Question on Ray Zee's O/8 book

[Theodore Donald Kiravatsos]

There is a sentence in Ray's book of which I am never quite sure of the intended meaning. It has bothered me enough that I am hoping to get some responses, perhaps even a consensus.

I am referring to p.195-196, Concept 13, High hands lose value against low hands.

The general idea as presented by example is that if your hand is 88xx, and the flop is 832,

"....your hand is not very good....Notice that a set of nines would be quite a bit better with....flop like 932. (But you don't play a pair of nines in this game.)

The last sentence is one that makes sense no matter how I read it, but no matter how many times I go over it, I can't tell exactly what was meant. I think all the following are true...

a) But <font color="blue"> you </font> <font color="black"> </font> don't play a pair of nines in this game.
which reinforces proper play in the reader

b) But you don't play a pair of <font color="blue">nines </font> <font color="black"> </font> in this game.
showing contempt for 99xx and (possibly) those who play it

c) But you don't play a pair of nines in <font color="blue">this </font> <font color="black"> </font> game.
emphasis on the fact that Omaha is quite a different bird than Hold'em or Stud

I think all these are true, yet I can't quite figure out what Ray had in mind when he wrote that sentence.

So I'll put a poll in:


"Your excuses are your own" -- Richard Roma

[DPCondit]

A poll? Nines are not good cards.

[wizard_1974]

I read that section of the book a few hours ago.

I assume he chose the example because it clearly illustrated the point he was making about low and high hands with the least possible change in value of the high hand. Since the example included a hand that should not normally be played, he pointed this out. If he had not done so, someone would probably be writing a post about how Ray Zee advocated playing Omaha HiLo starting hands with 99 in them.

You probably will not need a consensus since there is a good chance Ray will answer your question himself.

[Buzz]

Ted - Sorry, but I have to go with
• (d) none of the above.

[ QUOTE ]
But you don't play a pair of nines in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are two possible interpretations of my own:

• Interpretation #1. "You don't play an Omaha-8 hand containing a pair of nines because of the value of the pair of nines." In other words the nines are not enough of an asset to make a hand (that is otherwise unplayable) worth playing.

• Interpretation #2. "Four cards that include a pair of nines are not generally recommended as starting hands in Omaha-8."

I do seem to lose every time I play a starting hand with a pair of nines. Sometimes I occasionally play them just to see if one time they won't turn into winners. The trouble is, if you push a set of nines or a boat made with the nines, then you invariably (or so it seems) get screwed on the river - and if you don't make a set of nines or better, you're probably out of there before the river (probably after the flop). Obvious exceptions would be hands where you might catch another part of the flop like:

A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif,

A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif,

A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 4/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif,

A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 5/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, and

A/images/graemlins/heart.gif A/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Ed Miller]

This is how I read it:

"A set of nines is better than a set of eights if the other two flop cards are trey-deuce, but you should not play starting hands that contain a pair of nines, so it's somewhat academic."

[TylerD]

That's my interpretation, well put. You should write a book or something.

[Ray Zee]

i think i was trying to show how when you have a high hand how much it goes down in value when the chances of a low become more possible. so like the 88 is bad because you are going to split at best. whereas with the 99 you might get it all. but 99 isnt a playable hand. just an add on. there are some times you find yourself in with these kind of hands but those are accidental. i believe you missed what i was trying to say and instead concentrated on the nines. they were just an example.

[MarkD]

Wouldn't 99TJ be a playable hand (going for a high)? Or A299?

Those are the only two hands I would consider playing that have 99 in them but I think they are both playable in the typical low limit loose passive (pre-flop) O/8 games that I'm used to.

Sorry to get off topic, I know the point of the quote isn't to dwell on the 9's.

[MKR]

[ QUOTE ]
well put. You should write a book or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very funny.

[tiltboy]

"Wouldn't 99TJ be a playable hand "

The problem with that hand, IMO, is that there aren't many ways for this to be the nut hand without making a low possible thereby potentially splitting the pot or without making a better straight or full house possible. Obviously any flush, except a few straight flushes, you get is non-nut.

[Theodore Donald Kiravatsos]

Thanks to all who took the time to share their thoughts.



[ QUOTE ]
Ted - Sorry, but I have to go with
• (d) none of the above.

[ QUOTE ]
But you don't play a pair of nines in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are two possible interpretations of my own:

• Interpretation #1. "You don't play an Omaha-8 hand containing a pair of nines because of the value of the pair of nines." In other words the nines are not enough of an asset to make a hand (that is otherwise unplayable) worth playing.

• Interpretation #2. "Four cards that include a pair of nines are not generally recommended as starting hands in Omaha-8."

I do seem to lose every time I play a starting hand with a pair of nines.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you should say that, because the opposite is/seems true for me. 99XX over the past year or so has been my nemesis whenever people play it against me. Their fulls seem to crack my nut flushes, they jam their set and my low doesn't fill, etc.

I have shared my contempt for the 99XX starting hand with a good friend and we have a few laughs in our home game as he will puprposely play them just to upset me.

I'd just like to add that (I believe) I haven't had any problems grasping the content of Ray's book. My question wasn't so much about the content as it was (admittedly a little silly here) more about inflection points in the sentence if you were to read it out loud. That is, if you were reading this to someone, which word would you stress in that final sentence? (Because we don't read aloud in a montone, and I dont "hear" myself read in a monotone, either.)

[iblucky4u2]

The biggest money drain in O/8 is playing hands that cannot/are not the nuts. Unless you flop quads, those 9's cannot make a nut full house until the river. Then you are probably playing for only 1/2 the pot. If you like those odds, go for it. Else, trash those hands with 99, unless you have a suited A with another wheel card. Just MHO

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, if you were reading this to someone, which word would you stress in that final sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ted - I originally read (past tense "read"), and still read (present tense "read") the sentence as:

You don't <font color="blue">play</font> a pair of nines in this game.

There's not much emphasis on the word "play" the way I read (past or present) the sentence, just a bit.

I can see how different words in the sentence could be emphasized, and agree the sentence has at least slightly different meanings depending on what word <font color="blue">is</font> emphasized.

I think we probably bring our own baggage along with us wherever we go, interpreting what we read or hear differently depending on our backgrounds and pre-conceived notions.

Interesting thread. Reminds me a bit of an English literature class I took once. I was constantly irritated by the professor reading something into an author's written words that didn't seem to me to be there. Even more irritating is when federal judges do it. (The 9th Ciruit Court of Appeals immediately comes to mind).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
"....your hand is not very good....Notice that a set of nines would be quite a bit better with....flop like 932. (But you don't play a pair of nines either in this game.)


[/ QUOTE ]

That is how I'd probably put it. Eights are bad. Nines would be much better. (But we don't play nines either, (so you see how bad eights are, etc)). Actually I think Ed Miller put it better.