LO8 hand, push or pull? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

View Full Version : LO8 hand, push or pull?

Sean D

08-30-2005, 01:16 AM

Well I flopped the second nut low, with the nut flush draw. So I figured I should try to draw the players behind me in, since I was still drawing and someone could have A3. When the turn and river brick out on me, and the SB is still firing, I put him on the nut low, and I didn't think an overcall was worth it. Comments on all streets appreciated.

Party Poker (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, SB calls, BB checks.

Flop: 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif (6 players)
SB bets, BB folds, MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3 calls, CO folds

Turn: Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif (4 players)
SB bets, MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3 calls

River: T/images/graemlins/club.gif (4 players)
SB bets, MP1 calls, Hero folds, MP3 folds

Buzz

08-30-2005, 03:31 AM

Sean - I like raising on the second betting round better than calling. By raising, you might get SB to back off on betting the turn, resulting in a free card on the river, if you miss on the turn.

In general, you should hate folding on the river, but here you have no alternative because you have nothing!

Buzz

Alchemist

08-30-2005, 11:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sean - I like raising on the second betting round better than calling. By raising, you might get SB to back off on betting the turn, resulting in a free card on the river, if you miss on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your plan if the SB caps it on the second betting round and leads out on the turn which brings a card that doesn't help our hand? I guess just call a single bet and hope to hit a spade or a 3 on the river?

Buzz

08-30-2005, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What's your plan if the SB caps it on the second betting round and leads out on the turn which brings a card that doesn't help our hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alchemist - It wouldn't be a cap. It would just be a re-raise. Hard to say if both opponents would call if Hero raised and SB re-raised. Might immediately become heads-up with SB. Or MP1 might stay in the hand. Or MP3 might stay in the hand. Or both of them. Or either or both could get in a re-raise or cap. And how you play is different in each case. Lots of different ways it could go.

My suggestion was to raise so as possibly to knock out MP3, gain the button, and buy a free card.

Now you seem to be basically asking, "But what if that plan doesn't work?"

If so, you've asked a very reasonable question. Indeed, although the free card ploy works well against some opponents, it won't work against everyone. In particular, free card ploys are not effective against maniacs (or those who see the free card plays for what they are). But in this case, if Hero doesn't get a free card, Hero may gain position, and possibly will at least isolate SB.

At any rate, suppose MP3 folds (as actually happened anyway) and SB re-raises. Well... if I'm Hero, I silently curse and modify the original plan, depending on what MP1 does.

Let's say SB re-raises and MP1 calls the double bet. I think Hero calls the re-raise but very possibly folds, depending, on the next betting round.

Let's say SB re-raises and MP1, facing a double bet, folds. Then I think Hero calls the re-raise and plays the rest of the hand one-on-one with position on SB.

Are there then two bricks for Hero with SB continuing to bet? Ugh.

Hero has to decide, and as early as possible, if SB surely has a legitamite scoop fit with the board or maybe not. I'm folding my second nut low plus flush draw plus hand-held pair of fours plus pair of deuces to some opponents on the third betting round while I'm continuing against others.

In general, if it gets down to a one-on-one contest with anyone, I want everybody at the table to have the impression that I'm committed to the hand. And I want to reinforce that impression when I have the opportunity. Thus, against most opponents, I probably am more or less committed to the hand.

Sometimes when you miss your draws, it's best to just take it on the chin.

It might be cheaper in the short run to fold the current hand to pressure, but it isn't necessarily cheaper in the long run. That's because the way you play the current hand has a way of affecting the way your opponents play future hands against you.

I'm not suggesting you become a calling station. You do need to exercise good judgement.

Notice that Hero has only a flush draw for a strong high hand - but Hero isn't also drawing to the 2nd nut low. Instead Hero already has the second nut low - and also has the hand-held pair of fours and a pair of deuces - with the river card yet to come. One-on-one, any or all of these could come in handy.

Sure, if Hero knew that both the turn and river would be bricks, Hero would be better off folding to a bet from SB after this flop. Looking at it in a different way, if both the turn and river appeared on the flop in lieu of two of the actual flop cards, Hero would have a clear fold.

