Limit Omaha 8 tournament hand

[TylerD]

Here's a hand I thought was interesting from a recent satellite, but I guess I'll let you be the judge.

It was a $36 limit Omaha Hi/Lo satellite to a $215 tournament, 77 entered, 12 get entry, 13th gets ~ $192. Can't really rememeber how many were left, but I guess about 40.


I have T$ 2550, blinds 150/300 and get dealt A /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Opponent (661) raises I reraise to isolate (good move?), loose guy in SB calls, Opponent raises all-in, we all call.

Flop: 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif I bet, loose guy calls.

Turn Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif I bet.

Thoughts appreciated.

[crockpot]

in a cash game, the isolation reraise is definitely +EV...if it works. even in a tournament, if you thought it had a very good chance of getting it heads-up, i think it's the right play. if not, the 9 and 7 are ugly cards, so i would rather not invest three bets at this point, and i probably prefer mucking to flat calling.

i wouldn't bet the flop. the loose guy won't fold, and your A9 is unlikely to hold up for high against the all-in player, so the only real reason to bet here is to set up a steal on fourth street if it doesn't help the loose player. i'm not sure i want to invest 900 chips to win 300 on that chance when i have so few to work with.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
in a cash game, the isolation reraise is definitely +EV...if it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? He's got A2 with the Ace being suited, and a medium straight possibilities with the 9 and 7. Don't you want A3 and 23 calling pre-flop? Don't you want the Kx clubs calling pre-flop as well?

I guess it does depend on the table, but I'd rather have dead money in the pot than raise to isolate everyone else out.

[BSCwik]

I agree with jedi...you only have a drawing hand in your own right! If you isolate, your flushes almost become meaningless against one opponent if you hit that draw and nothing else, and basically you need all low cards to hit otherwise. Since you do have a lot of <font color="blue">draws</font>, and that's it, you want more players in the pot to justify drawing if that's all you hit on the flop. Here, the chances are pretty good that the initial raiser has a better high hand than you to begin with (unless this player only raises with lows -- pretty poor play from early position), and he might call you down with KK or AA, especially playing limit. Maybe, if you get later in the tournament and at a short table, I might try reraising with such a hand, but not in this instance

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I have T$ 2550, blinds 150/300 and get dealt A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif.
Opponent (661) raises I reraise to isolate (good move?), loose guy in SB calls, Opponent raises all-in, we all call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyler - You ask "good move?" There are always two aspects to this question: (1) Would it be a good move if it worked? (2) Will it work?

(Aspect #1) You need to ask yourself, “Does this hand play better against more players or fewer players?” When you raise to isolate, you should want to isolate with a hand that plays better against fewer players.

All hands win more often with fewer opponents. However, when, with one opponent, you win three times more often than you win with four opponents, but only win one fourth as much each time you win, then you average a greater profit, by a 4 to 3 ratio, when you have three opponents rather than one.

BlueBear in a recent post dealt with this concept in a slightly different way using what he defined as the “advantage” of a hand against different numbers of players. The thread is probably in the recent archives. His simulations clearly showed that some hands have a better “advantage” against more opponents, even though they naturally won less often. A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif is a hand that simulations would show has a higher “advantage” against more opponents. Stated differently, your e.v. is greater with more opponents.

More simply, ace-deuce and suited ace are nut draw combinations. Hands with nut draw combinations earn more by having more customers when they catch a favorable flop. You shouldn’t want to isolate before the flop with this hand. Instead, you should be thinking “The more the merrier.”

(Aspect #2) You can answer this one yourself. By raising, did you accomplish your goal of isolation? If a tactic doesn’t work, then you probably made a mistake by using it.

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif I bet

[/ QUOTE ]

With your hand wouldn't you like to see two or three non-pairing low cards plus two or three clubs on the flop? Or wouldn't you like to see a pair of nines or sevens on the flop? Or at least a pair of aces? Something that fits with your hand?

But instead there's a pair of eights plus a queen.

You entirely missed the flop except for a runner-runner low draw! Mike Sexton might applaud your move as a bold one if you were playing Texas hold ‘em, where you can often get away with betting a flop on the presumption your opponents don't have any of the flop either. But you’re playing Omaha-8, not Texas hold 'em! Your two opponents have eight cards between them rather than just four. If your two opponents only held two cards each, then it would be unlikely that either of them held an eight or a queen. However, when your two opponents hold four cards each, the odds favor (by about two to one) at least one of those eight cards being an eight or a queen. And if you also consider the possibility that one of your opponents might have a pair, it’s even more certain you’re behind here.

