Short handed O8 - maniac isolation tactics?

[BlueBear]

Hi,

The game is $5/$10 party shorted-handed 08, say 4 players, there is a maniac to my direct right who raises 95% hands. Assume the rest of the table is loose with a mix of agg/passive players. When the maniac open-raises, is it wise tactics to re-raise with a somewhat marginal hands (for example, 3499, KK47, KQJT, 25QK, etc...) so that we can get heads-up with maniac with a positional advantage?

There are two approaches to deal with this case that is to just call the maniac and get other players to play along OR to isolate the maniac.

I understand the isolation of a maniac is good tactics in short-handed holdem with any two good/marginal hands. Does the benefits of isolation play also apply for 08 (or should I just give up as people are going to call the 3-bets anyway)?

BlueBear

[chaos]

It depends on the nature of your hand and your other opponents. Some hands play better shorthanded while other would like as many callers as possible. The other opponents may be so loose that they call three bets without hesitation or they may realize that you are running an isolation play.

I think you still need a decent hand to try and isolate. In my experience you are not going to get the maniac to lay down very many hands so you will need to showdown the best hand at the river. Most of the hands you listed (other than KQJT) are sub-marginal - they are bad. I don't think a hand like 3499 will perform that well against a random hand. I would wait for a hand with some redeeming qualities to enter the pot.

Keep in mind that you will need to scoop the pot to make money. If you isolate the maniac and split the pot you will gain very little since you would only be splitting the folded blinds minus the rake.

[Gitz]

Bluebear,

I would move to his right if possible. If not I would tighten up and just call in most positions before the flop. It's going to cost you more money to play marginal hands that you describe that almost need a perfect flop to continue.

paul

[Buzz]

Blue Bear - You have more than just one opponent. I think it is a big mistake to concentrate too much on out-playing one opponent in Omaha-8. “Too much” is the key; of course the overly aggressive opponent deserves your attention. But you need to consider your other opponents too. I realize you already know that, but I think it’s the first consideration, and deserves to be noted.

You always need to choose a tactic that will actually accomplish your objective. If your objective is to get one-on-one with the maniac, and if a raise will accomplish that objective, then you can raise for the purpose of getting one-on-one.

Therefore your second consideration, in my humble opinion, is to establish what you can accomplish with a raise. How a raise will affect your opponent’s actions is very dependent on your opponents, also very dependent on their opinions of you, and also very dependent on their opinions of the interaction between you and the maniac. Raising to get rid of any of them who suspect your motive may not accomplish your objective. So at some point you have to test the waters and then go from there.

The third consideration, in my humble opinion, is the actual cards you hold. Starting hands that tend to make the nuts are wasted in one-on-one play. That’s an overstatement, I suppose, but maybe you catch the drift. What I mean is you want lots of customers chasing with second and third best hands when you make the nuts.

You can’t tell ahead of time if you’re going to make a nut straight-flush, quads, full-house, or straight. For example, a pair of kings generally does better than a pair of eights, but if there’s a pair of fives plus an eight but no king on the board, then the pair of eights is clearly better than the pair of kings... (I’m not suggesting that you include hands that feature a pair of eights in your A-list of starting hands).

However, with a suited hand or a hand with low cards, you should know when you are likely to end up with a nut flush draw or a nut low draw... It’s fairly simplistic. When you have a suited ace and flop a flush draw, you’ll have the nut flush draw. When you have acey deucey and flop a low draw, you’ll have the nut low draw - or if you have ace-trey and flop a low draw that includes a deuce, you’ll have the nut low draw - or if you have deuce-trey and flop a low draw that includes an ace, you’ll have the nut low draw.

Thus the third consideration is that some starting hands do well when one-on-one while other starting hands do better against as many opponents as possible.

My feeling, but I don’t have simulation data to back me up, is that hands like the 3499, KK47, and 25QK you have listed do reasonably well one-on-one against random hands. These hands are all basically two two-card hands with a shot at low and also high. And I personally don't like rainbow hands much (with some exceptions like A234n) - but maybe that's just my hang-up.

For example, in the 3499, the 34 go together for low and the 99 go together for high. Neither 34 nor 99 is a good combination against a full field. But one-on-one the 34 may win for low and the 99 may win for high - especially against a random hand. (There are some other possibilities as well - eg. the 34 may win for high - but this is a long shot).