But Hero doesn't know the turn and river will both be bricks and should do what is necessary to maximize possible profits while holding expenditures to a minimum. Suggesting a raise of SB's flop bet may seem contrary to holding costs down, but may actually save Hero money.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Alchemist

08-30-2005, 06:06 PM

As usual you make some good points, Buzz.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you seem to be basically asking, "But what if that plan doesn't work?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. Particularly at the lower limits (where I also currently reside), raises here often don't stop people from chasing, which also can make it harder to put them on hands.

I take SB's betting (especially into 5 people) to represent A3 with unknown high strength. I can't see him betting any high-oriented hand with 3 low cards and 2 suits on the board. And the more callers there are, the greater the likelyhood someone has A3. As a result, I have to think we're already beaten for low, leaving us at best 3 outs to make the nut low. Is it too premature to think we're drawing to half the pot here?

I agree raising is a good idea if you can get rid of competition and can make a big impact on your chances of winning at least half the pot, like if someone has something like KKxx or A567. Our hand needs a good bit of help to win the high side, IMO, and the best way to get that is to try and get rid of some opposition.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say SB re-raises and MP1 calls the double bet. I think Hero calls the re-raise but very possibly folds, depending, on the next betting round.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's consider this scenario which I think is pretty likely. The turn comes a brick and SB bets and MP1 calls. I think this is a difficult decision here because we have no idea what MP1 has. He may also have A3 with a weak high hand and doesn't want to dump in money only to get quartered. Or he could have a straight wrap or 88xx or even picked up a heart draw, etc. It makes a big difference how strong his high prospects are.

So with one card remaining, we have the 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif to either scoop or get at least 2/3, and 9 more outs to give us either the nut low or a flush without pairing the board.

Now on the flop if it goes: SB bets, MP1 calls, we raise, MP3 folds, SB reraises, MP1 calls, we call. Pot = 9.5BB.

Turn: Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif SB bets, MP1 calls
Pot = 11.5BB

We're facing roughly 10 outs for half the pot out of 44 remaining cards, or 4.4:1. But now we're getting about 11:1 (-rake) so it should be a call here, correct? (My math/reasoning could be way off).

Buzz

08-31-2005, 09:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I take SB's betting (especially into 5 people) to represent A3 with unknown high strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alchemist - Individuals you encounter in a typical Omaha-8 game have all sorts of different ideas as to what is a good hand, what is needed to win a pot, and how to play the game.

Putting SB on A3XY is a very reasonable possibility. But in my humble opinion, it's not the _only possibility. Whatever cards you think SB should be holding to bet into five people may not necessarily be the cards SB is holding.

Last night I saw a rather fine player, Player-A, bet a hand on the river as though it was the stone cold nuts - after the river card both paired and flushed an already straighted board. Somebody, Player-B, happened to make a full house on the river and called him - and when Player-A showed his hand, it was not even a hand with which I would have seen the flop. And if I did see the flop (for example, from the unraised big blind), I’d fold it to a bet after the flop, and if there was no bet on the second betting round, then I’d fold it to a bet after the turn. The cards in Player-A’s hand had no relationship whatsoever to the cards on the board. None!

All right, that’s obviously atypical. The guy wouldn’t _be a good player if he played every hand that way, or even it he played that way too often. But I can assure you that his “advertising,” if that is what it was, put some doubt in the mind of everyone at the table. The next time Player-A bets the nuts on the river, he’ll be more likely to collect extra bets from his opponents. Maybe his idea was if the bluff worked and he stole the hand, fine, and if the bluff didn’t work he’d collect more from his opponents on future hands when he did have the nuts.

A short while later, I scooped a pot with a mediocre low and a non-nut high, after betting it and getting a call on the river. Someone who had just sat down, evidently fresh from a higher limit game because she had a pile of five dollar chips, sniffed and called my cards to the attention of everybody at the table. Perfect!! (I scoop and still get emphasized advertising value).

I can think of a lot of possible hands that don’t have an ace-trey combination with which I’d see the flop for a half small bet from the small blind - and that I’d bet into five opponents after a flop such as this one. For example, playing
A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, I’d probably bet this flop from first position. Should I be playing that hand from the small blind at a table where four opponents have limped and I expect BB to check if I complete? Well... gee... I don’t know what to say. It _is a pretty skaggy looking starting hand. Moreover, I hate starting hands with middle cards, small pairs, only a poor chance of making the nut low, and not much of a chance of scooping. Finally, I’ll be out of position on the next three betting rounds. But would I play it? Well... not always, but I have to admit that usually I would.

