A PL hand question

[beernutz]

I'll summarize rather than post a hand history. Omaha 8 $2/4 PL at stars and I'm in SB and dealt AA23s. Game is fairly wild with some big pots and I have about $120 in front of me. Four called so when it gets around to me I bet the pot and all but one call (about $40 in pot). Flop is 25Q rainbow. I bet the pot, one fold then wildest player at the table raises the pot back at me putting himself all in and which would put me all in to call. Everybody folds to me. $145 in the pot and the bet is around $65. I guess I didn't think about it long enough because I called and he turned over 5579. Kings on both of last two streets and its rebuy bye beernutz.

I guess I'm guilty of falling in love with the hand but there had been a lot of what appeared to be big bluffs made on this table previously. Any advice before I venture back to the PL tables (after a suitable cooling off period of course)?

[twistedbeats]

i've never played the 2/4 game at stars but i'm a regular at the 1/2 game at ub. there are plenty of people in that game willing to go all in here with just a low draw. i wouldn't feel bad calling a reraise with your hand there. is stars the same way, or does his raise mean that he has to have aces beaten?

[beernutz]

I can't speak for all of stars because this was my first venture into the $2/4 PL game but this particular player had made a big flop bet (although not as big as the one he popped me with) earlier holding top two and a low draw.

[Buzz]

Beernutz - I don't play pot limit, so take what I write with a grain of salt.

a few thoughts -

1. You had a bit of bad luck. That is, things might have worked out better for you. First, your semi-bluff after the flop might have worked, but it didn't. Second, I think you had favorable odds to go all-in at the point you did, but even though your draw was favored to work out, it didn't.

2. Seems like getting quartered for low in pot limit would be a much greater danger than in limit. The reason has to do with the possible size of the bets on later betting rounds in pot limit.

I think you sometimes want to play to set up an opponent who has the nut low - so that your opponent will be calling a big bet with the nut low while you, yourself, also have the nut low, plus the high. Thus you will win 3/4 of the pot while your opponent will only get 1/4 of the pot. You actually have an excellent starting hand for doing just that.

Even better would be to play as your opponent played on this hand, to catch someone who would chase (and then miss) with a high pair plus the nut low draw.

All of that seems to make nut low draws less valuable in pot limit Omaha-8 than in limit Omaha-8. Nut low draws seem most valuable in overly loose limit games. They are the very hands that tend to cause many players to get knocked out of tournaments, especially in the later stages after the yokels who would chase with non-nut low draws are long gone from the scene.

3. In a limit game where three opponents have also seen the flop, after this particular flop, your nut low draw plus the pair of bullets for high is a very decent, though clearly not ideal, flop fit. With 18 favorable cards (and 27 unfavorable ones), you figure to improve to a nut hand and possible scooper, by the time you get to the river, roughly three times out of five. Under these circumstances, for a variety of reasons, I think you should generally bet this hand/flop from your (first betting) position in a limit game. But that's in a limit game.

Although limit Omaha-8 games are largely hand driven, position is clearly very important in pot limit games - and you simply don’t have it here. Thus betting this hand/flop from opening position in a pot-limit game seems risky. I don't mean you should never do it - but it does seem risky, especially against aggressive opponents.

One danger when you bet this hand/flop out of position in a pot limit game is that an opponent behind you will have already made a set, will raise, and neither low nor an ace will subsequently appear on the turn or river. Another danger is that an opponent behind you will have made two pair on the flop, will raise, and neither low nor an ace, nor a runner-runner pair will appear on the turn and/or river. In a limit game, missing is no big deal - losing a couple of big bets may smart, but it’s not a disaster. But in pot limit..... (read on).

