how bad did i play this?

[lucas9000]

$5/$10 Omaha Hi/Lo

Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: hero ( $249.25 )
Seat 2: x ( $226 )
Seat 3: x ( $259.5 )
Seat 4: x ( $121 )
Seat 5: x ( $162 )
Seat 6: x ( $311.75 )
Seat 7: bystander ( $216.5 )
Seat 8: villain ( $374 )
Seat 9: sb ( $117.5 )
sb posts small blind [$2].
hero posts big blind [$5].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to hero [ Ks Qh Qd As ]
x folds.
x folds.
x folds.
x folds.
x folds.
bystander calls [$5].
villain raises [$10].
sb folds.
hero calls [$5].
bystander calls [$5].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3h, 4c, Qs ]
hero checks.
bystander checks.
villain bets [$5].
hero raises [$10].
bystander folds.
villain calls [$5].
** Dealing Turn ** [ 7c ]
hero bets [$10].
villain calls [$10].
** Dealing River ** [ Th ]
hero bets [$10].
villain calls [$10].
hero shows [ Ks, Qh, Qd, As ] three of a kind, queens.
villain shows [ 4s, 3d, 6s, Ac ] two pairs, fours and threes.
villain shows 7,6,4,3,A for low.
hero wins $44.5 from the main pot with three of a kind, queens.
villain wins Lo ($44.5) from the main pot with 7,6,4,3,A.

[FeliciaLee]

Am I reading this correctly? It seems like you played it 100% correctly. What am I missing?

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[lucas9000]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I reading this correctly? It seems like you played it 100% correctly. What am I missing?

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

so driving the other guy out on the flop with the check-raise was ok? i was concerned about whether i should have kept him in.

[Klak]

i dont think the checkraise is really neccessary. i dont checkraise much in this game unless i have a likely scoop or 3/4.

[FeliciaLee]

See, I didn't even notice the check-raise. I have a hard time reading hand histories, unless they are written up in "story" fashion.

That is why I asked "what am I missing?"

I rarely check-raise either in O8. In loose/passive games, there is hardly ever a need to do it. Maybe if it's HU and I'm against a maniac or calling station and have a virtually unbeatable hand, so I want to get more in the pot, but those times are few and far between.

Sorry I didn't read it more carefully. It's like reading Greek, lol.

Yeah, I'm old.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Phat Mack]

so driving the other guy out on the flop with the check-raise was ok? i was concerned about whether i should have kept him in.

Interesting question.

On the flop, you have top set and a backdoor spade draw. On the other hand, there are two low cards, and the low cards (3c 4h) look straighty.

One way to look at this is that if you win high, you want two callers paying you off. But the contrary view is that your high hand is vulnerable and must be protected, so which view is correct?

On the turn, 7/45 of the deck will make you full or give you quads, solidifying your high. But A's, 2's, 5's, 6's and 7's enable a straight (19/45). Plus, any non-pairing club or heart enables a flush draw.

Is it possible to drive out someone wrapped around the 3c 4h with a check raise on the flop? If you do drive out a hand with a check raise, what kind of hand would it be?

A couple of thoughts: check raising couldn't drive out any real threats to your hand (except the runner-runner flush draws), but getting heads up prevented you from being expensively outplayed on the last two rounds (not to be sneered at when you are playing this hand from up front).

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3h, 4c, Qs ]
hero checks.
bystander checks.
villain bets [$5].
hero raises [$10].

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucas - As I see it, there are two main considerations.

• (1) You don't want to risk giving a free card.

• (2) You want as many paying opponents as possible

• There is also some chance a bet will win it for you here. But no bet, no chance.

• You'd like to figure out a way to scoop. I think betting directly is the best way. Your hand is not strong enough to slow-play, and a check-raise probably doesn't have as good a chance as a direct bet of getting rid of both opponents.

(1) The danger of a free card should be obvious. You risk having an opponent draw out on you.

(2) I don't think you want to chase just one opponent away because there probably is little or no profit in the hand unless you have at least two opponents. Heads-up, you'll most likely be splitting the pot and merely getting back your own investment.

Obviously you don't want someone hanging around who will draw out on you and take away all or part of your pot, but I think you can more than compensate for the times when this happens by making your opponents pay for the times they don't draw out on you.

You'll make a winning full house or quads 341/990, and your set of queens might win the other 549/990. The 341/990 times you make a full house or quads will be over-kill against just one opponent.

I know there are those who will disagree with me, but I don't like high-only hands when heads-up - especially after a flop with two or three low cards. I like this hand/flop much better with more (paying) opponents.

Check-raising is simply not the best way to accomplish what should be your goals.