At tables where my opponents play tighter, then of course I have to play tighter too. At the final table in a tournament when I’m not posting a blind, that hand almost surely goes into the muck faster than a frog can flick its tongue to catch a bug. But after four limpers with a passive big blind yet to act, I’d probably see the flop for a half small bet with that very marginal starting hand. I’m not advising anyone else to do it. But I’d do it - and then I’d bet this flop, right straight into five opponents, and without blinking an eye.

And most of my opponents who regularly play starting hands worse than the example I’ve chosen would bet this flop into five opponents with worse fits than the one I’ve chosen.

To me, seeing the flop with the example hand I’ve chosen, and then betting this particular flop with it seems very much a matter of judgment. At any rate, you’d be making a mistake if you put me (or probably most of my regular opponents) on the nut low if we bet into five opponents after this flop. We _might have the nut low - but then again, maybe not.

Rightly or wrongly, that’s just the way it is (or at least how it seems to me) at the tables at which I regularly play.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see him betting any high-oriented hand with 3 low cards and 2 suits on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can.

Some individuals make some very creative bets trying to be deceptive or tricky. I don't know as that's a very good idea, but encountering bets that mean something other than what they perhaps should mean is common. After this particular flop, someone thinking a set needs protection might bet top set, middle set, or bottom set. And people will often bet flush draws and straight draws. Honest. I've also seen individuals bet second nut or worse lows - or (incredibly) an over-pair. There truly are lots of possibilities for SB's bet.

But I'll agree A3XY is a very reasonable possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
And the more callers there are, the greater the likelyhood someone has A3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that’s correct. At least it seems very logical. But I’m still not convinced anyone has A3XY here. However, maybe someone else also holding A4XY, but without any realistic chance for high, will fold, thinking Hero has A3XY for the raise.

[ QUOTE ]
As a result, I have to think we're already beaten for low, leaving us at best 3 outs to make the nut low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you something. Do _all those callers have the nut low? No?

And if they don't, if some of them are calling with non-nut lows or other draws, isn't it possible they _all have something other than the nut low?

Indeed, in a typical game, with all these callers, the chance one of them has the nut low turns out to be only about fifty-fifty. Really! Incredible as it may at first seem, there simply is no guarantee that one of these opponents has the nut low. And that's the honest to God truth!

There _is a strong danger of encountering an opponent who also has the second nut low. That’s not as big a danger as being up against an opponent with the nut low, but sometimes, if you have credibility, by raising you can knock out an opponent who might quarter you with also the second nut low. You can’t do anything about somebody who has the nut low, but you _can sometimes do something about an opponent who might quarter you for low, or who might otherwise end up a slightly better (but non-nut) high hand.

Some players, and you may be one of them, think they need the nut low to be playing here - but everybody simply doesn't think that way.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it too premature to think we're drawing to half the pot here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero has the second nut low - and in my humble opinion, that may well be the winning low.

Try this the next time you play: keep track of how often the low is won by someone with the nut low and how often the low is won by someone with a non-nut low. I think you might be surprised.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider this scenario which I think is pretty likely. The turn comes a brick and SB bets and MP1 calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait! Before we get to the 3rd betting round, we have to get past the 2nd betting round. Part of the reason I advocate raising on the 2nd betting round is to hopefully deter SB from betting into us on the 3rd betting round. Put yourself in SB's shoes for a moment. Even if you _do have the nut low, aren't you a tad bit worried about MP1, Hero, or both also having the nut low? And if you _don’t have the nut low, do you want to keep representing that you do?

