I HATE Trips (or: There Really ARE Monsters Under the Bed)

[Jeffrey Biship]

For some reason trips have been giving me fits lately in both HE and O8. Here are just two of those hands, both from .50/1.00 Omaha 8.

Hand 1:

In the unraised big blind with Tc9c8d4h. Three limpers and the small blind make five to the flop for one bet.

Flop: Ts Th 3c

I bet, get two callers.

Turn: 4s

I bet, get two callers.

River: 7d

I bet, get raised, third player cold-calls. I reraise, raiser caps, cold caller calls two more. I call.

I lose to JhTd8h7c and a back door low of AhQh9h2h.

I figure I "only" made one mistake in this hand. What's your count? Should I have folded after it gets capped?

Hand 2:

I limp 2 off the button with KhQsTs9s. The cut off raises. The next FIVE players call. I call, too. Seven to the flop for two bets.

Flop: QcQd6h.

It's checked to the raiser who bets. EVERYONE calls. No low draw. No flush draw. No straight draw. It gets back to me and I think, "Hell, I've got between 6 and 10 outs to scoop. I may as well raise," and do so. EVERYONE calls. I mentally call for a new setup.

Turn: 5s

Checked to me, I decide to retain the initiative and bet again. EVERYONE calls.

River: 6s

It gets checked to me. I know I'm beat, but there's no way I win this huge pot by just checking it down. I go ahead bet again. TWO people call. Ad2s6c5c (Who knew that the winner of the pot was dead money!) beats AhQhJs7s and my third best hand.

Was raising the flop a mistake here? I mean, look at all that dead money! Was betting the turn a mistake here? Once again--DEAD MONEY! Was betting the river really THAT big of a mistake here?

Jeff

I don't mind having it pointed out that I'm a bad player, but please do me the courtesy of not acting like I've never considered the possibility. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Buzz]

Hi Jeff - When you flop trips, you need a good kicker. You really want an ace for your kicker.

Hand 1 - With Tc9c8d4h, you don't have a decent kicker. That written, I would play the hand the same as you up to the river. At that point I would just check and call.

Hand 2 - "I limp 2 off the button with KhQsTs9s."

In a very passive game where there was virtually no chance of a raise I might limp with this piece of cheese. If I thought there was a reasonable possibility of a raise behind me, I'd tend to fold it from 2 off the button. I think "eyehole" hands like this one are more playable in Omaha-high than in Omaha-8.

"Flop: QcQd6h. It's checked to the raiser who bets. EVERYONE calls"

You have ten outs. Thus your hand odds are 35 to 10 or 3.5 to 1 against you. With hand odds of 3.5 to 1, you will need at least four players seeing your raise to have odds to raise. After six opponents have already put money in the pot on this betting round, you will almost surely have at least the needed four opponents calling your bet. Thus you have favorable odds to raise here. In addition, raising here is good for your table image.

"Turn: 5s Checked to me, I decide to retain the initiative and bet again. EVERYONE calls."

Seems reasonable. With this many expected callers, you're still getting favorable odds to initiate a bet. And you want to make the low draws pay.

"River: 7d"

A disaster for you. You not only missed your full house, but now a straight will beat your trips and there are three possible two card combinations that will make a straight. In addition, an opponent might well have a full house, or even have you out-kicked with AQXX. You are facing too many opponents to think your trip queens with a king kicker will win. 98XX, 84XX, 43XX, AQXX, Q6XX, Q5XX, Q7XX, 55XX, 66XX and 77XX all will beat you for high. Plus with 765 on the board and this many opponents, you're only playing for the high half of the pot.

At this point, in my humble opinion you should treat this hand the same as you'd treat any draw that missed.

"Was raising the flop a mistake here? ....."

No. Not at all. It was a good bet. You simply missed your draw and lost your bet.

"Was betting the turn a mistake here? ....."

No. Again you simply missed your draw and lost your bet. When you bet that you will make a full house, you expect to usually lose your bet, but with six callers, you will win enough when you do make your full house to justify your bet. This time you simply lost your turn bet (because you didn't make a full house on the river).

"Was betting the river really THAT big of a mistake here?"

