Trash hand flops nuts...O/8

I am a beginning player and have a few hours under my belt at Omaha/8. I am still unsure as to how to play vulnerable high hands, especially when there is a low possible or already made. Here is the hand in question, any comments would be really appreciated.


9874r in BB, 4 callers, SB calls.


Flop: 653 2-tone


I check and call one bet, because I am clearly playing for half the pot and am paranoid my hand will be ruined. Still, my straight can't be counterfeited by a higher straight. 4 players contesting the pot at this point.


Turn: Tx


Still 4 players. Again, I check call 1 bet.


River: 3x


SB bets, I call, and it is 3-bet back to me. I dump. Two full houses and an A2 are shown down.


Later I figured that on the flop (2-tone), I was about a 2-1 underdog to be holding the nuts on the river. I was expecting to do some jamming if my hand held up on the river, but this was not to be.


Where should I have dumped? On the flop? What if the flop was a rainbow? Is a checkraise in order anywhere here? I figure on the turn that is likely to bring about a jam from an A2 and cost me a lot if/when my hand is ruined (It was in fact the A2 doing all the betting and jamming...)

rakay - “9874r in BB, 4 callers, SB calls. Flop: 653 2-tone”


Let’s make your hand 9s-8h-7d-4c and the flop 6h-5h-3c.


You have flopped a seven high straight with some redraws to a higher straight. However, the flop has two cards of the same suit. Chances are one of your opponents has a draw to the heart flush. In a loose game such as you are describing (six players seeing the flop), it is also possible someone has a set or two pair, and thus you also don’t want the board to pair. There are ten hearts, eight non-hearts that pair the board, and three eights, a total of twenty one cards that are bad for you. In addition there are some runner-runner two card combinations that are bad for you, any two clubs, a runner-runner pair, and 7-9.


When you put it all together, 767 out of a possible 990 two-card combinations are not good for you. you might still win for high with any one of these unfavorable two-card combinations, but you won’t have the nuts. Between one fifth and one fourth of the time you’ll end up with the nuts, but the rest of the time you won’t. Plus you are only playing for half the pot because your low is almost surely no good.


You’re in a situation that happens a lot to flopped straights, especially when the flop is not a rainbow and low is made on the flop, between a rock and a hard place. There are various types of distincly different flops. This is a flop with a made low (three low cards) plus a flush draw (two cards in one suit).


Flopped straights do poorly with this type of flop in loose games.


There are three ways to play the hand and one way not to play it. (1) You can take the initiative and bet, hoping to win the hand right there. (2) You can check hoping that everyone in between you and the button also checks, that the button bets, and that you will be able to check raise, with all opponents between you and the button folding, and thus getting heads-up with the button. (3) you can check hoping that no one else bets either, and then fold if someone bets.


(4) Checking and then calling is not one of the options.


(1) In some situations (but not yours) you might bet your hand, hoping to knock out non-nut flush draws and non-nut low draws, thus increasing your chances to scoop. In those situations if you bet your hand aggressively your opponents might fold, tentatively putting you on Ah-2h-4-7.


(2) In some other situations (but not yours) you might plan a check-raise with your hand, hoping everyone before the button would also check, the button would bet, you would raise, everyone else would fold, and you would end up heads-up against the button.


(3) However, in your situation neither one of these plays is likely to work. Therefore, IMHO, you check and fold after the flop.


(4) Meekly calling is your worst possible play. Once you check/call on the flop, you’ll tend to get stuck in the hand.


Just my opinion.


Buzz

It would seem that the situation is hopeless, since it is probably almost impossible to fold enough people with a bet in this situation.


However, if the game is pot limit and the betting is passive, then maybe limping small bets is an alternative. Then if you still have the nuts on the river chances are that you'll get paid.

I agree with Buzz. Check and fold.


When there are 3 low cards on flop it is likely that someone already has a made low. You need an extremely strong hand to continue trying for half the pot. I would fold made straights, straight draws and some of the poorer two pairs in this situation unless I had the nut flush draw to go with it.

Buzz: There are ten hearts, eight non-hearts that pair the board, and three eights a total of twenty one cards that are bad for you.


Mack: There are two hearts on the board, one in rakay's hand and two in the heart drawer's hand. That leaves eight bad hearts. There are eight non hearts that pair the board, but two of them are in the set-holder's or two-pair-holder's hand, leaving six renegades roaming the deck. Eights? You gotta problem wit eights? Whatsa matta eights? Viola. There are fourteen threatening cards out of a debatable number of unknowns. Let's say 42. Rajay's a 2:1 fave. Take a card off - bet it up.