The difference between our thinking here is you’re assuming SB has nut low - but I’m not. However, I _do want to have a better idea of whether SB has the nut low or not. Some opponents, when raised, will back off without the nut low. Others won’t. Some opponents, when raised, will back off _with the nut low. In my humble opinion, there’s simply no way around knowing how your opponents play. But if you think you do have an idea of how an individual plays, but need more information, a raise here might provide you with that information.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a difficult decision here because we have no idea what MP1 has. He may also have A3 with a weak high hand and doesn't want to dump in money only to get quartered. Or he could have a straight wrap or 88xx or even picked up a heart draw, etc. It makes a big difference how strong his high prospects are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
So with one card remaining, we have the 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif to either scoop or get at least 2/3, and 9 more outs to give us either the nut low or a flush without pairing the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1/2+1/6=2/3... O.K. it’s a possibility).

The 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif would be very nice. But any non-pairing spade would be nice. The odds against catching a non-pairing spade on the turn or river are about two to one. In other words, roughly two times out of every three, we will miss our spade draw on the turn and also miss on the river. when this happens, we will probably lose for high. The other one time out of three we'll make a flush on the turn or river and will probably win for high.

There also is a fair chance that we will win for low, even though we only have the second nut low. Keep track and see for yourself if you don't believe me. When you have the second-nut low you’ll only be up against the nut low roughly half the time.

When the flop enables low, whether or not an opponent who is betting into you has the nut low depends on the opponent.

Often you can get an idea of whether or not an opponent has the nut low. Whether you can or not depends on how good you are at reading your opponents - and also on how easy a particular opponent is to read. Some opponents are easier to read than others.

[ QUOTE ]
Now on the flop if it goes: SB bets, MP1 calls, we raise, MP3 folds, SB reraises, MP1 calls, we call. Pot = 9.5BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

My counting ends up with a different result.

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif SB bets, MP1 calls
Pot = 11.5BB/

[/ QUOTE ]

My counting ends up with a different result.

[ QUOTE ]
We're facing roughly 10 outs for half the pot out of 44 remaining cards, or 4.4:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... no. If there are 44 cards and ten of them are good, then 34 of them must not be good. The odds against catching a good card on the turn are 34 to 10 or 3.4 to 1. Then if we miss on the turn, assuming the board doesn’t pair on the turn, the odds against catching a good card on the river are 33 to 10 or 3.3 to 1. But we don’t exactly have 10 outs (or whatever) for half the pot because nobody may actually be holding A3XY.

[ QUOTE ]
But now we're getting about 11:1 (-rake) so it should be a call here, correct? (My math/reasoning could be way off).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know. I’m not sure what you mean.

If you are certain Hero is only drawing for half the pot, and has nine outs for half the pot, then, just going for half the pot, I figure Hero does have favorable odds to call SB’s bet on the second betting round. That’s on the basis of comparing Hero’s implied pot odds for half the pot with the odds against Hero making a flush on an unpaired board. Never a guarantee I’ve done the math correctly, but that’s how I have it figured.

But if (1) Hero raises, (2) if SB re-raises, and then (3) comes out betting the turn, and if (4) SB has A3XY, and if (5) the turn is a brick - and if (6) Hero could see all that coming, then Hero would do better by not raising.

But if Hero knew SB had the nut low and could foresee the turn would be a brick, then Hero would not have favorable odds to call SB’s bet.

There isn’t a single hand you could play if you knew everything would go wrong when you played it!

I’ve had days where nothing goes right, where time after time A-2-3-X catches two low cards on the flop and then the turn and river are both bricks - or where time after time you catch a favorable flop holding A-2-X-Y, and then the turn or river is a deuce. Or where you keep getting playable hands with a pair of kings only to have everything go sour, time after time. I’ve been there.

But everything doesn’t always go wrong.

You try to continually put yourself in a position where you’ll lose the least and gain the most over the course of the playing session.

Sometimes that involves folding before or after the flop. Other times that involves limping before and/or after the flop. Still other times that involves raising before and/or after the flop.

Regarding second-nut lows: I don’t advise you to _draw to them, but when you flop them, no opponent will have the nut low about half the time. If the second nut low is all you have after the flop, with no reasonable chance for high, you probably do better by folding to a bet, depending.

But holding the flopped second-nut-low plus the nut-flush draw, I’m going to usually want to see another card. And then the question is, “Do I want to call or raise?” Usually, from late position, I like a raise better than a call. (I think I’ve already given the reasons). Depends, I guess.

In my humble opinion, it’s at least something to seriously consider.

Buzz