I think it was a mistake, at least in the game your are describing. In another game where your bet might chase out non-nut high hands like straights, it might not be "that" much of a mistake, (but with full house possibilities out there, I think it still would be a mistake). Here you ended up costing youself four big bets on the fourth betting round. An error that costs you four big bets in a loose game like this one doesn't exactly seem a major error, but it does seem more than a minor error. Maybe it's an intermediate error, if there is such a thing.

As noted above, you lost your second round bet when you didn't turn a full house. Similarly, you lost your third round bet when you didn't river a full house. You made two bets with favorable-odds but, alas, lost them both. If you bet on a certain horse in a particular race and lost, would you then buy another losing ticket for the same horse/race? That's what betting on the river amounts to here.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[chaos]

Hand 1:

I agree with Buzz, you played way too aggressively on the river.
You only have trips with a week kicker. The board is paired so there is a good chance of someone having a full house. Also a low is possible so you are only playing for half the pot. Check and call if it is only one bet back to you. If it is two bets when it gets back to you, I would fold here.

Hand 2:

I think you did fine until the river. You should have checked. You knew you were beat, so why waste a bet.

You seem to be overvaluing a hand like trips. You can easily lose to someone with trips and a bigger kicker unless you have an Ace.
.
Having high trips is a significantly worse hand than having top set (where you have two of the rank in your hand and flop one). This is because it opens up the possibility of a full house. High trips are a drawing hand. You want to make the nut full house. This is not so easy to do unless you hit a high card in your hand. An overcard on the turn or river can give someone with a pocket pair a larger full house.

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz,

Thanks for the comments.

"You made two bets with favorable-odds but, alas, lost them both. If you bet on a certain horse in a particular race and lost, would you then buy another losing ticket for the same horse/race? That's what betting on the river amounts to here."

Great line, Buzz. Thanks again for your feedback.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Biship]

Chaos,

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated, however let me clear up one minor point:

Hand 1:

"I agree with Buzz, you played way too aggressively on the river. You only have trips with a week kicker."

I actually had the second nut full house on the first hand.

"Having high trips is a significantly worse hand than having top set (where you have two of the rank in your hand and flop one). This is because it opens up the possibility of a full house."

I'm aware of this, which is why I find trips to be a troubling hand. It seems too good to just roll over and check-call or even fold outright, but that's what I want to do when I get it.

I think maybe I'll just start folding it unless I have trips with the ace.

Thanks again for your comments.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz,

One other thing:

"In a very passive game where there was virtually no chance of a raise I might limp with this piece of cheese. If I thought there was a reasonable possibility of a raise behind me, I'd tend to fold it from 2 off the button. I think "eyehole" hands like this one are more playable in Omaha-high than in Omaha-8."

This call was based upon the advice given on Badger's website, or at least my understanding of his advice. We both respect Badger's O8 knowledge; I'm always interested in hearing about players I respect disagree.

His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position.

I adopted this after my first reading of his website, then abandoned it after getting less than stellar results with these hands, then adopted it again after my brother (who is a better player than I), seemed to think it was a good idea.

I'm going back to the drawing board on this one.

Thanks again, Buzz.

Jeff

[chaos]

While flopping trips is good in hold'em, it is not nearly as good in Omaha8. Another hand/flop that needs to be greatly devalued is when you flop two pair. Unless either of these hands improves to the nut full house you may be trailing by the river.

[chaos]

His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position.

I think that is too loose. My requirements for a no-pair big card hand are quite a bit tighter. I'll play if:
1. I'm in late position
2. All 4 cards are 10 or higher
3. I have a suited Ace or the hand is double suited

You need the extra out provided by the flush draws. Just my opinion.

[Buzz]

Hi Jeff - I almost chopped the losing horse race bet ticket analogy when I proofed what I had written, but decided to leave it in for you. Glad you liked it.

"His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position."

I think Steve suggested playing four cards ten (not nine) or higher to a single bet in late position. Regarding "late position," the seat before the cut-off qualifies as late position, I suppose, but just barely. I think of the seat before the cut-off seat as "late" when I have a couple of passive rocks seated behind me, but otherwise I don't exactly think of that seat as "late" position.

