My First O8 Experience

I played in a $3-$6 O8 game last night with a kill to $5-$10. I have read Ray Zee's book but I had never played O8 before. I played 2 hours and won $31. I was dealt 44 hands and I played 15 of them including 4 free plays in my big blind. Excluding the free plays I got in the big blind, here are the 11 hands I played preflop:


1. Qd-5c-3d-2d.

2. Ah-Qs-7c-2c

3. Ac-Kc-Qc-6h

4. Qd-4c-3d-2d

5. Qd-Jd-Td-4d

6. Qc-6d-5h-2s

7. As-Ks-6c-6s

8. Ad-8d-6d-3c

9. 8d-6s-3s-2h

10. Ah-7h-3h-2c

11. Js-Jc-3c-2s


Are these all playable hands preflop assuming no raises?


In the two hours I played there were no raises preflop except for me where I raise preflop from middle position with Hand #10. I find this incredible.


They only average about 20 hands per hour in this game compared to 30-35 in holdem.


It seems like the whole key to beating this game is simply hand selection. It always took the best hand to win so there was no bluffing. Position does not seem to matter much. No one ever raises before the flop in this game. In fact there was hardly any raising until the river.


What does everyone else think?

I'm not an expert but here are my opinions:


1. Qd-5c-3d-2d.

I would fold this hand. I generally avoid 2-3 for low. You need an ace to flop to continue for low and you have no realistic chance for high. But if nobody ever raises preflop you might call to see if you flop an Ace.


2. Ah-Qs-7c-2c

This hand is playable in a loose passive game like the one you are in. You have A-2 for low but the 7 is not much backup if you get counterfeitted.


3. Ac-Kc-Qc-6h

This is a three legged hand since the 6 is not coordinated with your other cards. I would fold.


4. Qd-4c-3d-2d

A little better than hand #1 but not much.


5. Qd-Jd-Td-4d

Another three legged hand that I would fold.


6. Qc-6d-5h-2s

You have no conceivable nut draws for either high or low. A clear fold.]


7. As-Ks-6c-6s

No real low possibilities. I would fold this one also.


8. Ad-8d-6d-3c

A-3 for low is a step up from 2-3 but you need a 2 to flop. The suited Ace adds value and I would call and see if the flop brings either a 2 or two diamonds.


9. 8d-6s-3s-2h

See comments on hand #1


10. Ah-7h-3h-2c

Clearly the best hand you were dealt.


11. Js-Jc-3c-2s

See hand #1 for comments on playing 2-3. The double suited Jacks do not add much to the hand. Playing a Jack-high flush draw is likely to cost you more money when you are second best than you will make when your flush is good. I generally do not play less than a King high flush unless I back door into it.


Of course a lot depends on position. Not only for fear of being raised preflop (which seems not existtent in thios game) but you can make more money on the other streets from late position.


I'm sure some readers will say that I play too tight.

Thanks Chaos!


A couple of points. Had I played just the hands you recommended, I would have only played about 3-4 hands in the two hour period. Is it your experience that winning O8 players only play about 1-2 hands per hour? As an aside, I was far and away the tightest player at the table.


I gather that having three wheel cards which do not include an ace is still not playable in your opinion. It seems that having three or four wheel cards makes it less likely you will get counterfeited.


I thought high pairs coupled with deuce-trey were playable as was the case with Hand #11 where I have Js-Jc-3s-2c. I am not trying to make a flush. I can flop a set of jacks, make a big full house, and I have a decent low draw if an ace flops.


Thanks for the input and I will post more hands as a gain experience in this unusual poker form.

I am FAR from an expert on Omaha, but I'll put in my 2 cents worth. First off, you'd ideally like to play hands in which all 4 cards work together, something along the lines of a KcKdQdJc , or something of that sort. And yes, in Omaha, if you are a good player, you should be playing less hands than in hold'em. One or two hands per hour I don't think is a stretch. As to your hands, Chaos is pretty much right on, at least, in what I would do personally. But I have some minor comments:


Hand 1: I personally would not see the flop with this hand in any circumstance, unless I was maybe the SB in an unraised big pot. Otherwise, it's pretty garbage.