Just my opinion.

Buzz




scratch:
21+266+48+6

[Buzz]

Hi Mack - Interesting, thoughtful, thought provoking post.

[ QUOTE ]
getting heads up prevented you from being expensively outplayed on the last two rounds (not to be sneered at when you are playing this hand from up front).

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

The problem with playing this high-only hand, especially after a two-low-card flop, is that you'll be putting your own chips at risk with very little chance of winning anything more than half of the small blind.

You can easily lose your whole investment in this pot to a small straight. And for what? To win a dollar?

I don't think you want to play this hand/flop heads-up as much as you want more customers (despite the risks that come with more opponents and the easier time you may have playing against just one opponent).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Phat Mack]

I don't think you want to play this hand/flop heads-up as much as you want more customers (despite the risks that come with more opponents and the easier time you may have playing against just one opponent).

I agree. There's no reason to drive anybody out, and anybody who would be driven out is dead money. The only way such a play might be justified is if, for some reason, top set was married to his hand and was determined to show it down. Even then, I'd probably want everyone in. I'd usually bet out with this hand on the flop, and then maybe check-call the 7 on 4th street.

[Moneyline]

I would have played the hand the same way. The preflop raiser will often bet here even if he has a hand like A3xx that got counterfeited and a raise might win you the whole pot on the flop. A raise puts pressure on non-nut low draws and may cause them to fold, even though it didn't work this time.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The preflop raiser will often bet here even if he has a hand like A3xx that got counterfeited

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneyline - Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
and a raise might win you the whole pot on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, it might.

Check-raising from the big blind after a favorable flop is not a thing I do much, but I watch when my opponents do it.

When three have seen the flop, I think a check-raise from the big blind after a flop like this one is (much) more likely to get you one-on-one with the late position bettor (exactly as happened here) than induce both opponents to fold.

Assuming both players know the game well and neither is a fish, I think a check-raise is most likely to knock out Bystander and get Hero one-on-one with Villain. However, Hero has a hand/flop that is more potentially profitable against two opponents than against one opponent.

If you were just playing for high, as in Texas hold 'em, then I think the play (check-raise on the second betting round) has merit. Against an opponent who would almost always bet after I checked, I'd use the play as a defensive ploy.

If low was not possible, and with an overly aggressive Button, I can see check-raising on the second betting round with a high-only hand in Omaha-8 (or even after this particular flop against many opponents). But you really should not want to play this hand one-on-one after this flop because only about 14% of the time will low not become enabled. Except for that 14%, you're only playing for half the pot while your opponent may be playing for the whole pot!

And although with an overly aggressive Button, the risk may be slim, I wouldn't want to give a free card after this flop. That would be, I think, a blunder, a "big" mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
A raise puts pressure on non-nut low draws and may cause them to fold,

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
even though it didn't work this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it won't work most times.

Assuming Villain knows the game, I'd guess Villain thinks he has a good one-on-one starting hand.

Considering the apparent tightness of the game, I'd guess Villain's pre-flop raise is mainly an attempt to get one-on-one, either immediately or after the flop.

Villain might figure that even if the pre-flop raise is called by more than one opponent, many or most flops won't fit anyone who acts ahead of him. If so, everybody might check - and then Villain might scoop with a single bet on the second betting round. That's more of a Texas hold 'em play than an Omaha-8 play, but Villain might think it has a chance to work here. And even if someone does want to continue after the flop, Villain, if holding a good one-on-one hand (as I would suspect), will be playing one-on-one with postion.

Thus I wouldn't particularly put Villain on the classical raising hand from the button (ie. A2XX).

But you can't rule out A2XX either.

At any rate, after both Hero and Bystander have checked the flop, Villain is more or less expected to bet (and does). The bet is probably more of a positional bet than a bet representing a fit with the flop, but a fit with this flop is a distinct possibility - and with some opponents very likely.

I'm assuming both Bystander and Villain know how to play the game reasonably well. If so, I think it was a major screw-up, a blunder, for Hero to have checked this flop. (Sorry to be so blunt, Lucas, if you're reading this).

But Hero didn't bet the flop and we're now at the point where it's Hero's turn to act after Villain has bet.

In general, I think you want to use the line of play that has the best chance of success against the particular group of opponents you're facing. Since different groups of opponents play differently, it's hard to say with certainty what that is.

With the information given, it's hard to say what Bystander will do if Hero calls. But even not knowing Bystander, a fold to a check-raise (with the possibility of a re-raise by Villain and a cap by Hero) is not difficult to predict. Thus the check-raise is likely to induce Bystander to fold. (Not guaranteed, just likely, in my humble opinion).