I suppose the argument for betting here is that you might push a non-tenacious SB off a queen. (It’s unrealistic to think you’ll push someone off an eight). I’m very interested in your thinking on the matter. In other words I’m very interested in knowing why you bet after this flop. The reason I’m very interested is I regularly encounter opponents who do the same sort of thing - bet when they have no fit with the flop. I’m very interested in knowing what they might be thinking, and it might be the same thing you were thinking when you bet this flop with your no-fit hand.

Just to make it very clear to you, with that particular flop and with two opponents you want either a pair of queens or an eight in your hand - or at the very least a queen or an overpair. But you don’t have any of that and the odds are better than two to one that at least one of your two opponents does.

If SB has an eight but no queen, unless very aggressive, he's likely to just call, rather than raise. If SB is loose and has a queen but no eight, he's likely to call rather than fold. And loose opponents find other reasons to call. My guess is SB calls your bet.

There's another aspect to consider. If you check, a non-aggressive tournament player who would rather see the all-in player knocked out than go to war with you may also check. (You also should want to see the all-in player knocked out). If you induce SB to fold with a bet here, and if subsequently your hand doesn't beat the all-in guy, but SB would have beaten the all-in player, you have committed a pure blunder.

[ QUOTE ]
...loose guy calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. (As expected).

[ QUOTE ]
Turn Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn’t say, but my guess is loose guy (SB) calls again.

You should be wondering if one (or both) of your opponents has an eight or a queen? If so, who has the eight and/or queen?

If the all-in player has an eight and/or a queen, by betting here you may induce loose guy to fold a hand that could have beaten you for the side pot - and if so, you pick up the two small bets from the second betting round. That’s the reason for betting, as I see it.

However, if loose guy (SB) has an eight or a queen, by betting here you will lose your bet for sure. (Unrealistic to think that SB will call your bet here and then fold on the river. It’s possible, but unrealistic.) And if loose guy hangs in there without an eight or a queen (as loose guys are prone to do), you may (or may not) lose it anyhow.

If either opponent has an eight or a queen you’re drawing dead. If neither opponent has an eight and/or a queen, then who wins will depend on who has the highest two pairs on the river - or in the absence of two pairs, the highest kickers. It's possible your A9 could out-kick both of your opponents - but that seems far fetched.

Thus you figure not to win any part of this pot.

It’s true that if SB holds what will be the winning hand if allowed to see the showdown, your only chance to win this hand is to keep betting and hope SB eventually folds. (And that is a possibility). But you don’t have to win this hand to win the tournament. Desperation tactics are not necessary here.

Just my opinion. You asked.

Buzz

[crockpot]

i don't know how many omaha/8 tournaments you've played, but when the blinds get this high, multiway action just does not happen unless your opponents are very loose. if you're very lucky you'll get two callers behind you here, but more likely it will be one or none.

also, 'medium straight possibilities' doesn't do much for me. other than A289 or A222, i would rather have just about any two cards other than the 79 here. when you would trade your cards for almost any two others, are they really an asset to your hand?

i don't get how you consider letting someone in cheaply to create more dead money than raising them out, either.

to your credit, i do agree that calling instead of reraising is the better play in a loose sidegame where you can expect several callers behind you. but this is a different situation.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know how many omaha/8 tournaments you've played, but when the blinds get this high, multiway action just does not happen unless your opponents are very loose.

to your credit, i do agree that calling instead of reraising is the better play in a loose sidegame where you can expect several callers behind you. but this is a different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post started out "in a cash game..." That's why I asked. Just didn't want to misunderstand anything.

[Buzz]

Crock - Jedi wrote
[ QUOTE ]
...Don't you want A3 and 23 calling pre-flop? Don't you want the Kx clubs calling pre-flop as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Crock, but Jedi has the force working with him on this one. Nut draw hands have more value than non-nut draw hands in limit Omaha-8 games because when you make the nuts, you often collect from chasers with less than the nuts.

You wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
i don't know how many omaha/8 tournaments you've played, but when the blinds get this high, multiway action just does not happen unless your opponents are very loose. if you're very lucky you'll get two callers behind you here, but more likely it will be one or none.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

Depending on the players at your table, where you are in the tournament, and what has happened by the time the action gets around to you, you might want to raise before the flop with A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif.

However, not when there already has been a raise.

Part of the rationale for raising before the flop with A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif is the possibility of stealing the blinds with the raise. However, when somebody else has already raised, that possibility has been pre-empted.