Hand 9: This is a completely useless hand. I wouldn't play this if I were paid to.


Hand 11: I really hate playing hands like this. Chances are you're not going to flop a jack, but you might flop a flush draw. But then what? Say there's a flush draw with no A, K, or Q out there. What happens when you make your flush? Do you raise? Do you call? Who knows... You've probably heard this over and over and over, but in Omaha, you want the nuts, or at least 2nd nuts. JJ23 double suited is just asking for trouble, in my opinion.


The reason why winning O8 players can win more by playing so few hands is that the few hands they do play, they win a significant amount of time. This is not like hold'em, where your AA, against 7 or 8 hands, isn't gonna hold up a majority of the time. But if you hold a monster hand in Omaha, like AA23 double suited, you have a HUGE advantage over 7 or 8 random Omaha hands. I would suggest going to Badger's page for some omaha tips (http://www.playwinningpoker.com/omaha1.html), and Annie Duke's great article on UltimateBet (http://www.ultimatebet.com/team_ub/duke/omaha.html). Those should give you more than enough of a headstart against the typical neanderthalian calling stations at most low-limit Omaha tables. Good luck!

It will be interesting to hear from the good O8 players. First, I think you are playing way too many hands. What would be the result if you played 33% of the hands you are dealt in HE?


I would only play 2, 10, and possibly 11, depending on position. I think what you are missing is that you need to play for the whole pot, not just half. You have to wait a very long time to get a good O8 hand. You didn't get any great ones, unless you mucked them and they didn't make the list.

Thanks 3 Bet Brett. From reading the responses, I guess I was playing too loose. I don't know how representative a small two hour sample is. However, if I am only suppose to play 1-2 hands per hour, I need to arm myself with a good book to read.

Jim -


You were lucky to find such a passive game for your first experience.


"Are these all playable hands preflop assuming no raises?"


In the main, I agree with Chaos. Sooga and Brett also make good points and give good advice here.


I wonder which four hands you had in the unraised big blind. (Any hand is obviously playable in the unraised big blind). Let’s see if I can figure it out.


Hand #2 (Ah-Qs-7c-2c), is mediocre but playable from any position. Hand #8 (Ad-8d-6d-3c) is also mediocre but playable from any position in a passive game. Hand #10 (Ah-7h-3h-2c) is clearly the best of the lot.


I might play some of the others on the button or the small blind, just to break the boredom. I might look at the flop with hand #1 (Qd-5c-3d-2d), hand #3 (Ac-Kc-Qc-6h), hand #4 (Qd-4c-3d-2d), and hand #11 (Js-Jc-3c-2s) from the button or the unraised small blind (if I didn’t expect the big blind to raise).


That leaves four hands for your unraised big blind, hand #5 (Qd-Jd-Td-4d), hand #6 (Qc-6d-5h-2s), hand #7 (As-Ks-6c-6s), and hand #9 (8d-6s-3s-2h).


Or perhaps you voluntarily played hand #7 (As-Ks-6c-6s) and coincidentally had one of the more playable hands in the unraised big blind.


Is that about how you did it?


"In the two hours I played there were no raises preflop except for me where I raise preflop from middle position with Hand #10. I find this incredible."


It's unusual but not unheard of. Omaha-8 is a different game than Texas hold ‘em, requiring a different (but somewhat overlapping) set of skills. There’s usually not as much pre-flop raising in a loose game. However, in games where the players all play as tight as you played, or even tighter, there usually is more raising. And in that case, position becomes more important. I don’t think position matters as much in a passive game as in a more aggressive game. Like you, when I first started playing Omaha-8, I didn’t think position mattered at all. But now I do.


"I played 2 hours and won $31."


