I HATE Trips (or: There Really ARE Monsters Under the Bed)

[Jeffrey Biship]

For some reason trips have been giving me fits lately in both HE and O8. Here are just two of those hands, both from .50/1.00 Omaha 8.

Hand 1:

In the unraised big blind with Tc9c8d4h. Three limpers and the small blind make five to the flop for one bet.

Flop: Ts Th 3c

I bet, get two callers.

Turn: 4s

I bet, get two callers.

River: 7d

I bet, get raised, third player cold-calls. I reraise, raiser caps, cold caller calls two more. I call.

I lose to JhTd8h7c and a back door low of AhQh9h2h.

I figure I "only" made one mistake in this hand. What's your count? Should I have folded after it gets capped?

Hand 2:

I limp 2 off the button with KhQsTs9s. The cut off raises. The next FIVE players call. I call, too. Seven to the flop for two bets.

Flop: QcQd6h.

It's checked to the raiser who bets. EVERYONE calls. No low draw. No flush draw. No straight draw. It gets back to me and I think, "Hell, I've got between 6 and 10 outs to scoop. I may as well raise," and do so. EVERYONE calls. I mentally call for a new setup.

Turn: 5s

Checked to me, I decide to retain the initiative and bet again. EVERYONE calls.

River: 6s

It gets checked to me. I know I'm beat, but there's no way I win this huge pot by just checking it down. I go ahead bet again. TWO people call. Ad2s6c5c (Who knew that the winner of the pot was dead money!) beats AhQhJs7s and my third best hand.

Was raising the flop a mistake here? I mean, look at all that dead money! Was betting the turn a mistake here? Once again--DEAD MONEY! Was betting the river really THAT big of a mistake here?

Jeff

I don't mind having it pointed out that I'm a bad player, but please do me the courtesy of not acting like I've never considered the possibility. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Buzz]

Hi Jeff - When you flop trips, you need a good kicker. You really want an ace for your kicker.

Hand 1 - With Tc9c8d4h, you don't have a decent kicker. That written, I would play the hand the same as you up to the river. At that point I would just check and call.

Hand 2 - "I limp 2 off the button with KhQsTs9s."

In a very passive game where there was virtually no chance of a raise I might limp with this piece of cheese. If I thought there was a reasonable possibility of a raise behind me, I'd tend to fold it from 2 off the button. I think "eyehole" hands like this one are more playable in Omaha-high than in Omaha-8.

"Flop: QcQd6h. It's checked to the raiser who bets. EVERYONE calls"

You have ten outs. Thus your hand odds are 35 to 10 or 3.5 to 1 against you. With hand odds of 3.5 to 1, you will need at least four players seeing your raise to have odds to raise. After six opponents have already put money in the pot on this betting round, you will almost surely have at least the needed four opponents calling your bet. Thus you have favorable odds to raise here. In addition, raising here is good for your table image.

"Turn: 5s Checked to me, I decide to retain the initiative and bet again. EVERYONE calls."

Seems reasonable. With this many expected callers, you're still getting favorable odds to initiate a bet. And you want to make the low draws pay.

"River: 7d"

A disaster for you. You not only missed your full house, but now a straight will beat your trips and there are three possible two card combinations that will make a straight. In addition, an opponent might well have a full house, or even have you out-kicked with AQXX. You are facing too many opponents to think your trip queens with a king kicker will win. 98XX, 84XX, 43XX, AQXX, Q6XX, Q5XX, Q7XX, 55XX, 66XX and 77XX all will beat you for high. Plus with 765 on the board and this many opponents, you're only playing for the high half of the pot.

At this point, in my humble opinion you should treat this hand the same as you'd treat any draw that missed.

"Was raising the flop a mistake here? ....."

No. Not at all. It was a good bet. You simply missed your draw and lost your bet.

"Was betting the turn a mistake here? ....."

No. Again you simply missed your draw and lost your bet. When you bet that you will make a full house, you expect to usually lose your bet, but with six callers, you will win enough when you do make your full house to justify your bet. This time you simply lost your turn bet (because you didn't make a full house on the river).

"Was betting the river really THAT big of a mistake here?"

I think it was a mistake, at least in the game your are describing. In another game where your bet might chase out non-nut high hands like straights, it might not be "that" much of a mistake, (but with full house possibilities out there, I think it still would be a mistake). Here you ended up costing youself four big bets on the fourth betting round. An error that costs you four big bets in a loose game like this one doesn't exactly seem a major error, but it does seem more than a minor error. Maybe it's an intermediate error, if there is such a thing.

As noted above, you lost your second round bet when you didn't turn a full house. Similarly, you lost your third round bet when you didn't river a full house. You made two bets with favorable-odds but, alas, lost them both. If you bet on a certain horse in a particular race and lost, would you then buy another losing ticket for the same horse/race? That's what betting on the river amounts to here.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[chaos]

Hand 1:

I agree with Buzz, you played way too aggressively on the river.
You only have trips with a week kicker. The board is paired so there is a good chance of someone having a full house. Also a low is possible so you are only playing for half the pot. Check and call if it is only one bet back to you. If it is two bets when it gets back to you, I would fold here.