The KQJT you have listed is a nut making hand. For this one you want customers when you make the nuts... And when you have customers, although Big Dave may disagree with me, I strongly feel you also want the hand to have a possible flush re-draw. People have made a case for raising before the flop with this hand to collect from opponents who play tightly after the flop - just in case the hand has a fit with the flop... I think whether or not you raise before the flop with this hand depends on how many will be calling the raise and how they play after the flop, both when there’s a pre-flop raise and when there isn’t. At any rate, I would not try to isolate with KQJT.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the isolation of a maniac is good tactics in short-handed holdem with any two good/marginal hands. Does the benefits of isolation play also apply for 08 (or should I just give up as people are going to call the 3-bets anyway)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty hard to say without knowing the individuals involved - and not an easy question even when you do. I think you might be concerned about individuals targeting you and/or the maniac by selectivly calling the 3-bets.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Drunk Bob]

Set on his right and check raise him at every oppertunity.

Be prepared for big losses or big wins.


Personally I would look for another table.



But that is just weak tight me.

[Drunk Bob]

Thank you Buzz

[BlueBear]

Hi,

Thanks for all your replies. I guess I got it wrong when trying too hard to isolate with hands that really should isolate. I ran an simulation of those stated hands against any random hand and they don't really perform that well head-ups. I guess I'll be raising preflop mostly for value (and maybe to win the button/position) from now on.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran an simulation of those stated hands against any random hand and they don't really perform that well head-ups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blue Bear - My impression is that although some hands are much better than random hands in a full game, no hand dominates random hands one-on-one.

I'd be very interested in seeing the results of your simulations.

Buzz

[chaos]

My gut feeling is that a pair of aces with either a 2 or a 3 would dominate a random hand.

[Phat Mack]

Here's a sim for 9943r against a random hand. It looks as though it's a push, but on examining the results, it might be a good hand to play as long as you flopped a set or higher for high:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> Monte carlo simulation results from Poker Calculator 1.1.4.1
Omaha Hold'em hi/lo 8/b, 100000 combinations tested.

Hand | 9h9s4d3c | xxxx |
------+--------------+--------------+
High | 12203 | 15669 |
Draw | 3061 | 3061 |
Lose | 35976 | 35358 |
Scoop | 35358 | 35976 |
Low | 14679 | 11560 |
------+--------------+--------------+
Win% | 49.6% | 50.4% |
------+--------------+--------------+


9h9s4d3c:
Pair win: 6902 draw: 87 lose: 22149
Two Pair win: 14686 draw: 199 lose: 22597
Three of a Kind win: 10885 draw: 6 lose: 4362
Straight win: 5516 draw: 483 lose: 1593
Full House win: 8581 draw: 19 lose: 943
Quads win: 991 draw: 0 lose: 1


xxxx:
High Card win: 0 draw: 0 lose: 3011
Pair win: 5954 draw: 87 lose: 20872
Two Pair win: 18318 draw: 199 lose: 18536
Three of a Kind win: 6060 draw: 6 lose: 2930
Straight win: 9069 draw: 483 lose: 896
Flush win: 5907 draw: 0 lose: 486
Full House win: 5785 draw: 19 lose: 830
Quads win: 474 draw: 0 lose: 0
Straight Flush win: 78 draw: 0 lose: 0
</pre><hr />

Here's the 9943 hand double suited. It picks up 4%+ in win rate. The flushes it makes seem to be &gt;4:1 favorites. Interesting.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Monte carlo simulation results from Poker Calculator 1.1.4.1
Omaha Hold'em hi/lo 8/b, 100000 combinations tested.

Hand | 9h9s4s3h | xxxx |
------+--------------+--------------+
High | 13465 | 13665 |
Draw | 2980 | 2980 |
Lose | 31948 | 40261 |
Scoop | 40261 | 31948 |
Low | 12780 | 12568 |
------+--------------+--------------+
Win% | 54.16% | 45.84% |
------+--------------+--------------+


9h9s4s3h:
Pair win: 5862 draw: 69 lose: 17875
Two Pair win: 12659 draw: 132 lose: 19185
Three of a Kind win: 9685 draw: 9 lose: 4005
Straight win: 4711 draw: 429 lose: 1243
Flush win: 11333 draw: 0 lose: 2346
Full House win: 8486 draw: 22 lose: 957
Quads win: 990 draw: 0 lose: 2


xxxx:
High Card win: 0 draw: 0 lose: 2874
Pair win: 4980 draw: 69 lose: 21861
Two Pair win: 15436 draw: 132 lose: 21144
Three of a Kind win: 5123 draw: 9 lose: 3726
Straight win: 7838 draw: 429 lose: 2216
Flush win: 5794 draw: 0 lose: 1127
Full House win: 5831 draw: 22 lose: 778
Quads win: 532 draw: 0 lose: 0
Straight Flush win: 79 draw: 0 lose: 0
</pre><hr />