Right. Congratulations. You can probably beat passive low limit Omaha-8 games mainly by playing very tight, especially in terms of opening hand selection, but also in terms of folding after the flop when you don’t have a good fit - but you may not be able to win enough playing this way to make it worth your while to endure the boredom.


If you get into a game with more action, and if you play very, very tight, after a while, you won’t tend to get much action yourself, on the hands you do play, once the action players recognize how tightly you are playing, unless there are some real fish in the game.


Just my opinion.


Buzz

People talk about AA23 double suited all the time, like its comparable to AA in Holdem. I've played about 10,000 hands of Omaha8 in the last 6 months and I got dealt that hand exactly once. I bet big and lost, the other suits fell and there was no low. Are the odds against making this hand so great that its not a relevant example? Its like saying, well, 4 Aces's is a really great hand in Holdem.


I quess you can make comparisons as to how much a hand looks like AA23 double suited, but still it seems like a strectch. Even hands close to this are extremely rare. Do the winning players really play 1 hand out of 40? I'm just curious what they do or think about when they're waiting for those hands? And how is it that when they do finally come in, "gun's a blazing", everybody doesn't just say, "Oh here's Jimmy Nuts, playing his one hand for the hour, I think I'll fold".


Outside of Pot Limit maybe, which is another game entirely, does anyone really make any money in this game, or are they really just moving it around amongst themselves, donating the Lion's share to the rake in the long run. Who made this game up anyway, a Pokerroom manager?


At little disconcerted

(after 6 months of futility),

Bol Tamm

None of the hands I listed were in the big blind. Since I got a free play in my big blind, I did not write them down as "played hands" per se.

This sounds like fairly typical low limit O8 in my experience, especially the part about no raising before the flop. I think that although you are not quite right that the only thing that matters is hand selection, it is certainly true that you can win by good hand selection alone (you can win more by adding other techniques).


I would say that a lot of the hands you played are not playable against good players, especially if there is raising before the flop. But if there are going to be a bunch of limpers and no raise you can play more hands.


In your list, hands 3,4,9 and 11 have 2,3 and no ace as a feature. You can play this for an ace to flop in the conditions identified above if the other players are bad, but it is a weak holding and you should NEVER call a raise with it. 23JJ is deceptive and is a good deal worse than it looks. You need an ace for low, but the ace will kill the jacks. It is a good example of two holdem hands stuck together.


5 and 6 are really almost worthless, especially 6 (hands with 3 low cards are not all the same - once there is no ace they are trouble, and anything worse than 2,3 is absolutely horrible). 3 and 7 are pretty ugly but I would play them in the conditions identified above if I thought I was a lot better than the other players in the game, because the nut flush draw is nice and the A6 has some rescue value for low. I would not recommend them to a learner, though. If I may say so, I think your hold'em background probably came through in choosing to play them?! Steve Badger likes hands like these, which led to a big argument here and on RGP not long ago.


10 is obviously a very nice hand. 8 is also nice, with the suited ace; A3 is obviously not as good as A2, but don't assume that someone else always has A2 - reading someone for A2 is pretty easy when they do have it, and so A3 can well be profitable for low even if a 2 does not come. The 6 is a nice card in that hand as well, for low-straight scooping.


I would not have played all these hands; I would certainly not have played 5 or 6 and probably not 7 or 11. The rest of the 2,3 hands would depend on my boredom threshhold at the time.


Overall, you played 11 hands out of 40 (excluding BBs). Although this is a tiny sample, I would sya that it is considerably too many. However, people who might tell you only to play A2 hands and that even hand 2 is so-so are wide of the mark. You can play more than that, and indeed if bad players are letting you in cheap I would advise you to play more.


Was this at Bellagio? If so, I'd strongly recommend that you go and watch the 50/100 or 75/150 game for a bit. You will see a good number of showdowns to see what people played and how, and the standard in that game is high, IMO.


