A couple 08 hands from today

[Moneyline]

UB 2/4 Tight game, with one huge calling station on my immediate left who played 75% of hands and would call to expensive streets with little (but would tighten up a bit by the river)

hand 1:

I limp UTG with A /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif, fish to my left calls, folded to tight/predictable sb who completes, tight/predictable BB checks.

Flop: K /images/graemlins/club.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif 3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Checked around

Turn: 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

SB checks, BB bets, I call, fish folds, sb folds

River: 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif

SB bets, I call

Hand 2: Fish calls UTG, folded to tight/predictable SB from hand 1 who completes, I check in BB with K /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Flop: 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

SB checks, I bet, fish calls, sb folds

Turn: T /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I bet, fish calls

River: 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I check, fish checks

[mosquito]

Hand #1, BB show 7's full of 3's. Against someone who is
a fish, or bluffs, I tend to call. Against the BB you
describe I fold.

Hand#2, you do well to get HU vs fish by betting the
two pair. Would prob play the hand the same.

[Buzz]

Moneyline -

Hand I.

How to play depends very much on how you are perceived by your opponents - but in general, after two checks, with two players yet to act behind me, holding your hand, I'd bet the flop.

There’s a chance you’ll run into an opponent with a pair of kings in hand, or a pair of threes in hand. But those are the “monsters under the bed” that are really not very likely at all.

There’s also a chance you’ll run into a full house (an opponent holding 3KXX). But more likely than that is the possibility you'll run into an opponent who simply has a three. And that possibility is more likely than not. Indeed, taken all together, immediately after the flop, it’s roughly 3 to 2 that at least one of your four opponents has at least flopped three of a kind, and possibly a full house or better.

And that more-likely-than-not possibility, for anyone with much experience playing Omaha-8, has a sobering effect on bluffing, especially from early position.

Just because those first two opponents have checked doesn’t mean one of them doesn’t have a three. There are two extremes here. At one end are the players who won't bet flopped trip threes because they think it's a weak holding, while at the other end are the players who think it's good enough to slow play or possibly check-raise. I like mixing up my play - but in general, when I flop trips, I bet - and I think most Omaha-8 players do likewise. But not everybody plays that way. At any rate, just because those first two opponents have checked doesn’t mean one of them doesn’t have a three.

But let’s temporarily assume that neither of the first two opponents <font color="white">_</font>does have a three. If that temporary assumption is correct, if neither of the first two opponents has a three, the tentative odds one of the two opponents yet to act behind you has a trip three or better flip flop to about 2 to 3. That’s still a great enough chance that you have to respect the possibility, but at least you have the odds on your side. Of course, we don’t know for sure that one of the blinds doesn’t have a three.

But neither do the two opponents yet to act behind you! Notice that neither of these opponents has position on the blinds if you bet.

If you bet, assuming you have credibility, everyone at the table (who doesn’t hold both of the missing threes) has to put you on at least trip threes, and possibly better. In the mind anyone yet to act behind you, not only does it seem very likely you have a three, but one of the blinds might also have a three, and might check-raise.

The downside of betting here yourself is if one of the blinds <font color="white">_</font>does have a full house or better, you’ll probably get check-raised. But that’s not likely. Much more likely is that anyone with trip threes (or even a full house or quad threes) will call and anyone without trip threes or better will fold.

There’s no way around knowing your opponents and you know them better than I do. Would one of the blinds be likely to play for a check raise, possibly risking missing a bet on this round and also risking ending up splitting the pot with low or even losing it to someone with an overpair who would have folded except for getting the free turn card? I think it depends on how you play yourself, and on how the players behind you play - but usually it’s not good strategy in Omaha-8 to give a free card. If the blinds are decent players, then flopping trip threes or better, they should not generally want to give a free card here.

Of course nothing is certain here - but I like betting on the second betting round much better than checking. I’d call it a semi-bluff, but I’ll admit it’s a thin semi-bluff, bordering on a pure bluff. Well... (rationalizing) you do have club possibilities and a back-door nut-low draw.

If you check, somebody is likely to bet before the action is on you again. Could be one of the players yet to act behind you will bet on the current (second) betting round, and in that case, I presume you fold to the bet. If it gets checked around, and you do get a free card, there’s a good chance (23/44 if you count missing clubs, fours, fives, sixes, sevens, and eights) the turn will be a favorable card for you.... and that one of the blinds will bet. And then it will be virtually impossible for you to know if the opponent betting has a full house or not. Suppose you make the club flush on the turn. You’re shouldn’t be <font color="white">_</font>drawing for a club flush when the board is paired, but if you <font color="white">_</font>make or <font color="white">_</font>have the nut club flush, that’s a different story, even though the board is paired. When you <font color="white">_</font>have the nut club flush but the board is paired, you have to decide if the opponent betting really has a full house or not. You’d obviously prefer to avoid this dilemma, and that’s a reason to not be drawing for a flush when the board is already paired.

But if the turn is a four, five, six, seven, or eight (especially if also a club) you’ll be tempted to call a bet to see the river. And it the turn is a high club, you’ll have the club flush for free.

What to do, What to do.... Do you see that you might avoid the problem by betting on the second betting round after the blinds check?

[ QUOTE ]
SB bets, I call

[/ QUOTE ]

Since SB already folded, I presume you mean BB bets.

If you had bet on the second betting round, regardless of what you did on the third betting round, BB very well might not be betting here without a full house. The way things are, you're less sure. It looks like a full house or better, but maybe not. And so you call, because you can't really tell very well.

