Lee Jones Omaha/8 article in Card Player

Anyone else read "Does Somebody Have a Freeroll?"


His use of the term freerolling when all the cards are out made me cringe.


I also had a problem with his analysis of the last hand. He holds 4 2 A 9. (Why doesn't he list his cards in a more logical order?) The borard is 6 4 2 4 3. The BB bets the river, he raises and the BB reraises, he calls. In hindsight he felt he should have kept reraising.


He was worried on the turn that his opponent had either 6 6 or 6 4 and had him beat for high. On the river, he thinks it is unlikely that his opponent has him beat both ways, saying he needs exactly A 5 to beat him for low. But his own low consists of only a live Ace. So it is quite likely that his opponent can have him beat for high and tied for low. He completely overlooks this possibility that he will only get one quarter of the pot.

Wow. Caveat: don't know the betting pattern before the river. I would be hesitant to raise the river bet much less rereraise with neither hi or low nut, even headsup. Only two lower boats are out there, 33 and 22, while 3 beat you (66, 64, 43) and lots of hands beat or tie his high. What was his reasoning for wanting to rereraise the river?

Chaos - Usually I agree with you. This time, however, I don't. I had gotten a little behind in my poker magazine reading and just last night read the article you cite. I read it shortly after I had written a post on r.g.p. in which I used the concept, but was unfamiliar with, and consequently didn't use the term "freerolling." When I read Lee's article, I immediately recognized a new word for me to use - a word which would save words in the future. (Maybe I had heard or seen the word before but it simply hadn't registered).


I like Lee's writing style in his Omaha-8 series, honest and introspective.


The example he chose is not a perfect one, which makes the article even more interesting for me. He could have changed the cards a bit and idealized his hand and the board, made his hand As-2s-4-9, and the board on the river 9-9-3-5-A, but then it would not have been the actual hand and board he played. In a real game many situations encountered do not exactly match examples given by authors.


Last night when I was reading the article, the section to which you are referring gave me pause (probably because it is not an idealized example) and I went back to re-read and study that section, until I understood how the concept could be applied in the example given. Before reading Lee's article, I would have been more likely to have missed the fringe application of freerolling (a new term for me, but not a new concept for me).


I liked the article because reading it reinforced and broadened a concept I already apply.


You wrote, "He holds 4 2 A 9. (Why doesn't he list his cards in a more logical order?)."


Interesting comment. I used to play bridge and unless I had a kibitzer, I didn't sort my hand. I wonder if Lee wrote the order of the cards as he did because that's the way he saw the hand, and it didn't occur to him that A-2-4-9 would be faster reading for a kibitzer. When Lee (or anyone) writes about the actual cards he held, I feel like a kibitzer, probably all the more so when the cards are not ordered. (And obviously if I didn't bother to sort 13 cards in bridge, I'm not going to bother sorting 4 cards in Omaha-8). But I can see your point.


That's the sort of thing an editor would usually pick up. The editing for Poker Digest is usually (from my perspective) well done, but this time maybe 4s-2s-A-9 slipped by someone. Or maybe that's the order someone (Lee or an editor) used because 4s-2s-A-9 emphasizes the suitedness of the four and deuce, although in this particular article that suitedness, although mentioned, is not significant. Whatever. No big deal from my perspective.


Just my opinion.


Buzz

Bob - You wrote, "What was his reasoning for wanting to rereraise the river?"


He was "freerolling."


Buzz

Ok, I guess I'm stupid because I thought freerolling meant there was still a draw involved in the hand. I've only been playing a couple of years so that probably explains my ignorance.

"Ok, I guess I'm stupid because I thought freerolling meant there was still a draw involved in the hand. I've only been playing a couple of years so that probably explains my ignorance."


Bob - No. You're not stupid. You're right. Ray Zee defines the term in his glossary in a way consistent with your understanding, and Lee writes,


"Freerolling When All the Cards are Out


This is an unusual use of the term"


To the best of my knowledge, there is no term to describe the situation in Omaha-8, where you have a lock on half the pot and can afford to bet freely in an attempt to drive your opponent out of the pot, (an opponent without a lock, but who, in a show down, might get the other half of the pot or maybe a quarter of the pot).