Oh no!! Not again!

another reason to play super tight in low limit o8 is that if you had won all 11 hands in two hours it would have cost you ~60 bucks in rake, right? not to mention when you scoop you have to kill it.


brad

Jim - In that case, in the very pre-flop-passive game you have described, I would play the following hands from any position:


Hand #2 (Ah-Qs-7c-2c),

Hand #8 (Ad-8d-6d-3c), and

Hand #10 (Ah-7h-3h-2c).


I would play the following hands on the button or the small blind in the very pre-flop-passive game you have described:


Hand #1 (Qd-5c-3d-2d),

Hand #3 (Ac-Kc-Qc-6h),

Hand #4 (Qd-4c-3d-2d),

Hand #7 (As-Ks-6c-6s), and

Hand #11 (Js-Jc-3c-2s).


I would not play the following hands:


Hand #5 (Qd-Jd-Td-4d),

Hand #6 (Qc-6d-5h-2s), and

Hand #9 (8d-6s-3s-2h).


Raising or not is another matter. I might raise with any of the hands I would play, depending on the effect I expected my raise to have on my opponents.


You chose the best hand of the lot to raise, IMHO, but I might or might not raise with that hand (although I'd be more likely to raise with it than any of the others).


You have to get off any hand after a flop which does not fit the hand you are playing. To qualify as a starter, a hand must satisfy three requirements. (1) It must be likely to make the nuts on the river. (2) It must have a good chance to fit with the flop. (3) It must have a good chance to scoop.


Ah-7h-3h-2c is the best hand on your list because it satisfies all three requirements. The aceless 3-2 hands on your list, #1, #4, #9, and #11, need an ace to flop to continue play for low. Without an ace on the flop these hands are, at best, 3rd nut low or 3rd nut low draw hands. Since it is more likely than an ace will not flop, the low value of these hands is reduced.


Let's just look at one of these aceless hands, hand #11, Js-Jc-3c-2s, in more detail. To make the nut low, you need an ace on the board, along with two other un-paired low cards, neither of which is a two or a three. However, an ace on the board reduces the value of your pair of jacks for high, thus reducing the scoop value of your hand (unless the board is a non-flush A-4-5-9-T, or something of the sort).


Suited jacks are mainly of value in case of a back-door flush, an unlikely occurance. The pair of jacks is probably only valuable if the board has a jack plus a lower pair, an unlikely occurrance. If there is an ace, king, or queen on the board, in addition to a jack, a likely occurance, the value of the pair of jacks is reduced.


There is more, but that is enough for here. The essence of the problem with Js-Jc-3c-2s is that it can be a difficult hand to play. You need to catch enough of the flop, without scare cards to continue, and then you probably need to catch more on the turn and/or river, without scare cards to complete. But if you can see the flop cheaply and fold when the flop is unfavorable, and manipulate your opponents when the flop is favorable, maybe you can play the hand and show a profit over time with it. But you don't want to end up chasing on the river with a second or third best hand, especially if you are only going for half the pot.


When you put it all together, no responsible person would advise a beginner to play Js-Jc-3c-2s. There is simply too much that can go wrong. It's a hand where you'll get "rivered" a lot by your opponents, yet a hand where you won't "river" anyone else.


I'm not advising you to play Js-Jc-3c-2s. I'm just saying I might play it from the small blind or the button in the game you have described.


Hope this helps. Re-read Zee's book. Every time I re-read it, I get something more out of it.


Buzz

Well, consider this: you're an expert HE player and completely clueless in the fundementals of O8. Imagine how everyone else at the table is faring. The answer is: a lot worse.

Worst comes to worst, you fall back on the fundementals you know. Most LL O8 players have nothing to fall back on and they still don't know how to pick a good hand from a hole in the ground.


I'm surprised that it was that passive. When people do raise, though, you can narrow part of their hand down to AA or A2. Sometimes both. Well, most of the time anyway.


Anyway, just watch what people are showing down. Often times in these games people chase the low side at all costs. This means a few things

1) they'll chase with second, third, heck, fourth and fifth low and call down with the hopes of winning.

2) if low doesn't come in, steals are possible. If not a steal, you'd be amazed at how many times something stupid like top pair can take the high.