And that brings us back to Villain, who now will have succeeded in getting one-on-one, if that was a goal of his, and who will be facing a second betting round check-raise from an out of position Hero.

Do you really think Villain is going to fold to the check-raise?? Of course that depends on Villain - and we don't know Villain - but we're playing Omaha-8, not Texas hold 'em.

I'll agree there's a possibility Villain will fold to the check-raise. However, it seems only a slim possibility. I think Villain will most likely call and very possibly relish having gotten heads-up with position and a good one-on-one starting hand.

If Hero wanted to get both opponents to fold, wouldn't it have been better for Hero to have directly bet this flop?

But having not done that, aren't Hero's chances of turning a profit with a high-only top-set hand after a flop with two low cards much better against two opponents than against one?

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[iblucky4u2]

Seems that everyone is debating the check-raise. My two cents is that the check-raise is very bad. Just bet out and hope both call.

My real point deals with your pre-flop, passive call of a button raise. NOW is the time to reraise - before there are twoo low cards. The SB is already out, and you have a great hand for scooping!

If the flop misses, easy fold.

Once the board hits, hope for the board to pair or some more high cards to come. If not, just quietly check/call and hope your Q's hold up for high.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
If low was not possible, and with an overly aggressive Button, I can see check-raising on the second betting round with a high-only hand in Omaha-8 (or even after this particular flop against many opponents). But you really should not want to play this hand one-on-one after this flop because only about <font color="red">14%</font> of the time will low not become enabled. Except for that <font color="red">14%</font> , you're only playing for half the pot while your opponent may be playing for the whole pot!

[/ QUOTE ]

should read

If low was not possible, and with an overly aggressive Button, I can see check-raising on the second betting round with a high-only hand in Omaha-8 (or even after this particular flop against many opponents). But you really should not want to play this hand one-on-one after this flop because only about <font color="blue">21%</font> of the time will low not become enabled. Except for that <font color="blue">21%</font>, you're only playing for half the pot while your opponent may be playing for the whole pot!

(I think 21% is correct). I was watching the academy awards, not thinking about the post when it popped into my head that I had used 28 instead of 24 to start the math. Funny how your mind works.

My apologies for my math error.

Buzz

[Moneyline]

Thank you for your comments, Buzz. As always, they are greatly appreciated...

After reading your posts (and those of others) betting out seems like the better play, but I still have one major reservation. My comments here may be a little jumbled, so bear with me...

Good outcomes for this flop are either taking the pot down immediately or having both players pay to see the turn. Bad outcomes are getting it checked around, or getting the pot heads up. Before I didn't think getting it heads/up was so bad, but you (and others) have convinced me otherwise. With this in mind, betting seems better.

Here is my reservation. In hold 'em, my favorite type of opponent to play against in a short handed pot is one who will bet into a raiser when he/she flops well, but check/folds when the flop misses. This type of player is remarkably easy to read, and, IMO is doomed to lose. Granted, we're talking about 08, not hold 'em, but it seems to me that by betting out in situations like this you open yourself up to people taking shots at you when you check. I suppose in this particular situation a bet might easily look like A2xx or a few other hands to the other players in the pot, but they'll know you have something decent. I come from a hold 'em background and I'm still learning 08, so I realize that it's very possible this concept doesn't apply as much (or at all) to 08. So my question to you (and others) is: Are the negatives associated with being potentially easy to read by betting in situations where you flop well and check/folding when you don't, outweighed by the positive factors of betting. If yes, how much so?

I realize that last paragraph is grammatically awful, but any comments would be greatly appreciated...

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
My real point deals with your pre-flop, passive call of a button raise. NOW is the time to reraise - before there are two low cards. The SB is already out, and you have a great hand for scooping!

If the flop misses, easy fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi iblucky4u2 - That's fine when you have a fit with the flop, but seven times out of eight there won't be a queen on the flop. It's true there are some other flops that work. Let's say you like one flop out of four with that particular high-only hand.

With two opponents, you're going to collect an extra two bets (from that first betting round) when you scoop. Even if you scoop the one time out of four you like the flop, you'll only win two extra bets from your two opponents. And the three times out of four you don't like the flop will cost you three extra bets.

Thus you show a net loss by raising before the flop with this hand against two opponents.

You might think you'd break even against three opponents, but you won't always win the one time out of four you like the flop. And you won't always scoop when you do win.

Think I'm wrong about only liking one out of four flops with that hand? Try this: Take A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif out of a deck to represent your hand, shuffle the remaining 48 cards, and start dealing out three cards to represent flops. After you take out the four cards for your hand, there will be 48 cards left in the stub, enough to deal out 16 flops.