Do you really want to play that hand one-on-one with an earlier position pre-flop raiser?

Or, if you’re going to play the hand, wouldn’t you rather see the flop as cheaply as possible, hoping that both blinds also see the raise?

And maybe also someone behind you? Position matters in limit Omaha-8, and there is clearly a positional trade-off when you encourage (by just calling rather than re-raising) someone to come in behind you. However, with this particular hand, I’d give up position for more customers.

A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif does all right one-on-one against random hands. But it’s a loser, one-on-one, against a legitimate pre-flop raising hand - and it’s even a loser, one-on-one against most legitimate Omaha-8 starting hands (most of that top 15% or so). However, as you add opponents to the mix, even legitimate starting hands (hands from that top 15% or so), the hand does better.

Here is a hand that is crying out for more opponents.

(One could make a strong argument for folding this hand to a raise at a tight stage in a tournament).

I think you might want to play the hand, even after the raise, but if you do, I think you should hope both blinds come in too. You should want as many chasers as possible. Unless the pre-flop raiser is a maniac, you should not want to isolate a pre-flop raiser with this hand. And even if the pre-flop raiser is a maniac, I wouldn't prefer to play this hand heads-up.

You figure to make a low with this particular hand less than half the time (49.52%). And you figure to make the nut low less than a fourth of the time (22.75%). When you do make the nut low with a hand like this, you want to collect.

You figure to make a club flush with this particular hand about 5.4% of the time (one hand out of 18). You'll make a club flush with an unpaired board less than 3% of the time. When you do make the nut flush with a hand like this, you want to collect.

In summary, A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/club.gif is simply not a very good one-on-one hand against almost all starting hands I’ll play in a tight game (maybe 15% of the hands dealt me). I believe it’s a flat out mistake in strategy to try to play this hand one-on-one with an earlier position pre-flop raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
also, 'medium straight possibilities' doesn't do much for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me neither.

[ QUOTE ]
other than A289 or A222, i would rather have just about any two cards other than the 79 here. when you would trade your cards for almost any two others, are they really an asset to your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking about the bottom of the barrel of ace-deuce-suited-to-the-ace hands here, so that it's a moot point, but I think I like A289 better than A279. And A222 in a loose game at least cuts down on the possibility of getting quartered for low (but trips are especially bad when short-handed).

Just my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
i don't get how you consider letting someone in cheaply to create more dead money than raising them out, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

To get chasers who will pay off for the next three betting rounds. (Honest, Crock, the hand simply doesn't do well one-on-one against most legitimate starting hands).

Buzz

[TylerD]

Hi Buzz,

Thanks (everyone) for your repsonses. Firstly I think there is one critical point you are missing, the preflop raiser raised from EP with a 661 stack, with the blinds at 150/300. This does not necessarily mean they have a legitimate raising hand merely a better than average hand that they choose to go all-in on. I re-raised to try and get it HU with the all-in guy.

In a cash game, or with smaller blinds I would have called the raise, hoped for the blinds to come along and would have "fit or folded" on the flop. However with such shallow stacks I decided to try and get in a situation where I didn't have to invest a lot of my precious tournament chips on a draw. I would have preferred something like KKQ9 as this would probably do better HU but I figured my hand was a lot better than average and had a reasonable chance to scoop against one opponent.

On the flop I had, of course, missed completely and was betting to try and drive the SB out. The turn bet was a case of "firing another barallel" (Mike Sexton would love that - lol), trying to pick up the side pot and trying to get HU for the main pot. If he raised I would have folded (as I would have on the flop), if he called I would have check-folded the river.

My thinking was that he knew the pre-flop raiser would likely bet the flop and he called, in part to see the turn and in part to see whether I would bet the turn. He might see my turn bet as representing an 8, Q or AA, at least that was what I was hoping.

As it happens he folded to the turn bet, the all-in guy had A3xx, I spiked a 9 on the river and won the side and main pots. I guess you have to get a little lucky to win tournaments, which I managed to do (well a seat - it was a super-satellite.

[TylerD]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m very interested in your thinking on the matter. In other words I’m very interested in knowing why you bet after this flop. The reason I’m very interested is I regularly encounter opponents who do the same sort of thing - bet when they have no fit with the flop. I’m very interested in knowing what they might be thinking, and it might be the same thing you were thinking when you bet this flop with your no-fit hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

My (somewhat limited) experience is that many players overvalue the low half of the game. I was hoping that we both had low cards and that he would fold to a bet as he had no shot at the pot, except a backdoor low.