3) if your hand selection includes a better low than theirs, they will pay you off all the way and the money just flows to your side.

"When people do raise, though, you can narrow part of their hand down to AA or A2. Sometimes both. Well, most of the time anyway."


Dan - Not so. Not so. Maybe once you could do that, but not so anymore.


Dolts yes. Decent players no.


Still, you have to suspect A2 or AA, just in case.


Buzz

Oh No - Another great post. I always appreciate your insight.


In retrospect, I would put hand #11 (Js-Jc-3c-2s) and hand #9 (8d-6s-3s-2h) in the same group. I might or might not play either of them in the very passive game described. Perhaps I was biased in my selection by my strong aversion to middle cards in O-8.


I completely agree with you about hand #11, but I might see the flop with it anyway in the game Jim described. After reading your post I'll think about it some more. The hand probably is a money loser for me, but not much of a money loser because I'm dumping it if I don't have a nice fit with the flop. There is something to be said (in terms of table image) for playing a few more hands, even if they are slight money losers, if you are an extremely tight player and if doing playing a few more hands makes you seem like you are a bit looser than you are. I think you may win a bit more on the hands you do win if your opponents see you as not so much of a rock. Just my opinion here. I'm interested in feedback on this issue.


None of the hands in the group are very good (even #10 loses about 28% of it's nut flush draw value, because of the extra heart, and loses additional value because of the seven - middle cards are awful when you're going for the nuts), but the total dogs in the group, I agree, are hands #5 (Qd-Jd-Td-4d), and #6 (Qc-6d-5h-2s).


Buzz

FWIW here are the Hutchinson values (to the best of my ability) for those hands. The maximum hand value is 45 (which is AA23 double suited) and the minimum value is 0 and it recommends having at least 20 points to call and raising with point totals over 30:

1. Qd-5c-3d-2d. - 22

2. Ah-Qs-7c-2c - 22

3. Ac-Kc-Qc-6h - 2

4. Qd-4c-3d-2d - 24

5. Qd-Jd-Td-4d - 0

6. Qc-6d-5h-2s - 0

7. As-Ks-6c-6s - 2

8. Ad-8d-6d-3c - 20

9. 8d-6s-3s-2h - 16

10. Ah-7h-3h-2c - 31

11. Js-Jc-3c-2s - 21


I'm not for or against this system necessarily I just thought it might add to the conversation.

Jim,


Can I ask how you kept track of the exact hands you played in a carddroom? Did you bring a notepad or just have excellent memory? I'm not sure a notepad would be desirable as far as table image, etc.

I bring a small notepad with a pen which I place in my shirt pocket. When everyone else is involved in a hand, I then write down the earlier hand where I had a question. In this way, players are focusing on the current action not on what I am doing. It is easy to do in O8 because I rarely get a playable hand anyway.

Jim,


You will have even more time to write down notes (or maybe another book) if you stick to the actual playable hands. /images/biggrin.gif


Regards,


Rick

Rick - You have to loosen up a little and start playing those Qc-6d-5h-2s hands. (Just kidding).


Thanks for stopping by and saying hello during the r.g.p. tournament at the Bike. You were there at a moment when my concentration was focused on something else - and then you were gone when I looked around again. You looked very sharp, like a manager or something.


The tournament itself included a nasty game called "razz." Several times I started with three wheel cards and then was dealt another wheel card as my fourth card. Then I'd catch three face cards on the end. People complain about getting "rivered" in Omaha-8, but that game was like getting rivered thrice. Fortunately I had read Sklansky On Poker, which has a good razz section. However, nothing could adequately prepare me for catching three faces on the last three cards! What a horrid game! I think that's where my thoughts were when you came by to say hello.


Regards,


Buzz

where can u find how to calculate these Hutchinson values? or some other system to evaluate a O/8 hand.


peter

Point count systems are flawed at best.


Hand #2 is clearly much better than hand #1 yet they both receive the same score.


