double pair?

[johnny005]

hi im fairly new to omaha/8 and wondering if it is profitable to play a double pair hand in late position, fold these hands right away if they dont hit a set

[chaos]

If you are dealt two pair and one of the pair is AA and one or both of the Aces are suited up I would consider playing the hand.

The only other two-pair hands that I would consider playing contain two big pairs with at least one of them suited up. The smaller the larger pair the less value being suited has. (KKTTs is a lot better hand than JJTTs) You do not want to play a big two pair hand out of position. You want to play these hands cheaply against a bunch of players.

[Buzz]

Johnny - Depends, in my humble opinion, on the double pair, and on their suitedness. (I really don't like rainbow hands much in this game).

A pair of aces and a pair of anything else seems playable, if at least single suited. If not suited, it depends.

KKQQ, KKJJ, KKTT, QQJJ, QQTT, and JJTT, in that order, also seem playable if at least single suited. If non-suited, I think you'll do better if you fold them before the flop, even KKQQn.

And that's it. No other double paired hands are playable, in my humble opinion. Blind play, of course, may involve different considerations.

Well... maybe you can play 2233 in position if at least single suited in some games and if double suited in some other games. But you need to recognize that 2233s and 2233d hands are sub-marginal hands and are also possible trap hands that can be tricky to play.

What about KK99-double-suited, the next hand in line, if on the button in a loose, passive game? Tempting. I'm not honestly sure I could resist.

What about KK99-single-suited or QQ99-double-suited? Well... those are tempting too. There's no sharp drop-off. The double paired hands just gradually get worse as the pairs get lower and the suitedness goes from double to single to non.

With KKQQ, you figure to catch at least one king and/or at least one queen on the flop almost one time in four. Here's the math:
1-C(44,3)/C(48,3) = 1-0.766 = 0.234

Some of that time you'll flop quads or a strong full house, but mostly you'll flop top set. In a loose game with flopped top set, you'll still probably need the board to pair to bring home a winner. Assuming you have no other card in your hand matching the rank of another card on the flop, that will happen about one time in three. Here's the math for seven outs on the flop and (when you miss on the flop) ten outs on the turn:
7/45+(38/45)*(10/44) = 0.156+0.192 = 0.347
Here's the math for seven outs on the flop and (when you miss on the flop) nine outs on the turn:
7/45+(38/45)*(9/44) = 0.156+0.173 = 0.328
Those combine to make about one time out of three.

If you only have six outs after the flop (and then nine outs after the turn), the probability of improving is a bit less, 0.306. Probably not enough difference between this and seven outs after the flop to make much of a difference in how to play the hand.

In addition, if you are playing KKQQs, you also have some chances to make a winning straight or winning flush.

You can probably make all the numbers pay off well enough for you to make playing KKQQ, if suited, profitable. What about KKQQ-rainbow? I don't know what to tell you. I'm going to hate the hand, but I'm going to see the flop with it anyway. The reason is if I saw a king or queen on the flop after I had folded KKQQn, the rise in my blood pressure wouldn't be good for me - and in addition, I couldn't stop myself from going on tilt.

So I'm going to play some of those marginal or sub-marginal hands purely for health reasons. But I don't honestly think they're profitable.

But what about a hand like 8833? There's nothing marginal about that dog.

The most likely scenario for a low pair after catching a piece of the flop is you flop a low set, do not improve, and end up with the same low set you flopped. Meanwhile, if the board doesn't pair, in a full, loose game and opponent has probably made a flush or straight.

When the board pairs and you thus do improve your low set, it is mostly by ending up with an "underboat," the worst kind of full house. Meanwhile, if the board does pair in a full, loose game, an opponent is more likely than not to have made a better full house than you.

Whenever the board has a pair, (depending on the cards in your hand), quads may be possible and in addition, six different grades of full house are (depending on your own cards) generally possible. With a low pair, making quads is fine, but when you make a full house, it is usually the lowest possible full house. And an opponent, in a full, loose game, usually has a better full house.

When there is a pair on the board in a full, loose game, it is more normal for there to be more than one hand with a full house or better than only one hand with a full house.

Thus it seems wise to me to generally avoid hands with low pairs. Sometimes it's hard to avoid getting in possible harms way, as with A233 hands or AA33 hands. But I damned sure don't have to see the flop with 8833 (or TT99d).

Enough.

Buzz