Hand 2:

I think you did fine until the river. You should have checked. You knew you were beat, so why waste a bet.

You seem to be overvaluing a hand like trips. You can easily lose to someone with trips and a bigger kicker unless you have an Ace.
.
Having high trips is a significantly worse hand than having top set (where you have two of the rank in your hand and flop one). This is because it opens up the possibility of a full house. High trips are a drawing hand. You want to make the nut full house. This is not so easy to do unless you hit a high card in your hand. An overcard on the turn or river can give someone with a pocket pair a larger full house.

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz,

Thanks for the comments.

"You made two bets with favorable-odds but, alas, lost them both. If you bet on a certain horse in a particular race and lost, would you then buy another losing ticket for the same horse/race? That's what betting on the river amounts to here."

Great line, Buzz. Thanks again for your feedback.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Biship]

Chaos,

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated, however let me clear up one minor point:

Hand 1:

"I agree with Buzz, you played way too aggressively on the river. You only have trips with a week kicker."

I actually had the second nut full house on the first hand.

"Having high trips is a significantly worse hand than having top set (where you have two of the rank in your hand and flop one). This is because it opens up the possibility of a full house."

I'm aware of this, which is why I find trips to be a troubling hand. It seems too good to just roll over and check-call or even fold outright, but that's what I want to do when I get it.

I think maybe I'll just start folding it unless I have trips with the ace.

Thanks again for your comments.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Biship]

Buzz,

One other thing:

"In a very passive game where there was virtually no chance of a raise I might limp with this piece of cheese. If I thought there was a reasonable possibility of a raise behind me, I'd tend to fold it from 2 off the button. I think "eyehole" hands like this one are more playable in Omaha-high than in Omaha-8."

This call was based upon the advice given on Badger's website, or at least my understanding of his advice. We both respect Badger's O8 knowledge; I'm always interested in hearing about players I respect disagree.

His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position.

I adopted this after my first reading of his website, then abandoned it after getting less than stellar results with these hands, then adopted it again after my brother (who is a better player than I), seemed to think it was a good idea.

I'm going back to the drawing board on this one.

Thanks again, Buzz.

Jeff

[chaos]

While flopping trips is good in hold'em, it is not nearly as good in Omaha8. Another hand/flop that needs to be greatly devalued is when you flop two pair. Unless either of these hands improves to the nut full house you may be trailing by the river.

[chaos]

His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position.

I think that is too loose. My requirements for a no-pair big card hand are quite a bit tighter. I'll play if:
1. I'm in late position
2. All 4 cards are 10 or higher
3. I have a suited Ace or the hand is double suited

You need the extra out provided by the flush draws. Just my opinion.

[Buzz]

Hi Jeff - I almost chopped the losing horse race bet ticket analogy when I proofed what I had written, but decided to leave it in for you. Glad you liked it.

"His advice, as I understand it, is to call with four cards 9 or higher in late position."

I think Steve suggested playing four cards ten (not nine) or higher to a single bet in late position. Regarding "late position," the seat before the cut-off qualifies as late position, I suppose, but just barely. I think of the seat before the cut-off seat as "late" when I have a couple of passive rocks seated behind me, but otherwise I don't exactly think of that seat as "late" position.

Hutchison suggests playing four cards ten and above if they also satisfy one of the three following additional requirements: (1) two pairs, (2) one pair plus two suited cards or (3) double suitedness.

In my humble opinion, KhQsTs9s is stretching both of these sets of requirements (Badger's and Hutchison's) - and thinking of the seat before the cut-off seat as "late position" is stretching the meaning of late position.

Even so, perhaps I shouldn't have called the hand a "piece of cheese." At least all four cards are working together. I think the hand is actually quite playable in Omaha-high. However, in my humble opinion, the hand seems sub-marginal in Omaha-8. I might play it sometimes, but if so, it would be with the awareness that I was playing a sub-marginal hand.

I hope the previous paragraph makes sense to you.

Buzz

[chaos]

I personally disagree with many hands that meet or don't meet Hutchison's requirements.

Two pairs are only good if they are both big pairs and you have some suits working. I would muck a hand like TTJJ ns. What are you hoping for with this hand? To make the nut straight with your TJ. That is a very remote possibility. To flop a T or a J and no overcards. Most likely, if that happens you will be splitting the pot with a low. An overcard to your T or J does not always mean doom but someone could easily have a bigger set or a bigger straight draw. If they have a bigger set and you both fill up, it will cost you a lot of chips to dicover that your second nut full house s no good. I just don't see this type of hand as being profitable.

On the other hand Hutchinson does not recommend playing hands like AKQJ with a suited Ace (he needs them to be double suited). I think this hand can be quite profitable. If the flop comes with two high cards you can easily find yourself with top two pair, with redraws to the full house, a straight and possibly the nut flush - all of which will likely take down the whole pot. If the flop comes with only one high card and no flush draw you easily muck you hand. With this type of hand you ususally scoop the pot when you win and it costs little when you lose.

I wouldn't recommend relying too heavily on any point count system. It might point a novice in the right direction but they leave much to be desired. Just my opinion.