Also hand #8 is clearly better than hand #11

http://ehutchison.homestead.com/OmahaSystem.html

I agree, in any point count system anomolies are going to surface, however, Hutchison's system at least was created by simulating game conditions and comparing win rates for various hands. On the surface I would agree with your assessment of the hands you mention but it is sometimes strange how something we assume to be true often is not.


I copied this from Hutchison's web site:


The purpose of this system is to provide a simple means of evaluating starting hands in Omaha poker. It was developed in several steps:


First, Mike Caro's Poker Probe software was used to determine the win percentage for various four card combinations when played against nine opponents. This was accomplished via a Monte-Carlo type simulation with a minimum of 25,000 hands being dealt for each starting hand. The assumption made in this type of simulation is that each hand is played to the finish. This is, of course, an unreasonable assumption, but , in the absence of detailed knowledge of each player's starting requirements, method of play, etc., it is the best means of approximating a hand's strength and earning potential.


Secondly, a number of components were examined in an effort to determine their relative contribution to the value of each starting hand. Eventually, it was decided that the primary determinants of good Omaha starting hands related to the rank of the cards and whether or not they were paired, suited, or connected.


Finally, a type of regression analysis was conducted to try and determine the relative weighting of each of these factors. The system that follows is the result of quantifying the contribution made by each of these various components.


Once the calculations are made, the resultant point total is an approximation of the actual win percentage for a particular hand--when played to the finish against nine opponents. The correlation between point totals and win percentages, while not representing a one-to-one correspondence is, nevertheless, quite high. In fact, in about 70% of the cases the actual win percentage will be within just one point of the total points awarded by this system. This means that if the system indicates that a given hand earns, say, 20 points, you can be quite confident that the actual win percentage for this hand is between 19 and 21 points. It is very likely to win more often than a hand with 19 points and almost certain to outperform a hand with 18 points.

I don't agree that a cold simulation where nine other players get random cards and then everyone stays to the end for a single bet on each round "is the best means of approximating a hand's strength and earning potential."


This is far too simplistic.

Ok, then how would you propose doing it differently?

I wouldn't propose using any point count system.


Having a system where you call if your hand is worth 20 points and you raise if your hand is worth 30 points overlooks too much. Your position, how your opponents view you, and the texture of the game come immediately to mind.


Poker can not be reduced to a formula. That is why the answer to so many poker questions is "It depends."

I'll do a "Rick" and respond before reading the others, since I have been playing this a lot lately...


Knowing there are no raises helps you limp in with a lot of very thin hands ...


For a very loose game like this, where you must make the nuts, I don't count suited for much except for suited aces. And A2 is about 3 times better than A3 or 23 for low prospects (based on Payne book).


My rating of your hands:


1. Qd-5c-3d-2d - don't play.

2. Ah-Qs-7c-2c - always play A2. Not great though.

3. Ac-Kc-Qc-6h - dump. OK if 6+ in for your flush draw. The AKQ, although pretty, needs precisely a J and a T - long odds.

4. Qd-4c-3d-2d - OK with lots of callers. Must flop A.

5. Qd-Jd-Td-4d - trash.

6. Qc-6d-5h-2s - trash.

7. As-Ks-6c-6s - same as #3.

8. Ad-8d-6d-3c - same as #3.

9. 8d-6s-3s-2h - dump. NO extra value over the 23.

10. Ah-7h-3h-2c - excellent hand. Still might not want to raise if it will drive out customers.

11. Js-Jc-3c-2s - dump. JJ not very valuable (I don't like less than QQ, based on an earlier comment by Louie Landale.)


At least you seem to have caught on quickly to the concept - draw only to the nuts. Ray says it (for loose games) and so do the other good books.


The preflop raising varies a lot from group to group. The thing I find the most incredible in low limit (3-6 in Arizona) is that often, players will raise with hands that I wouldn't be caught dead limping with! I like a preflop-passive game like you found.


Now I'll go read the others.


PS enjoying your new book. I'm about half way through.


Dick

... to sum up all these responses. Absolutely right, Rick.