If you run through the 48 card stub ten times, shuffling between each time and dealing out a total of 160 flops, I don't think you'll like more than one flop out of four, and you very well may not even like that many.

I just tried it myself (one time through the stub) and only liked two flops (both with a queen) out of sixteen. Try it and see for yourself if you don't believe me. Or reshuffle the 48 card stub each time, in between three card flops if my short-cut method doesn't seem quite right to you. However you do it, after a hundred trials or so, I think you won't like more than one flop out of four.

Raising before the flop with this sort of hand with less than five (or maybe more - I haven't worked it out exactly) opponents who will call your raise is not a huge mistake, but I think it represents a small leak in your profits. Seems easy enough to correct.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that by betting out in situations like this you open yourself up to people taking shots at you when you check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneyline - Well... it depends, but yes, you do. Just as in Texas hold 'em, when you check, someone behind you will usually bet. A difference between Omaha-8 and Texas hold 'em is it will be a pot shot less often in Omaha-8. That is, the bet will more often come from someone with a nice flop fit.

But in a short-handed game, seems like an occasional positional bet would be very much in order.

Thus when Hero and Bystander both check, they both should fully expect Villain to make a (possibly positional) bet. And when they check and Villain subsequently bets, they cannot tell whether or not Villain has a flop fit or is merely making a positional bet.

Usually a bet by the player in last betting position after a number of checks will not take down the pot. Some or all of those checkers will almost always call the bet.

However, when only three (including the blind) have seen the flop, that's a different story. Most knowledgable Omaha-8 players will take a chance and at least occasionally bluff or semi-bluff from last position.

When not many opponents see the flop, the game becomes much more of a positional game.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose in this particular situation a bet might easily look like A2xx or a few other hands to the other players in the pot, but they'll know you have something decent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This particular situation is a short-handed situation. Bets are often less substantive than when more opponents have seen the flop. About half the time, someone in a ten handed game is dealt a hand with at least one ace and at least one deuce. A player who has an ace and a deuce is going to want to see the flop. When two of your opponents have seen the flop, especially voluntarily, and when you don't have A2XX (or even when you do), you have to wonder if one or both of them has A2XX. About half the time, one or both of your opponents will have A2XX.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the negatives associated with being potentially easy to read by betting in situations where you flop well and check/folding when you don't, outweighed by the positive factors of betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. Tough question.

I guess my answer is, "Yes."

After this particular flop, without a fit I would check/fold. That is, I would not bluff into this particular flop (34Q), or indeed any flop with two low cards. (I might semi-bluff, as with 456X)

Thus if I played, I would have some sort of flop fit. I wouldn't necessarily need a flopped set of queens to play, and if I played, I might either bet, check/call, or check/raise. I'd bet more often than check/call, and would only rarely check/raise.

Does that make me easy to read?

On the second betting round, from early position, I'm playing when I flop well and I'm generally check/folding when I don't. It's just that simple. Well... not quite. Short handed with the right vibrations from my opponents, and on certain flops, I might try to steal one. If I did try, I'd think there was a reasonable chance of success. (Otherwise I wouldn't try). If I played, presumably after flopping well, I might bet or I might check. If raised, I might limp or I might re-raise. If I was trying to steal one, if raised I'd probably, but might not, fold.

The above is for first position. For second position, I would play the same, except that if the first position player bet, I would fold when I didn't flop well and I might either limp or raise, depending mainly on what I thought the effect of my action would be on my opponents.

Mid position would be much, but not exactly the same. Late position would be a bit different and would depend on how the players in front of me had acted.

Do you think that's easy to read?

[ QUOTE ]
If yes, how much so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I don't think you want to be easy to read, but you do need to bet in some situations even when it seems your bet must be transparent.

Tough question.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[gergery]

Very interesting hand, and a situation that comes up a lot.

I think calling is best here, but only slightly better than betting out. Check-raising is the worst option.

The short version is that on the flop, you have a small advantage vs. your opponents here such that getting more money in is EV positive. But the turn card will drastically change your hand’s value to either way ahead with close to 75% equity in the pot, or slightly behind needing to dodge a few cards to secure high or ~45% equity. AND, if you end up in the 45% equity, there will be large uncertainty for you, meaning you could easily make a mistake. Furthermore, the 45% scenario will happen very frequently almost half the time. So to paraphrase from Ed Miller’s book, “sometimes betting out when you have a small advantage is EV+, but waiting and betting out what you have a large advantage and will get a lot of information on the next card is EVEN MORE eV+”

Start with what your equity is here. I made some simple assumptions and arrived at the following:

Scenario 1: Equity with 0 opponents (ie. everyone folds). You win $30.