Hutchison suggests playing four cards ten and above if they also satisfy one of the three following additional requirements: (1) two pairs, (2) one pair plus two suited cards or (3) double suitedness.

In my humble opinion, KhQsTs9s is stretching both of these sets of requirements (Badger's and Hutchison's) - and thinking of the seat before the cut-off seat as "late position" is stretching the meaning of late position.

Even so, perhaps I shouldn't have called the hand a "piece of cheese." At least all four cards are working together. I think the hand is actually quite playable in Omaha-high. However, in my humble opinion, the hand seems sub-marginal in Omaha-8. I might play it sometimes, but if so, it would be with the awareness that I was playing a sub-marginal hand.

I hope the previous paragraph makes sense to you.

Buzz

[chaos]

I personally disagree with many hands that meet or don't meet Hutchison's requirements.

Two pairs are only good if they are both big pairs and you have some suits working. I would muck a hand like TTJJ ns. What are you hoping for with this hand? To make the nut straight with your TJ. That is a very remote possibility. To flop a T or a J and no overcards. Most likely, if that happens you will be splitting the pot with a low. An overcard to your T or J does not always mean doom but someone could easily have a bigger set or a bigger straight draw. If they have a bigger set and you both fill up, it will cost you a lot of chips to dicover that your second nut full house s no good. I just don't see this type of hand as being profitable.

On the other hand Hutchinson does not recommend playing hands like AKQJ with a suited Ace (he needs them to be double suited). I think this hand can be quite profitable. If the flop comes with two high cards you can easily find yourself with top two pair, with redraws to the full house, a straight and possibly the nut flush - all of which will likely take down the whole pot. If the flop comes with only one high card and no flush draw you easily muck you hand. With this type of hand you ususally scoop the pot when you win and it costs little when you lose.

I wouldn't recommend relying too heavily on any point count system. It might point a novice in the right direction but they leave much to be desired. Just my opinion.

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz,

"I think Steve suggested playing four cards ten (not nine) or higher to a single bet in late position."

Huh. I feel stupid. Was this a revision, or did it say this from the beginning? I could have sworn he said "nine or higher," because I remember thinking "I'd always heard you don't play any hand with a nine in it."

"I hope the previous paragraph makes sense to you."

Yes it did. Thanks again.

Jeff

[DPCondit]

I thought I read him posting that on RGP once, with 9 or higher (as far as I remember, which may or may not be correct), but I just checked his website, and it says 10 or higher.

Don

[Buzz]

Jeff and Don - Badger did earlier have "four cards nine or bigger (except trips)," posted on his web site, but has now changed the nine to ten.

I remembered that somebody I respected had written "nine or bigger," but I couldn't remember who. Trying to find the reference, I looked through the various Omaha books I have here. I currently have a couple of my Omaha books loaned out (probably gone forever) - but of the ones I still have here, those authors who list starting hand standards for O8 all seem in agreement about four cards ten or better (some with further qualifications) as one type of playable starting hand.

Buzz

[Buzz]

Chaos - I like your starting hand requirements for a no-pair big card hand.
"
1. I'm in late position
2. All 4 cards are 10 or higher
3. I have a suited Ace or the hand is double suited"

I don't follow Hutchison's guidelines for starting hands either, and I agree with your recommendation: "I wouldn't recommend relying too heavily on any point count system. It might point a novice in the right direction but they leave much to be desired."

As to TTJJ. IMHO it's a trap hand. By "trap hand" I mean you can get stuck in a pot chasing on the last betting round or two with a second best hand. Bill Boston, in the second edition of his Omaha High-Low hand simulation book had TTJJn, TTJJs and TTJJd - all three of them - listed as negative in terms of cash results - but in the fourth edition of his hand simulation book has both TTJJs and TTJJd listed as positive in terms of cash results (while TTJJn is still listed as negative).

Makes you wonder.

Buzz

[beernutz]

Annie Duke calls JhTdTh9d "eminently playable" in her articles posted on UltimateBet about Omaha8. Personally I think she's nuts. It is a decent hand but I would hesitate to play it in early postion in an aggressive game.