Buzz: You mullet! Just because it's a scare card (like a heart or a board pair), doesn't mean it's in your opponent's hand! But if it hits the turn it will still move you off your hand. Eights? Eights are an advanced subject. We'll get to eights later.


Mack: But if flush and full house draws aren't in the opponent's hand, there's no sense in worrying about them. Didn't you ever read Catch-22?


Buzz: If your so sure of yourself, why don't you use Bayes's Theorum to come up with a better number.


Mack: It'll take me a while to work it out. In the mean time, quit calling me a mullet.

Call me irresponsible but I must disagree with Buzz and anyone else who will fold this hand. There are 27 cards - 3 each AKQJT98742 (out of 45 - 24 after the turn) that can hit on the turn and river that still give me the nuts. I don't mean to get agressive and raise (until the river if I am still good) when I can pound them.


If the turn is a flush or pair, then I can lay it down.


Peace

This was my line of thinking when I meekly called the flop and turn on this hand. I looked at it as a drawing situation...drawing to the cards that would leave me with the nuts. I would not have cold called 2 bets on either the flop or turn, and I should never have called the first bet on the river.

Buzz, thanks for such a well thought out response. I try to do a lot of thinking about the game, but seldom have I given much thought to trash hands because I never play them. One lesson to take out of this besides remembering to take out the trash is to expect the unexpected...

Mack: "There are two hearts on the board, one in rakay's hand and two in the heart drawer's hand. That leaves eight bad hearts. There are eight non hearts that pair the board, but two of them are in the set-holder's or two-pair-holder's hand, leaving six renegades roaming the deck. Eights? You gotta problem wit eights? Whatsa matta eights? Viola. There are fourteen threatening cards out of a debatable number of unknowns. Let's say 42. Rajay's a 2:1 fave. Take a card off - bet it up."


Buzz - Yes, two hearts have to be in the hand of the opponent who would beat Rajay if a third heart showed up on the board. Good point. But we don’t the whereabouts of the other unknown hearts and where all the other unknown cards are. We can’t just reduce the number of hearts that are mathematically possible in the two cards to be selected for the turn and river. That’s simply not a valid approach to the problem.


Mack: Well why not?


Buzz : I don’t know why not. Maybe it’s that whoever has the two hearts necessary to make the flush, should a heart appear on the board, also has a couple of other cards, and all the other players also have cards, some of them hearts and some of them non-hearts.


Mack: Prove it.


Buzz: I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ proofs. That’s what mathematicians are for. Once they prove what works I’m willing to take their word for it.


Mack: But if flush and full house draws aren't in the opponent's hand, there's no sense in worrying about them. Didn't you ever read Catch-22?


Buzz: Why read it when I can watch it? Is that the one where Yassarian wants to stop playing Omaha-8 because he says it’s driving him insane but only someone who is insane would want to play Omaha-8, therefore he has to keep playing Omaha-8 because he’s not insane?


Mack: If your so sure of yourself, why don't you use Bayes's Theorum to come up with a better number.


Buzz: I don’t need a better number. Calling a bet with 9874 rainbow after a two tone flop of 653 and with only four opponents simply cannot be correct in a loose, low limit game because there are too many possible turn/river two-card combinations that would create a different nuts for high and the hand has no reasonable shot at low. Have you ever caught a mullet?

Buzz,


Thanks for the great Yossarian comparisson - I guess we are all crazy to be playing O/8 /images/smile.gif


While you are correct to fear the possible draws against your nut straight, I must disagree with you when you state you would fold this hand. Please see my post below - but basically, with the two overcards protecting your nut straight, you still have over half the deck to be a winner.


I'm not saying you have to crank it up, but to fold this one, you are taking a very negative approach to this game.


On the other hand, I must admit that flopping a straight that gets beat on the river is the most expensive hand in O/8.

"the great Yossarian comparisson"


iblucky4u2 - Thanks. /images/smile.gif


"I'm not saying you have to crank it up, but to fold this one, you are taking a very negative approach to this game."


I have to admit that it is a very tempting situation. After all, rakay has flopped the nut straight. Even if a card appears on the turn or river enabling a new nut high, there is no guarantee an opponent will have the necessary fit. But it’s tempting like flying into a candle flame is tempting to a moth.


This flop, 653, enables a 74 straight, which rakay has, but it also enables a low. While rakay can make a low, it is a poor low. Heads-up, IMHO, rakay has a very powerful fit with the flop, would be greatly favored to win for high, and might even win for low, but starting against a full table, I don’t hold out much hope for the low. That’s a negative point of view, I suppose, but I think it’s also a realistic point of view.


Rakay has 9s-8h-7d-4c and the flop 6h-5h-3c. I do like rakay’s overcards, but I fear they are not enough. You are correct; most cards in the deck are favorable to rakay. However there are two more cards, not just one, yet to appear. Two more cards roughly doubles the chance of a unfavorable card appearing.