[ QUOTE ]
If you induce SB to fold with a bet here, and if subsequently your hand doesn't beat the all-in guy, but SB would have beaten the all-in player, you have committed a pure blunder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it better to give my hand the best chance of winning, by cutting the number of opponents from 2 to 1? It isn't a final table, or final two table situation yet.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly I think there is one critical point you are missing, the preflop raiser raised from EP with a 661 stack, with the blinds at 150/300.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Tyler - Thanks. Yes I missed that. I saw the "(661)" and vaguely wondered what it meant. I also wondered about the exact amount bet by the preflop raiser. I did realize the preflop raiser must have been at or under $900TC.

[ QUOTE ]
This does not necessarily mean they have a legitimate raising hand merely a better than average hand that they choose to go all-in on. I re-raised to try and get it HU with the all-in guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow your thinking. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have preferred something like KKQ9 as this would probably do better HU

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I don't think KKQ9 does particularly well, heads-up.

[ QUOTE ]
but I figured my hand was a lot better than average and had a reasonable chance to scoop against one opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think A279 does particularly well, heads-up, either.

For heads-up play I like hands of the type
• AAWW,
• AAWX,
• AWWH,
• AWHH, or even
• AWXH, where W is a wheel card (the lower the better) and H is an high card, preferably a king but at least a queen. And I like them all at least suited (but preferably double suited).

You can't always choose your hand for heads-up play, but when voluntarily entering the action for heads-up play, I try to wait for one of the above hand types.

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop I had, of course, missed completely and was betting to try and drive the SB out. The turn bet was a case of "firing another barallel"

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow your line of thought. Thanks for explaining.

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking was that he knew the pre-flop raiser would likely bet the flop and he called, in part to see the turn and in part to see whether I would bet the turn. He might see my turn bet as representing an 8, Q or AA, at least that was what I was hoping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. I think your bet "represents" a pair of queens or an eight - but any one of those holdings (8, Q or AA) is reasonable on the basis of your betting. I wouldn't have done bet as you did for the reasons outlined in my posts above, but I follow your thinking. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Very helpful.

[ QUOTE ]
As it happens he folded to the turn bet, the all-in guy had A3xx, I spiked a 9 on the river and won the side and main pots. I guess you have to get a little lucky to win tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you had SB figured out better than I did.

Congratulations on your victory.

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
....many players overvalue the low half of the game. I was hoping that we both had low cards and that he would fold to a bet as he had no shot at the pot, except a backdoor low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyler - I follow your line of reasoning. Thanks for explaining.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it better to give my hand the best chance of winning, by cutting the number of opponents from 2 to 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. However, there are other considerations. A few consideraions (off the top of my head) are:
• (1) Although you have a better chance of winning against fewer opponents, with your particular hand you actually show a greater profit with two opponents than with one (who has a hand weak enough to be chased away here). Note that you're probably not chasing someone away who has a better hand than you here - especially someone with a queen or an eight). Your bet worked because your opponent didn't have anything. You would probably have won without the bet - and in that case you risked your chips for nothing.
• (2) By raising you put your stack more at risk.
• (3) Although you're not yet at the final table, you should still want opponents to be eliminated. By putting an all-in opponent in a heads-up confrontation, just as your own chances of winning this particular pot is enhanced, the all-in guys chances of surviving are also enhanced.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a final table, or final two table situation yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Each person eliminated is one more step to winning the tournament. There are a lot of these steps to go at this point, and others will do most of your work for you.

In my humble opinion, eliminating opponents should not be your primary or even secondary consideration, but doing so does have merit and should perhaps be a tertiary consideration at this point in the tournament.

Enhancing your chances of winning a particular (small) pot at this stage of the tournament by risking more of your stack than necessary seems a misplaced effort to me - although it worked out well for you on this particular occasion.

I would have called the raise before the flop and hoped that both blinds would also call primarily because, honest to God, your hand is worth more against more opponents. You don't win as often against more opponents, but you do win more when you win. Secondarily, you risk less of your stack by just limping. Tertiarily, by playing this way withg your particular cards, you make it harder for the all-in player to survive.

Just my opinion. People have different styles. Yours apparently prevaled here.

Again, congratulations. And thanks again for sharing your reasoning with me.

Buzz

[crockpot]

oops, i suppose i should have clarified that i meant in a cash game with the same situation (players playing tight). the point of that comment was to illustrate that you'd be more likely to take a risk for a decent chunk of chips when you can buy in for more, not to discuss the difference in players' attitudes.