Scenario 2: Equity with 1 opponent (1 guy folds). About $21. I got that by figuring you each put in another $25 to the river, and maybe 10% of the time you get scooped by straight, 20% of the time you scoop, and 70% of the time you split.

Scenario 3: Equity with 2 opponents (no one folds). About $27. Same methodology. Splitting is worth about $27 and happens 70% of time, you lose -$25 about 15% of the time and scoop +$70 about 20% of the time.

So let’s say you consider two options. 1) Bet out, 2) Check-call. So how does Bet out differ from check-call? Sometimes you get everyone to fold, that’s good, but unlikely to happen. Sometimes you have worse equity in the pot and get raised, that’s bad. Sometimes your bet out gets 2nd player to fold when he would have called if you had check-called, that’s bad since we know scenario 3 is better than scenario 2. So what’s the conclusion there? Both options are pretty close.

But don’t you need to protect your hand here? Well, let’s look at hand equity here. 34QQ vs. two other typical hands is about 38% equity or so, meaning that if both opponents stay in you are usually making money by betting. But what if one opponent stays? He only needs to have 3 low cards with a gutshot to be ahead of you here. Yes, its true, run twodimes. If he has a moderate hand like A56 here, you are a significant underdog. But given his range of hands, you are probably ahead of 1 opponent, and probably ahead of two. BUT, you are not ahead by much. With your opponents actual hand here you are a 2:1 favorite, meaning an add’l $5 bet is worth about $0.70 in equity.

Additionally, you need to deduct the times that you’ll make a mistake on a later street. If any A,2,5,6,7, hits, then you have lost low almost for sure, and need to either hit your set if you’re behind, or dodge a straight if you’re ahead, AND that only gets you half the pot. So roughly half the deck leaves you wondering whether you’ll get lucky to get just half the pot. Net, there is not a lot that needs protecting.

Let’s look at what your opponents _should_ do. If you bet out, any opponent with two low cards would be correct to call if they knew your hand. So calling your bet is not making a mistake. And we just saw above that putting fresh money in the pot is only a slight mistake if a mistake at all. On the other hand, what if you check? Then any hand with 3 or more high cards is making a mistake by betting, and a big one since they are drawing close to dead. Net, there is one range of opponents hands that can make a big mistake here: high card hands that will fold if you bet, but bet if you check.

But what about taking control of the hand? Doesn’t matter a lot. If your opponent hits a good low or a straight, he’s staying til the end anyway. If he doesn’t, they you want him in the pot as your hand is best. There are almost no hands better than yours that will fold.

Net, check-calling here doesn’t give up very much, disguises your hand, and lets you make a much higher EV decision on the turn.

--Greg

[iblucky4u2]

Buzz,

You are the odds-master. I just find it hard to believe that out of 48 hands, you only liked 2. There will be a number of 2 cards to the nut flush, JT type flops that give you a wrap str8 or the random AAx or KKx flop.

I understand that high hands are underdogs to random hands, but once there is money in the pot, it makes great sends (to me) to re-raise here. The limpers might fold for 2 more bets which might make the QQ good for high. Lots of good things a re-raise does here.

There are additional benefits - varying your raise standards keep opponents from putting you on A2 when you raise. For the games where the players are totally unconscience, a PF re-raise can even be good for a bluff.

But this is just me spouting a high-only hand - which I do have a preference for.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it hard to believe that out of 48 hands, you only liked 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

iblucky4u2 - (flops, not hands) Somehow I think I'd usually like four. Try it yourself and see. I'd be surprised if you averaged above four.

[ QUOTE ]
The limpers might fold for 2 more bets which might make the QQ good for high. Lots of good things a re-raise does here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that good things happen when you bet and raise and bad things happen when you check and call - but I feel strongly that you want to just call in this particular case. A raise here only seems worth while if you knock out an opponent who would take away all or part of a pot you would otherwise win. I don't think that will happen enough in this particular situation. And it should be very clear to you that you won't really like many flops.

[ QUOTE ]
There are additional benefits - varying your raise standards keep opponents from putting you on A2 when you raise. For the games where the players are totally unconscience, a PF re-raise can even be good for a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I think it partly depends on your playing style. There are different styles that work well.

[ QUOTE ]
But this is just me spouting a high-only hand - which I do have a preference for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like high-only hands too. But I like more opponents seeing the flop so that when I do connect with the flop (roughly 20% to 25% of the time) I'll have some customers.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[chaos]

I like to occasionally throw in a raise with a high only hand for deception. But I want position and at least four callers ahead of me.