John Payne's book - written for math geeks like me, and I recommend it for anyone whose eyes won't glaze over - lists his playable plus marginal hands, and calculates that all of them add up to about 15% of hands. This is MORE hands than I currently play.


Dick

Dick - Your point of view seems pretty close to mine, but you seem tighter. Maybe the difference has, at least in part, to do with slight differences in format between the geographical areas in which we play.


I might unconsciously play the same Omaha-8 hand differently, even with the same opponents, depending on my whims. And I certainly would consciously play the same Omaha-8 hand differently against the same opponents if I recognized they might be keeping track of how I played. I also would consciously play the same Omaha-8 hand one way against one set of opponents - and possibly in a different way against a different set of opponents, depending on my assessment of the opponents and the situation.


Thus what to do with any Omaha-8 hand "depends." With that in mind.....


You wrote, “1. Qd-5c-3d-2d - don't play.”


Almost certainly sound advice, especially to a beginner. But from the button or the small blind, in the extremely passive game cited, worth a look, IMHO, if you play regularly and have the discipline to fold to any flop that does not hit you squarely.


“3. Ac-Kc-Qc-6h - dump. OK if 6+ in for your flush draw. The AKQ, although pretty, needs precisely a J and a T - long odds.”


True, but there is more to the hand than just the flush and straight draws, IMHO.


Many Omaha-8 games are loose and passive before the flop, but may be tight and/or aggressive after the flop. In a very passive game, many tightish Omaha-8 players tend to be looser than usual before the flop, but still very tight after the flop. In such a game, especially when playing with opponents who tend to draw to low hands, high card strength may be of considerable value, with two high pairs often capturing at least half of the pot. In games with opponents who tend to draw to low hands, there are semi-bluffing opportunities, with a bet on the end often capturing an entire uncontested pot when low fails to materialize. Of course a bluff might work here, but it’s nice to have something to back up your bet just in case someone calls with two low pair.


In addition, if the flop is two high cards, many knowledgeable opponents will not continue and backdoor “emergency” lows like A-6 may come to have some value.


On the other side of the coin, I don’t like the clubs much here. When you have all the top cards in the flush suit and make the flush, there fewer cards to tempt an opponent to chase. In addition, when you have three (rather than two) cards in the flush suit, there is not only a reduced chance that the board will flush, but also a reduced chance an opponent will make even a baby flush (with which to chase). In order to make nut flush draws pay off, I think you need to have someone who will give action with a non-nut flush. That possibility is substantially reduced when you hold the top three cards in the flush suit.


These things considered, this is a hand I might play or not if on the button or the small blind. Coming off a string of playing several hands in the preceding round in a post-flop-loose game, I would probably tend to dump this hand. However, after folding hand after hand for an hour in a post-flop-tight game, I would probably tend to play this hand.


But out of position, I completely agree with you. Out of position this hand belongs in the muck.


“7. As-Ks-6c-6s - same as #3.”


Very similar to #3. Actually a tad worse, IMHO. Small pairs, IMHO, are death in this game. Catch a six on the flop and it’s hard not to be stuck. Flush value reduced. High card value reduced. Straight value (which wasn’t much with AKQ6) reduced. Well.... maybe more than a tad worse. But I also put it in the same general grouping with #3. I might play this one on the button or from the small blind after a long dry spell.


Table image matters a good deal in the games in which I usually play. Even weak players with poor observation skills soon learn to avoid confrontations with tight players. You can survive hour after hour playing like a rock, and probably dribble out a small profit, but you can’t make enough, IMHO, to make playing that way day after day and month after month endurable (unless perhaps you have almost nothing else going for you in your life).


“8. Ad-8d-6d-3c - same as #3.”


This is another table image hand for me. I love to show down those middle cards. The difference between a ten player Omaha-8 table (standard in Nevada) and a nine player table (standard in Los Angeles county) may make a difference here. The collection procedure may also make a difference.