Of course she also calls KsKd2s3d "incredibly powerful" which I think is something of an overstatement. When I think of an incredibly powerful hand I think of one that I will raise with if I've already got a couple of limpers in or reraise with if rasied behind me. Incredibly powerful hands to me are those that can scoop and make the nuts. This can easily become a second best hand if two of your flush cards flop. This is a good hand but very flop dependent (I need and A and another non-counterfeiting low or a K to flop, preferably both, to continue if there is much action).

I'm not sure the point I'm trying to make other than many so-called experts have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a playable Omaha8 hand.

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz and Don,

Thanks for the follow-ups. I may be a crappy Omaha player, but at least I'm not insane.

Jeff

[Buzz]

Hi Beernutz - I don’t really want to get into a discussion of starting hands here, but since you have replied to my post, since we’re both seeking the truth, and since I disagree with some of what you have written, I feel an obligation to respond.

"many so-called experts have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a playable Omaha8 hand."

I agree there are some differences of opinion, but, since I see more common ground than differences, I wouldn’t characterize the dissimilarities as “vastly different.” In my humble opinion, the various Omaha-8 authors all have at least a slightly different slant, but they all point one towards the same group of generally playable starting hands. What you are seeing as vastly different opinions, I am seeing as emphasizing a different aspect of qualifying factors for opening hands.

For example, taken as a whole, what Annie Duke has to say about starting hands doesn’t seem out of line with what other experts write about starting hands. She writes with a different emphasis,but she seems to be generally following Ray Zee’s guidelines for starting hands. At least that’s how I read what she has written.

The discrepancies encountered may be due to differences in styles of play, which may depend on the type of games and opponents encountered.

“Annie Duke calls JhTdTh9d "eminently playable" in her articles posted on UltimateBet about Omaha8.”

Indeed she does. Maybe she has a playing style and usually faces opponents such that the hand works for her. Another possibility is that she is able to read her opponents well enough to stay out of trouble with the hand whereas you or I might mis-read our opponents and get into trouble. However, I’m with you on this one (JhTdTh9d) - I’d tend not to play the hand (but sometimes might play it on the button or for a half bet from the small blind if the big blind never raised before the flop). “Eminently playable” would be a stretch for me.

“she also calls KsKd2s3d "incredibly powerful"”

In spite of the fact that all four cards don’t work together and in spite of the fact that 23 suffers from the same drawback as a bare A2 - counterfeitability, I would generally (depending) play KsKd2s3d from any position against any number of opponents. Of course, as with any Omaha-8 hand, you need certain types of flops to make the hand work. Specifically, with three or more opponents seeing the flop, KsKd2s3d needs a flop with an ace plus one or two low cards (but not a deuce or a trey) to make the lower end of the hand work after the flop, or it needs a flop with a king but no ace to make the top end of the hand work. If the hand doesn’t work with the flop, you fold - but if it does work you have a driving hand. And a driving hand is powerful. (With only one or two opponents there are other considerations after the flop).

A nice feature of the hand is that, in general, whichever end keeps you playing after the flop, the other end could come in by the river to give you a scooper, often with the nuts one way and a non-nut winner the other way. The suitedness of the kings would become very important with, say, a flop of As7sJh. In that case, you’d be drawing to the nut low and also the nut flush. That’s a very powerful draw, maybe even “incredibly powerful.”

You clearly would need outstanding sensitivity to play the hand as a second nut flush draw plus third nut low draw, after, for example, a flop of 4s7sQc. Lacking an extremely good feel for your opponents, you might do better to fold the hand after such a (kingless and aceless) flop. But roughly one time out of four (4510/17296) when you hold KsKd2s3d, you should catch a playable flop (either the nuts or a one card draw to the nuts) that does not involve a 2nd nut flush draw as it’s main feature.

For completeness -
KK23 single suited is also very playable from any position and against any number of opponents - and can also become very powerful as a driving hand after the flop.
KK23-non-suited is not as good, IMHO. I would tend to play it as a starting hand much the same as I would play JTT9-double-suited as a starting hand - cheaply from the button or for a half bet from the small blind. The more I play, the more I dislike rainbow hands. It’s nice when I back into a flush and take the pot away from someone who had the nut straight going into the river - and it’s horrid when an opponent does the same thing to me.

Just my opinion.

Buzz