.gif


For fun I might try to troll for Ray Zee and Louie Landale to respond. If they do respond and come up with similar thoughts to the one in this thread maybe I can start a RGP/2+2 rumble on RGP (it would have to be on RGP since Badger can’t post here) that actually concerns hand analysis.


Anyway, thanks for putting in all the work. I was thinking of you when I wrote the post.


Regards,


Rick

Ray Zee was already asked for his view on AQ88, and in a post of 10th December under the title "Questions for Ray", he said: "No Comment". Because it was about Badger, I suppose.


Oh no!! Not again!

Ohno,


Thanks for showing me that as I had forgotten all about it.


Regards,


Rick

<BLOCKQUOTE>Buzz: Proceeding as described above, suitedness does not add much to the playability of a king suited hand. For example, the playability of KK23 on its own merits after the flop only went up from 24.7% to 26.0% when the king was suited, a difference of 1.3%.


Rick: But don’t you agree that the 1.3% meant great flops that have the potential to win big? </BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the suited K might be a little undervalued here. Are you making the assumption that it is worthless if the A of that suit is not on the board? I'm thinking that there are games where a flop with any A, no pairs, and one of my suit might be worth seeing 4th street.


In the game you describe, is there any action on 5th street? Does nut low get checked for fear of a split? When does a majority of the betting and raising occur?

Mack - I considered all 17296 possible flops. I didn't list each flop separately, but rather listed them in groups, not yet considring suitedness. (See below for an example).


Then I decided which groups of flops I'd feel comfortable playing, still not considering suitedness. I wrote "yes" in the right hand column for flops I'd play and "no" for flops I wouldn't play. If I was undecided, I wrote undecided and then (except for A-Q-8-8) went back and looked at all 990 turn/river two-card combinations before making a decision as to playability, and finally made a decision as to "yes" or "no." Then I sorted by the right hand column.


After sorting, I copied the group of "no" hands, pasted the "no" group at the bottom of the file, and then went through the "no" hands, considering suitedness.


To get a fair comparison for the hands in question, I followed a couple of self-imposed and arbitrary rules. I recognize that in a real game someone who is "playing good poker" has the ability to put people on hands. However, when I hold Ks-2s-3d-4h on the button and the flop is 5s-8s-Tc, it's often difficult for me to tell if someone is betting because of the low draw, the flush draw, the top set, or sometimes for some other reason.


In truth, if I'm in the hand with Ks-2s-3d-4h on the button and the flop is 5s-8s-Tc, I'm probably going to call a single small bet and see another card, hoping it is the ace of spades, or at least another ace, but realizing my chances are slim. When the next card is another spade, say the three, then I am in posession of the 2nd nut flush and also the 3rd nut low. Suppose the betting goes: check, check, check, bet. What now? If I just call will one of those checkers raise? (Probably not, but depending on the opponents, maybe). What to do? What to do?


At any rate, I left that tricky situation out of the scenario with my arbitrary suited-selection rules. I decided the flops that I had labeled "no" would become playable (1) if all the cards of the flop were spades, or (2) if the ace of spades plus at least one other spade (but no unfavorable pairs) were included in the flop.


In the first case, the hand in question would already have a flush, albeit only the 2nd nut flush. While drawing to make the 2nd nut flush does not seem such a good idea, continuing play at least for one round after having flopped the 2nd nut flush does not seem unreasonable, although I'll agree it's scary.


In the second case, the hand in question would have flopped the nut flush draw. Of course if there was also a pair on the board, you would not continue, but if the board was not paired and you had the nut flush draw with two cards to go, the hand would be playable.


Anyhow, that was my reasoning. Accordingly, I went through the groups of flops labeled "no" and added the flops with three spades or the ace of spades plus another spade or two to the "yes" list. In that way I added consideration of suitedness to each hand in question.


Below is the listing before sorting for K-K-2-3-rainbow


Coding: There are five groups of cards:

(1)...A...4 aces,

(2)...K...2 kings,

(3)...S...6 sames (two or three),

(4)...H...16 highs (nine, ten, jack, or queen), and

(5)...L...20 lows (four, five, six, seven, or eight).