The betting in a limit game for this grouping of cards might go something like this: Four of you see a double bet before the flop. (8 units in pot after 1st betting round). After the flop of 25Q and your pre-flop raise, maybe three of you will be in for one bet on the second betting round. (11 units in pot after 2nd betting round). After a king on the turn, maybe three of you will continue for one big bet each on the third betting round. (17 units in pot after 3rd betting round). After another king on the river, maybe, because of the size of the pot, you'll call a possible bluff. If so, the total cost to you after the flop will be 1+2+2 = 5 units. After the first betting round, you’re risking 5 units to possibly win 16 a third of the time and 5.5 units the other two thirds of the time - something like that.
(16+5.5+5.5)/3 = 9. 9 units is what you should expect to win, on the average, when you do win, with this hand/flop.

The betting in a pot-limit game for this same grouping of cards might go something like this: Four of you see a double bet before the flop. (8 units in pot after 1st betting round). After a flop of 2-5-Q-n, you don’t have odds to call a pot sized bet. Ironically, you can bet the pot yourself (as a semi-bluff), but you don’t have odds to call the same sized bet from an opponent. Thus you only can call a bet with your hand after this flop if you strongly suspect your opponent of bluffing. In a pot-limit game, you'll probably be heads-up at this point. If you do continue play here, and if your opponent is not bluffing, the total potential cost to you, after the flop, will be 8+24+72 = 104 units. (Or, if you run out of chips before then, the total potential cost to you will be everything in front of you).

Do you see the difference? In a limit game, after the flop you’re risking 5 chips to possibly win (ignoring quartering for simplicity) an average of about 9 chips.
The possible gain to risk ratio is 9/5=~1.8

In a pot limit game, after the flop you’re risking 104 chips to possibly win (again ignoring quartering for simplicity) an average of 40 chips. (112+4+4)/3 = 40.
The possible gain to risk ratio is 40/104=~.4

Maybe my numbers are not quite correct. (In addition to ignoring the quartering effect, I only stacked the chips and did the math once). But even if I’m off a bit, it seems clear that the potential risk in a pot limit game is substantially greater than in a limit game. (Here the risk after the flop, assuming I stacked the chips and did the math correctly, is about 4.5 times greater - something like that - the number isn't really important and I'm not going to check it or worry about it - the point is that the risk/profit ratio with this particular hand/flop is significantly greater in a pot-limit game than in a limit game). Greater risk warrants greater caution.

As I understand what you have written, you were playing into an aggressive opponent who you couldn’t read - an opponent who was bluffing often enough so that you couldn’t tell what he/she had. Right? I don’t know how well you do against this type of player, but I have difficulty out-playing opponents I can’t read.

Finally, although you haven’t described how you had been betting on hands up to this point, would it be fair, because of the way you bet this hand plus the way you may have bet hands leading into this one, for your opponent to put you on a pair of aces here? Thus while you have no idea what cards your opponent holds, your opponent, on the other hand, may at least feel he/she has a good idea of the cards you hold.

Just some thoughts. Hope they help you gain perspective. Keep in mind that I haven’t played much pot-limit Omaha-8 myself.

Buzz

[Phat Mack]

Keep in mind that I haven’t played much pot-limit Omaha-8 myself.

I think you must be playing some pot-limit O8, Buzz, to come up with such an analysis. Like all your stuff, it's really first rate.

I've always felt that limit O-8 players overly fear getting quartered, while PL O8 players don't fear it enough. Your math shows exactly why that is so. It also shows the effects of position and chasing in both formats. Great job!

[beernutz]

Mack is right of course, your analysis, as usual, is first-rate. I only wish I'd read it before I got into the game in question. I've said this before but I've never seen the kind of analysis you provided in any of the books I own which discuss Omaha8 including the Ciaffone/Rubens book. At least not in the clear concise way you did.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that Buzz.

[Jimbo]

I agree with beernutz and PhatMack, Buzz your analysis borders on genius.

[Buzz]

Thank you all.

I agree with Mack "I've always felt that limit O-8 players overly fear getting quartered, while PL O8 players don't fear it enough."

Buzz