[Although the collection is now taken from the pot in $3-$6-kill Omaha-8 games in Los Angeles area casinos (at least the ones in which I play), the button may still have to make a one dollar jackpot post, and then gets a reduced (by one dollar) first betting round cost. Even though the button doesn’t post a $3 collection fee for the whole table anymore, considering that the cost of seeing the (now single) blind is only two dollars, and considering that position in Omaha-8 is worth at least something, it’s hard to resist seeing the (unraised) flop from the button, making the net button cost, in a passive game, about the same as it always was.]


At any rate, the difference between ten and nine players and the difference in the collection fee may be enough to make hand #8 more playable in Los Angeles area casinos, but less playable other places. I don’t know how these two factors work in Arizona.


“11. Js-Jc-3c-2s - dump. JJ not very valuable (I don't like less than QQ, based on an earlier comment by Louie Landale.”


I haven’t seen anything by Louie Landale for a while. Hope he’s doing fine.


Does your comment mean you (and Louie) like QQ and JJ the same. I like QQ better, by far. But QQ alone is still not very good, IMHO. Thus JJ23 seems very iffy, at best.


Buzz

I think Louie likes QQ much better than JJ. The actual quote, as best as I remember it, was


"...all pairs smaller than QQ go way down in value."


The idea - the only good idea, Jim B. - is to flop top set and to make top full house with it. With JJ or lower, it is harder to do this, and even harder still to do this and keep 3 low cards from appearing to make you split the pot with a low.


Dick

Oops - While reading Buzz's response, I see that I didn't notice that hand 8 had an A3. It is much better than hands 3 and 7. I would always play an A3 with the Ace suited if I knew there would be plenty of callers and no raise. I would NOT call a raise cold with it, however. It is still not nearly as good as A2xx with nothing suited.


Dick

Hi Dick,


You mentioned "other good books" for O/8. I've read the Shane Smith booklet and Zee's book--could you recommend some others?


Also, do you think playing 15% of the hands is optimal? Does that percentage include the hands played out of the blinds? I just started o/8 a few months ago (exclusively on Paradise) and have been playing what I thought was extremely tight. I recently purchased O/8 Pokerstat for Paradise and discovered that over app. 2500 hands I've seen the flop about 28% of the time, 9% of which was out of the blinds. I thought this was a bit high, but I don't really have a clue what's high or low (no pun intended /images/tongue.gif) in o/8 or if this is a statistical anomaly. I'm only playing hands that have an A2 or A3 with the A suited and occasionaly play all four cards ten or higher in the cutoff and button. Is there ever a time not to play A2xx before the flop?


Thanks in advance,


Hammuh

"It is still not nearly as good as A2xx with nothing suited."


I disagree. A3 suited has the opportunity to win high with the nut flush. So it is more of a two way hand than a naked A2. Of course you will win more lows with A2 than with A3. I think they are closer in value.

Michael Cappelletti has a couple of spiral bound type booklets on Omaha. They are collections of his articles and mostly deal with Omaha High but you can pick up some useful info.


Bob Ciaffone's Omaha book has a chapter on High-Low Split.


Caro has a new book due out soon that will also cover Omaha High-Low Split.


"Is there ever a time not to play A2xx before the flop?"


Sure if there is a lot of action before it gets to you. In this case there is probably another A2 out there so you would be playing for only one quarter of the pot.

... I bugged Mason and Chuck to reinstate the feature where you get an email notification of responses to your posts. With about 17 forums, of which 4 or 5 I visit and post on routinely and six more less frequently, sometimes I miss responses to my own stuff.


The Bike was busy that weekend (as it is lately with the Winning of the Green tournament) and I was tied up so I couldn't find you later. BTW, I'm wearing nicer clothes these days because I can't fit into my jeans /images/smile.gif .


I was lucky the one and only time I played Razz. There was a small tournament at the Stardust about 18 years ago and I made the final table and got to play with the late Bill Smith (WSOP big event winner). Everything I knew about the game came from reading "Sklansky on Razz".


Regards,


Rick