Any three, five, or six pairs the board, enabling quads or a full house (nine cards). Any heart enables a flush (nine more cards). Any one of the other cards (27 cards) by itself would not hurt rakay - but (and here is where you may be going wrong) those cards come in two card combinations. By itself, the seven of clubs doesn’t hurt, and by itself the jack of clubs doesn’t hurt, but taken together, the seven of clubs and the jack of clubs enables a backdoor flush. Indeed, any running two clubs, a total of 36 more two-card combinations, enables a club flush. And the seven of clubs (or spades) with any eight, nine, or ten enables a better straight than rakay can make.


All in all, when you consider each possible two card combination, if I have counted correctly (never a guarantee there) I think there are 767 two card combinations out of a total of 990 that are not good for rakay because they enable a new nuts with which rakay’s hand wouldn’t fit, even with the two overcards. Yet with the flopped straight it's difficult for rakay to get off the hand, and getting off the hand if a scare care appears may not even be the proper play. (Play weak in low limit games and your opponents will run all over you - probably in higher limit games too).


Rakay should, if I have counted correctly, end up with the nuts for high only about 23% of the time. The other 77% of the time rakay will be facing a bet on the river and won’t know if the bet is coming from a low or from the nut high. This is a classic place to get whipsawed, with the nut low and the nut high raising each other. Very bad position, IMHO, to put yourself.


One who has not carefully thought about this situation ahead of time is likely to fall into the trap. Indeed, I have to admit that I have been in this particular trap more than once. You’re in the blind with a trash hand and you flop the nut straight. Since you have flopped the nuts, you bet the nuts, even though you realize you’re only playing for half the pot, and even though there is a flush draw for an opponent. Yeah. Been there. Done that. Whap!!! No thanks.


You might be able to make the hand work for you in a pot limit game by betting the pot. Or you might be able to make the hand pay off for you by playing better poker than me. Your post below got me to thinking.... I don't have all the answers. I'm still learning and open to suggestion.


Thanks for your input.


Buzz

I did some further calculations analyzing deciding to play past the flop. I assumed the same suits as Buzz posted.


Let's also assume that you continue to call as long as you have the nuts. If a third heart comes on the turn or the board pairs (18 cards), you fold having lost the small bet you put in on the flop. If a second club comes or a 7, 8, or 9 comes (13 cards), you still have the nuts but your hand has become more vulnerable. The other 14 cards are relatively safe, still leaving you vulnerable to hearts and pairs.


If on the river a heart comes or the baord pairs, you fold, losing a total of 3 small bets since the flop (1 small bet on the flop plus 1 big bet on the turn). If a club came on both the turn and the river you again lose 3 small bets. Same situation if the turn-river combination allows a bigger straight. Otherwise you win half the pot.


So how much do you win when you win? I'll assume the same number of players as posted. 6 small bets preflop, 4 small bets on the flop, 4 big bets on the turn, plus the action on the river. It seems unlikely that the pot will get jammed on the river when your straight is the nuts. Three likely scenarios are: 1) The small blind bets, you raise and everyone calls (8 big bets). 2) The small blind bets, you raise and only the small blind calls (4 big bets). 3) The small blind bets, you flat call and everyone else calls the single bet (4 big bets).


In scenario 1 the pot contains 34 small bets (SB), you win half (17 SB) and you put in 7 SB since the flop for a profit of 10 SB. In scenario 2 and 3 the pot contains 26 SB. In scenario 2, you put in 7 SB for a profit of 6 SB. In scenario 3 you put in 5 SB for a profit of 8 SB.


Multiplying the profit or loss by the probability of the the outcomes yields the following:


Scenario 1: +1.5 small bets

Scenario 2: +0.4 small bets

Scenario 3: +0.9 small bets


So calling unless you no longer have the nuts seems like a profitable stategy in this situation. Of course different betting scenarios for the flop and the turn will yield different results. If players start raising on the flop or the turn your expected return will decrease because it is costing you more to draw. In some situation with lots of raising you will show a small negative expectation.


The calculations were tedious so there is no guarantee that I didn't make a mistake.

The key, for me at least, to playing this hand is whether I think I can wind up with the nut high on the river against two or more nut lows. The things I'd consider are how much it will cost me to see the river, and how good a read I've got on the other players, and the chances of getting it capped on the end.


But the thing about omaha8 is that you can flop much bigger hands than this and still end up with nothing on the end, so why not wait for something better. If there's a positive EV here, it a small one. The hand has to be played passively. It's being played from the big blind so there's no advertising value. I'd be interested in hearing from limit players as to how they regard exploiting small EV's in general, especially in O8. Does it introduce a lot of variance? Does it require a bigger bankroll? Can playing these passive hands put them off their game?

