Bill Boston's Omaha 8 Starting Hands

[MasterShakes]

I've read Bill Boston's book, focusing on the statistics of starting hands in Omaha 8. For those who aren't familiar, it gives the expected value of every starting hand in Omaha 8, given a $10/$20, relatively tight game.

The book isn't flawless, in my opinion, as it gives little advice on how to adapt to other types of games which 2+2 books tend to give advice on (loose games, shorthanded play, playing with a maniac, etc.). The other problem I found is somewhat minor. He lists certain hands as "single suited," assuming that the hand plays the same way, regardless of which hands are suited.

For instance, his charts recommend playing A-4-6-7 single suited. This hand is highly likely to have a significant difference in value when the Ace is not suited to one of the other cards. As far as I remember, he doesn't account for this. There are other hands, where we must be left to assume that the "single suited" is suited to the highest card in the hand. This is common sense, but as a result, we don't know the value of A-4-6-7 when only the 6 and 7 are suited, but not the Ace.

Boston assigns an expected hand value to each hand. What I'd like to know is whether the hands with a $0 hand value become playable in looser games.

For instance, A-4-9-9 single suited has a $0 hand value according to his charts. In a loose, $2/$4 game at PP, does this hand become playable in later positions?

Further, are there certain hands with negative value that would become positive in late position in loose, low-limit games?

I'm sorry to go on so long about this. All in all, this book seems to be very valuable. I'd just like to know how to make it adapt to my play, as well as others who play at the lower limits online.

[Buzz]

"I'm sorry to go on so long about this."

Mastershakes - Not at all.

"For instance, his charts recommend playing A-4-6-7 single suited. This hand is highly likely to have a significant difference in value when the Ace is not suited to one of the other cards."

I believe the simulation for that hand was done assuming the ace is suited to one of the other cards.

Obviously omitted (or the book would be over three times as thick) are hands where the ace is suited to two of the other cards or all three of the other cards - and also hands cards other than the ace are suited.

Thus if the suit is clubs for a single suited hand with A-4-6-7, The value given in the book is for Ac-4c-6d-7h, Ac-4d-6c-7h, or Ac-4d-6h-7c.
Omitted from consideration are
Ac-4c-6c-7h,
Ac-4c-6c-7c,
Ad-4c-6c-7h,
Ad-4c-6h-7c,
Ad-4d-6c-7c, and
Ad-4c-6c-7c,
all of which might play a bit differently than Ac-4c-6d-7h, some more than others.

For example, holding Ac-4c-6c-7c, you'd (obviously) be substantially less likely to end up with a flush than with Ac-4c-6d-7h. Thus Ac-4c-6d-7h is clearly a better holding than Ac-4c-6c-7c.

However, when you compare Ad-4h-6c-7c, with Ad-4c-6c-7c, although you are less likely to end up with a club flush with the latter hand, so are your opponents. Thus when you make a club flush with one of these hands, Ad-4c-6c-7c is more likely to make a winning flush than with Ad-4h-6c-7c - and I think that probably makes Ad-4c-6c-7c a generally better starting hand than Ad-4h-6c-7c. Probably a moot point, since neither of these seems a strong starting hand.

Ad-3h-6c-7c and Ad-3c-6c-7c seem more marginal to me as starting hands. Would anybody else here be more likely to play one of these more than the other? At any rate, as you have pointed out, Boston's book provides no comparison between these various types of single suited flush draw hands.

Then there is the whole issue of games that are not as tight as the one for which he did the simulations. In addition, editions with later publishing dates show different values for some of the hands than editions with earlier publishing dates.

However, in spite of these (and other) flaws, the book provides good insight as to the relative playablity of various hands in tight situations. As such, Bill Boston's work seems worthwhile and admirable.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[chaos]

I agre with Buzz. The book is worthwhile and thought provoking.

Another thing to consider is that with a hand listed as A23K s it may have significantly different values even when we realize that it is the Ace that is suited. For example, you will earn more money with Ac 2c 3d Kh than with Ac 2s 3d Kc. This is because you would prefer the King of your suit to be available for someone to make the second nut flush and pay you off.

[Buzz]

Hi Chaos -

"For example, you will earn more money with Ac 2c 3d Kh than with Ac 2s 3d Kc."

Very good point! I think when Bill Boston lists A23Ks, he actually set up the simulation for As2s3nKn, the optimum suited hand for A23Ks.

Buzz

[chaos]

Buzz, thanks for pointing that out. So it appears that his general philosophy was to run the simulation for the most profitable hand for a given class. Good to know.

[El Dukie]

I think you'll get a lot more out of the book if you keep the methodology in mind. Boston ran 100,000 simulations for most hands against "tight" opponents. As Buzz pointed out, this affects the results. If you're playing in a typical (i.e. loose) low- to mid-limit O/8 game, you'll probably see more profit potential with the good hands, and I would suspect less profit potential with the marginal-to-bad hands (since you'd be less likely to back into either the high or low against a large field). I agree that, as a whole, the book is valuable in giving you an idea as to which types of hands have potential and which ones should go straight into the muck.

[Mike28a]

In my version of the book, which I received earlier this week, he makes it clear that single suited means the high card is suited to the low card and double suited means the two high cards are suited to the two low cards. He also notes that against looser opponents most of the hands are more profitable than in his simulations.

All in all, worth the money and the study.

[Aragorn]

>>Another thing to consider is that with a hand listed as A23K s it may have significantly different values even when we realize that it is the Ace that is suited. For example, you will earn more money with Ac 2c 3d Kh than with Ac 2s 3d Kc. This is because you would prefer the King of your suit to be available for someone to make the second nut flush and pay you off.


I would say there is a SLIGHT difference. The number of times you will make the nut flush AND someone will make the king-high is pretty small. They not only have to have Kx suited, but play the hand and keep playing. When it happens it is nice, but it's not that frequent an event.

[chaos]

Although someone having the second nut when you have the nut flush is not that common an occurance, when it does occur you will likely be paid off. I do think this can signifacntly add to your EV for the hand, especially in an aggressive game with raising on the turn and river. Of course this depends on your opponents. If they are bad enough to pay you off with any flush then the hands will have identical EVs.

[dilly]

Pretty new here, but I can see this forum is going to be a great help. This thread is very interesting. I have the book beside me and thought it would be helpful to you to read a quote from his research methodology:

<<Note that when I say a hand is suited, I always mean that the highest card is suited to the lowest card. In double-suited hands, the two highest cards are suited to the two lowest cards.>>

The books shows the value as follows for A467:

$5 value double suited
$2 value single suited, and
-$1 value non suited.

I am glad you pointed out that this was meant for tighter players in a $10/$20 game. So far, after about a month of playing Omaha, I think it might just well apply to my .50/1 and 1/2 games as well. They are unbelieveably loose. With most of a 10-person table seeing the flop with any four cards and staying most of the way, I find that the nuts are required at showdown. Everyone will hold any ace, ace/deuce, ace/trey, and much, much worse With 7 or 8 seeing the flop every time, someone is bound to connect with the nuts, either low or high.

One of you mentioned you would prefer the king of your suited ace to be in someone else's hand in hopes they would make 2nd nut and call. Does this mean that you dont play 2nd nuts if it is your only draw? I have learned that lesson the hard way.

I have a couple of dozen other omaha questions, but I will make them a subject of future posts. Thanks for reading this rambling post.

dilly