The situation happens a lot, in my experience. At first you become aware when it is used against you. You missed your draw for high from the unraised big blind with AsKdQc8d and a flop of Js-Ts-4d, and don't even have a pair on the river, but low has become possible with 2h-7h on the turn and river, and you do have a poor low. There isn't very much in the pot and your opponent bets into you. Does your opponent have a straight or even a pair? Can your opponent make a 7 or better low?


What to do is not at all clear to me, and I think varies from one situation and one opponent to the next. My opponent could (1) be bluffing, (2) have a solid hold on one side or the other of the pot, or (3) have me beaten both ways. When it happens to me, I feel like I have been "freerolled," for lack of a better term. I am, to use another of Lee's terms, the "freerollee."


Of course I like it when the shoe is on the other foot and I am the "freeroller." Only good things can happen when I bet.


In the example in Lee's article, he doesn't have a lock on the pot either way, but..... well, you have to read the article to understand it. It's just too long to put the whole thing down here. I think you probably can get to the article if you can get to Poker Digest maybe using www.casinocenter.com (http://www.casinocenter.com) as an internet address. (That's the address listed in the magazine).


My language skills have never been great. Maybe there is a better term to use than "freeroll" for the (common) Omaha-8 situation. If there is another, better term, I don't know what the other term is, and in that case, I'm the stupid one.


Buzz

I don't know of an appropriate term for that situation in omaha either. Perhaps we could propose one to use instead of freerolling? I have a tough enough time with all the poker jargon without expanding the meanings of the few common poker terms that I actually know the accepted meaning of.

Freerolling already had a definition. I would prefer if Lee or someone else would come up with a new term for this situation when all the cards are out in a split game.


My main contention is that in the hand he used as an example, he is not freerolling since he does not have a lock either way. As he points out it is unlikely that he will get scooped, but he overlooks the likelihood of his being the one who gets quartered. I think it is a case of 20/20 hindsight that makes him think he should have reraised.

He's not likely to be quartered. His opponent would have to have something like A466. A live Ace is not enough.

"He was worried on the turn that his opponent had either 6 6 or 6 4 and had him beat for high."


Just add an Ace and any other card to one of those hands (e.g. A 6 6 X).

You're right. He can just use the 6 as one of his low cards. For some reason I was thinking he needed one of the others.

Clearly, you guys have never had to crank out 1000 words every two weeks :-).


Let's see...


1. I may have been stretching the "freeroll" term a bit thin on the river. One also hears the term "lock". But there's a subtle difference in the usage. You say, "I have a lock for high", but "I'm freerolling my opponent." Whatever.


2. Whoever pointed out that I was in danger of getting quartered was correct. My opponent would have to have an ace plus any one of (6,4,3,2) to tie me for low, as well as the dreaded 66 or 44. Given that the hand was originally dealt short-handed and we were heads-up preflop, I decided (in retropsect, not the heat of action) that such a hand was a monster under the bed, and that I should have at least considered re-re-raising. Fact is, it probably didn't make a bit of difference in terms of my EV (re-raising or just calling), but it was an interesting problem.


3. Early in my Omaha-8 series, I said that I was going to use an "s" notation to indicate suited cards in the hand. For instance: A4sT9s, or A56s2 (or even 4567s). This was an enormous mistake. The editor(s) at Poker Digest have always interpreted this as "spades". By the time I realized the problem, some number of articles were already in the pipe. I have stopped using that nomenclature and will show actual suits in the future. I apologize for the confusion that it caused.


4. I am quite tickled that people are reading and discussing my articles.


Regards, Lee

I like to use the term 'freerolling' in O8 to describe having one side locked up and to be drawing for the other (or, if it's high, redrawing for a better high). Another old term is "jelly." For example, if we both have a wheel on fourth street, but I have a draw for nut flush, we both have the nuts, but I have Jelly.


I didn't read the article and don't know the type of game desribed, but am not sure that you had a reraise unless you were in there with a poor player.


Loved your book...