Chaos - Thanks for taking the time. I went through and also re-calculated. I did it a little differently than you, but this time I reached the same general conclusion as you.


Looks like the optimum strategy for Rakay for this hand would be to hang in there as long as he held the nuts for high and to fold as soon as he didn’t. There are probably some negative aspects of playing in this “weak-tight” manner, but sure looks like that would be the way to play this hand.


I make it 6 small bets before the flop and 3 small bets from Rakay’s opponents on the second betting round, assuming no raising.


You’re going to have Rakay fold if a better nuts comes up on the turn or the river. O.K.


Assuming three opponents stay to see the turn, river, and showdown, and assuming no raising, and assuming Rakay is not quartered for high, when Rakay wins the high half of the pot, Rakay will win +8 small bets. When Rakay folds (without the nuts) after seeing ony one card, Rakay will lose 1 small bet. When Rakay folds (without the nuts) after seeing two more cards, Rakay will lose 3 small bets.


In that case, I make it:

584*8 = +4672

792*(-1) = -792

604*(-3) = -1812


In that case Rakay would show a profit by staying in the hand, e.v. = +1 small bet.


Even if only one opponent stayed to see the showdown those times when Rakay had the nuts,


584*6 = +3504

792*(-1) = -792

604*(-3) = -1812


Rakay would still show a small profit, e.v. = +1/2 small bet.


That looks good. Looks like Rakay should hang in there.


Let’s see what happens with some raising. Let’s say the betting is capped on the flop and also capped on the turn. And then, because of the size of the pot, let’s assume all three opponents stay for one more big bet on the river. And let’s continue to assume no quartering for high.


584*17 = +9928

792*(-4) = -3168

604*(-12) = -7248


In that case, Rakay would show a loss, but only about 1/4 of a small bet on the average. (e.v. = -0.25) (Actually, the flush draws would surely drop here and the loss might be as much as e.v. = -0.84).


Looks like the strategy doesn't work in a game with a lot of raising.


But seems like it works in a passive game, or even moderately passive game. Thanks, Chaos, for pointing it out.


Buzz

iblucky4u2 - Disregard my earlier posts. You were right all along, at least for a passive game. Looks like the best way to play the hand in a passive game is to check/call until the board is such that you no longer have the nuts.


My apologies for my error. Thanks for sticking to your guns and keeping after me.


Buzz

Rakay - I gave you some bad advice.


Looks like the way to play the hand is just as you did.


Sorry for my error.


Buzz

I think you have to be a very good player to make hands like that a garunteed profit (although still a small one IMO). I also think that playing small EV hands can deffinately introduce more varience into your game (and thus I tend to avoid the more vague ones since I am far from an expert). The problem I have with playing hands like this (and something that took some thought for me to realize) is that you really must play passively with them. They will just lose too often to make jamming the pot effective at winning money. The money I make from O8 mostly comes from hands with many outs that I jam the whole way. When you'll make a winner way more than your fair share with a certain hand, you want to win as much as you can with it. When you hold a hand with few outs and many caards that can beat it that is also up against a low, jamming is a big losing play IMO. My main point is that you can't push tenuous hands and thus it is harder to make money with them. Just my two cents.

No, thank you for volunteering so much for me to digest. All posts have been an incredible help to me.

rakay - These situations (flopped straights when there are also two or three low cards and two flush cards on the flop) seem to work out so poorly so often that my initial reaction was simply not to play.


Obviously it's very hard to fold the nuts. It's also very hard not to bet the nuts, especially when it's such a vulnerable nuts. The tendency is to want to protect your hand by betting. In addition, there is much to be said for playing tough, rather than weak, IMHO. Accordingly, I hadn't really considered just limping along and then folding if a better nuts comes on the turn or river.


But that tactic would seem to show a positive e.v. for this particular hand/flop - and might be a nice change of pace for my normally aggressive game.


Therefore, I also learned (and thus profited). There are some very fine thinkers and posters on this forum and I learn from exchanging ideas with them. Thanks for the post that started the process.


Buzz

Yes thanks for posting this hand. I too thought this hand was a loser as I posted earlier. But the math showed that passive play resulted in a small win much to my surprise.


I've heard many experienced Omaha players say "Flop a straight; lose the pot." Now we know you win enough when your hand holds up to more than offset your loses.

I can be stubborn like this - which can be a problem with hands like this /images/smile.gif. As others pointed out, with thesee type hands there is only a small +ev.


Without the over cards, there is a VERY strong case for folding this type of hand on the flop.


Peace