possible flops

AAA....4................4....no

AAK....6*2.............12....yes

AAS....6*6.............36....no

AAH....6*16............96....no

AAL....6*20...........120....no

AKK....4*1..............4....yes

ASS....4*15............60....no

AHH....4*120..........480....no

ALL....4*190..........760....yes

AKS....4*2*6...........48....yes

AKH....4*2*16.........128....yes

AKL....4*2*20.........160....yes

ASH....4*6*16.........384....no

ASL....4*6*20.........480....no

AHL....4*16*20.......1280....yes

KKK....0................0....no

KKS....1*6..............6....yes

KKH....1*16............16....yes

KKL....1*20............20....yes

KSS....2*15............30....yes

KHH....2*120..........240....yes

KLL....2*190..........380....yes

KSH....2*6*16.........192....yes

KSL....2*6*20.........240....yes

KHL....2*16*20........640....yes

SSS....6*5*4/6.........20....yes

22H....3*16............48....yes

33H....3*16............48....yes

23H....3*3*16.........144....no

22L....3*20............60....no

33L....3*20............60....no

23L....3*3*20.........180....no

SHH....6*16*15/2......720....no

SHL....6*16*20.......1920....no

SLL....6*20*19/2.....1140....no

HHH....16*15*14/6.....560....no

HHL....16*15*20/2....2400....no

HLL....16*20*19/2....3040....no

LLL....20*19*18/6....1140....no

----------------------------

total.flops.........17296


/images/glasses.gif


Buzz

Rick -


"I’m Catholic and am now feeling guilty that my question tied you up on the weekend."


LOL. Not at all. It was my pleasure. /images/glasses.gif


"Wait till you look at Badger’s thoughts on RGP regarding AQ88 suited."


Since Badger can’t respond here, I don’t want to comment on his thoughts. I greatly appreciate and respect Badger’s opinions.


"I’m not sure how well "quality of fit" works here. For example, I think the small increase in percentage for a suited hand adds a lot to the quality when it comes in."


Bear in mind those percentages deal with "playability after the flop," not "winnability." My thinking was, all right, you’ve seen the flop with the hand. Now someone bets into you. Does the hand fit the flop? On the basis of how well the hand fits with the flop, do you really want to continue play with the hand or not? There is no doubt that having a suited king increases the winnability of the hand much more than 1.3%. However, it does little to increase the "playability of a hand after the flop."


Roughly half of the 1.3% was due to flopping the suited ace. The other half was due to flopping three suited cards without the ace. Note that many other flops with an ace, suited or not, had already been included in the “yes” group, meaning I considered them playable. Of course having the suited king after the suited ace flopped made those hands better than if a non-suited ace flopped.


Regards,


Buzz

Buzz,


Great response! But I've decided my simple questions are not worthy of your excellent answers /images/wink.gif .


I remain in awe of your analytical prowess.


Regards,


Rick

Rick - You wrote, “But I've decided my simple questions are not worthy of your excellent answers.”


Not so. IMHO your questions are more excellent than my answers. Keep them coming.


The most important decision you make in Omaha-8, I believe, is the decision to continue or not after the flop. When I follow the “fit or fold” rule I do well and when I don’t follow the “fit or fold” rule I don’t do well. It’s as simple as that. By “fit” I mean either making the nuts on the flop or needing only one card out of the next two to make the nuts, and having the proper odds to draw for that card.


If “fit or fold” on the flop is an important rule, it directly follows that you want to select starting hands having a good chance of fitting with the flop. It is the probability of a hand fitting with the flop that I tried to address with probability charts in answering your question. I probably shouldn’t have posted the math, but I thought my thought process might be interesting to some.


However, in addition to the “fit or fold” factor, there also is the bluff/steal factor (or whatever you want to call it). Bluffing the flop in Omaha-8 from early position doesn’t seem to work well for me. To do so is to directly violate the “fit or fold” rule. However, from late position against some opponents and with some flops, the bluff/steal factor may become more important than the “fit or fold” factor.


Although most of the posters here on 2+2 seemed to pretty much agree in ranking the marginal starting hands in your quiz, there was substantial disagreement regarding my low opinion of As-Q-8s-8 from some posters on the r.g.p. forum, posters for whom I have great respect. As a consequence, I now wonder whether or not I gave the bluff/steal factor enough importance in my analysis.


Marginal hands matter a lot to me. Sure, I can play like a rock and eke out a small profit, but after the first satisfaction you get when you realize you can beat the game (by just playing tight), playing tight becomes boring. Why would I want to play poker if it’s boring? I want to play those marginal hands because it’s more interesting to play them than to fold them.


But I don’t like to lose either. I certainly don’t want to be playing hands that are losers. I’m not smart enough to figure out the math on a hand during a game. That’s something I need to do ahead of time and then hope I’ll remember well enough to know when I have favorable odds to play a hand.


Therefore, Rick, please keep coming at us with your questions - especially regarding marginal hands. The rest of the excellent Omaha-8 posters on this forum and I will keep answering them, we will all think about each others questions and answers, - and we will all become richer from the experience.


Buzz