In my humble opinion, one of the principal reasons you make the bet on the second betting round is to get a better idea of what your opponents are holding. That's my thinking anyhow.

Hand II.
Is there a possibility that Mr. Fish will fold a poor low if you bet the river? If so, it’s a good bet. If not you’re probably splitting the pot. That means you’ll get nothing from Mr. Fish. Of course you could get scooped here, because you have no low and not much of a high. But I think it’s worth risking one big bet to possibly win 2.5 big bets instead of 0.25 big bets.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[wgarvin]

Great post, Buzz, on Hand 1 and why it is desirable to bet scareflops like this one in MP. Presumably you fold to a raise from any player meriting the description "tight/predictable" (Rare birds in the Party 20/40 game where I mostly play).

On hand 2, if you bet the river what do you do if the fish bares his gills and raises? This could be the nut flush; it could be the nut low. I don't see that one can fold here. With a modest but playable HtoHead holding on the river like 2pr is it not best to check-call. You avoid losing 2 BBs some of the time - you will induce a bluff occasionally - and when (as will be the case most of the time) you are splitting the pot, it is immaterial whether you bet or check. Only the opinion of one seeking enlightenment ...

[Yads]

I like the way you played both hands although I might bet hand 1 on the flop, you might just take it down right there and if you get raised then you can safely assume somebody has trips or better and proceed from there. There's a good chance you might also fold out other A2s who didn't hit any part of that board, thereby increasing your equity if the backdoor low does come.

Btw, what's your screename on UB? I'm assuming you play against BreezeCastle and emptyseat88 a lot.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, what's your screename on UB? I'm assuming you play against BreezeCastle and emptyseat88 a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm noted... Empty Seat is supposed to be Scott Fishman, right?

[Moneyline]

Hand 1: My flush is good. BB shows 8h Td 3s 4d for flopped trips that didn't improve.

Hand 2: I scoop. Fish shows 5h Th 4h 5d for a turned 2 pair.

[Moneyline]

OK, nevermind... i played with empty seat today and if he's Scott Fishman then the crew is in bigger trouble than i thought.

[Beavis68]

He is fischman.

[Yads]

No he's definitely Fischman and I wasn't being sarcastic. Do you play with BreezeCastle as well? Fischman is very tight, what did you notice that made you think twice?

[Moneyline]

I played with BreezeCastle and Fischman for the first time today in a very loose, aggressive game. I was actually paying almost no attention to the game because I was 5 tabling to get through the Empire bonus. As an aside, I usually never do this at 08, but I knew I could win just by playing like a rock at that particular table.

Anyway, I was just surprised that Fischman would be playing 2/4... if I had the kind of coin that comes along with two WSOP bracelets I hope I'd be able to find a bigger game. Many months ago I played against Dutch Boyd in a 3 handed 1/2 game, so perhaps "the crew" isn't doing so great financially... but perhaps the are, I don't know.

[Yads]

Well the reason Fischman just multi tables the 2/4 and 3/6 O8 games is because A. the games are super soft and B. He's a host so he doesn't have to worry about the rake at that level. You can make a comfortable living 2 or 3 tabling 2/4 O8 and getting 100% rake back and every once in a while playing in the 30/60 games, which I'm sure he does.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably you fold to a raise from any player meriting the description "tight/predictable"

[/ QUOTE ]

wgarvin - That seems a reasonable plan. But although folding might well be my course of action, betting while planning to fold if raised by a “tight/predictable” player would not exactly be my approach. I try to understand what opponents are thinking. When I make a bet and somebody raises, unless I expected a raise, I give consideration to why that person raised. It isn’t just the type of opponent who made the raise, but also what motivated the raise.

I think you do at least put an opponent who raises here on trip threes. Indeed, a raise looks very much like a full house - but a tight/predictable aggressive player might make a raise without a full house. And in any event, how a solid opponent might play depends somewhat on their perception of you. I think of myself as a solid player, but I might raise without a full house, depending mainly on my opponents and the effect I wanted to achieve. But raising without at least a three - that’s whacko.

[ QUOTE ]
On hand 2, if you bet the river what do you do if the fish bares his gills and raises?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fish raises, then you made a mistake by betting this trash in the first place. (Calling seems wrong but folding also seems wrong).

If you‘re playing in a foreign country and if this will be your last hand before flying home, and if you’ll never see these opponents again, then you fold to the raise.

But if you’re on your home turf, then I think you bite the bullet and call. No hand is an island.

[ QUOTE ]
With a modest but playable HtoHead holding on the river like 2pr is it not best to check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check/calling could be best. If there is a big risk of getting raised, it probably is best.

But otherwise, if you sense only a minimal risk of getting raised, maybe you want to go ahead and try to take the whole pot by betting, especially if your opponent has non-tenacious tendencies.

When I read the post that started this thread, somehow it didn’t seem like there would not be much of a risk of getting raised. But actually that would depend on a number of factors.

[ QUOTE ]
You avoid losing 2 BBs some of the time - you will induce a bluff occasionally

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. There is no way around knowing your opponents and tailoring your play to how you expect them to react.

[ QUOTE ]
- and when (as will be the case most of the time) you are splitting the pot, it is immaterial whether you bet or check.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not immaterial if your opponent folds to your bet and you scoop the pot! (And that’s the objective of the bet).

There are lots of possibilities. Sometimes an opponent will call with no low at all, and with an even worse high hand than Hero’s.

But I have to admit that I would not want to get raised - and if I did get raised, I would rue my original bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Only the opinion of one seeking enlightenment

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m seeking enlightenment too. Thanks for your thought provoking response.

Buzz