Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

hand converter doesn't work for Absolute, so:

Dealt to Hero [K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 10[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]
UTG - Checks
UTG+1- Calls $0.50
MP1 - Calls $0.50
Hero - Calls $0.50
CO - Calls $0.50
Button - Calls $0.50
SB - Folds
BB - Checks

Connected high cards with suited possbilities, albeit small ones. I figure it's good to take one off.

*** FLOP *** [A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]
BB - Checks
UTG - Checks
UTG+1 - Checks
MP1 - Bets $0.50
Hero - Raises $1 to $1
CO - Calls $1
Button - Calls $1
BB - Calls $1
UTG - Folds
UTG+1 - Folds
MP1 - Calls $0.50

In retrospect, I think calling and going for overcalls is a better play. I like my wraparound draw as any 6, 9, T, J gives me half the pot.

*** TURN *** [A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]] [Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]
BB - Checks
MP1 - Bets $1
Hero - Raises $2 to $2
CO - All-In $1.42
Button - Calls $2
BB - Raises $3 to $3
MP1 - Raises $3 to $4
Hero - Calls $2
Button - Calls $2
BB - Calls $1

After the hand, I calculated my exact outs if the flush is good to be 20, that's discounting the times the board pairs. That means I'll get half of this multiway pot 45% of the time. If the flush isn't good (which I feel is unlikely unless someone happens to have the K with their low and another spade), 13 cards give me the straight which means that about 30% of the time I'll get half the pot. I'm pretty much tied to the pot, and I raised for what I think to be value, good?

*** RIVER *** [A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]] [8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]
BB - Bets $1
MP1 - Calls $1
Hero - Calls $1
Button - Raises $2 to $2
BB - Calls $1
MP1 - Calls $1
Hero - Calls $1

The board pairs, gives me a weak flush, and instead of bailing, I decide to call only one to me. I played the river poorly I think. I probably should've folded to one of the two bets I called.

Overall thoughts?

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

Boolean,

This is a tough hand.

If you want to see the flop with this hand (and I think it's ok to see the flop with this hand) you need to have the discipline to fold this flop even though it looks like a good flop...even though it isn't.

You are playing for half the pot. Save your bets for times when you are playing for more than 1/2.

If the low was still drawing, I'd have a different answer for you, but it's already made and you aren't getting any part of the low.

So...you are drawing for half the pot.

Don't do that. You are risking alot to win just a little.

Dave

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

PF is standard.

The flop is deceptive. You have a big straight draw, that's true. However, the board has three low cards. With 6 opponents a low is almost certainly already made. You're drawing at half the pot. I think you should fold it on the flop.

On the river I think you should fold. You made the 2nd nut flush, but the board paired. A low is certainly out there, so you're going after half the pot at best. I think there's a very good chance your flush is also beat.

All in all, I think folding on the flop is the best line.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

This isn't close. Please fold this flop. You're playing for half in a small pot, and at these levels, you are not lessening attendance enough with a raise on this board...just getting yourself deeper into a mess.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't close. Please fold this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably would have mucked this pre-flop. Going into a hand where your best hand is most likely a straight is a bad strategy.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't close. Please fold this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

or come sit at our tables... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I probably would have mucked this pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?
I'd play it for 1 bet looking for a 2 or 3 hi card flop and play to scoop.

This is not that flop.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

Preflop: Muck.
Flop: Muck.
Turn: Muck.
River: Muck.

I'll give explanation if needed, but preflop and the flop arent close at all, very standard laydowns.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop: Muck.
Flop: Muck.
Turn: Muck.
River: Muck.

I'll give explanation if needed, but preflop and the flop arent close at all, very standard laydowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flop, Turn and River, I think we all agree, but preflop???

Is this really a 'very standard laydown' preflop full ring?

I play 99% 6-max, so this is a genuine question. I'd like to hear your reasoning to see if it holds true at the shorthanded tables.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

I call PF. Definitely not an instafold. A case can be made for both calling and folding.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

I think this call preflop is fine. It has scoop potential in terms of high hands. This and other four cards nine or higher hands are played strictly for high, and with the correct high flop you will scoop the pot. Obviously in this scenario, you muck this hand unless the straight is already made. No sense in drawing for half a pot.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this call preflop is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you do. You play 3-4-5-6.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this call preflop is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you do. You play 3-4-5-6.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

nh sir

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you do. You play 3-4-5-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss - Clever reply! It inspired me to compare 3456 with 9TJK.
Here are my (eight non-folding opponents) simulation results for
3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

hand.....high.....low.....scoop.....total
9TJKs-.....478.....0.....710.....1188
3456s-.....304.....593.....345.....1242

You’re not playing either hand. Fine.
Jeffrey is playing both hands. Fine.
There's not just one style of play that works.

I’m not going to mention any names but it’s interesting that some evidently would shun the 3456 hand while tending to embrace the 9TJK hand.

Although it’s hard to exactly compare the totals because the 9TJK hand scoops more than the 3456 hand, as you can see, the total number of whole pot equivalents won are really rather close, with the 3456 hand actually having a slight edge over the 9TJK hand.

Buzz

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

I would fold preflop. The 9 devalues your hand. If the 9 was a Q your hand might be worth a call. Being suited Jack-high does not add enough value to turn this hand into a call.

On the flop you have 13 out for a straight (four 6s, three 9s, three Ts, and three Js). Making your straight does not guarantee winning high. There are already three low cards out. You are only playing for half the pot. This is a clear fold.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here are my (eight non-folding opponents) simulation results for
3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

hand.....high.....low.....scoop.....total
9TJKs-.....478.....0.....710.....1188
3456s-.....304.....593.....345.....1242


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite an interesting result. I certainly didn't expect the 3456s to be a "better" hand.

One reason why I would much prefer a 9TJK over a 3456 is that the 9TJK is much easier to play. As soon as the flop comes you can quite easily judge whether you want to continue or not.

With a 3456 the only flop I'm going to be happy with is A2x. Even another good flop (I think the flop in the hand in question was 236?) is going to be hard to play.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you do. You play 3-4-5-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss - Clever reply! It inspired me to compare 3456 with 9TJK.
Here are my (eight non-folding opponents) simulation results for
3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

hand.....high.....low.....scoop.....total
9TJKs-.....478.....0.....710.....1188
3456s-.....304.....593.....345.....1242

You’re not playing either hand. Fine.
Jeffrey is playing both hands. Fine.
There's not just one style of play that works.

I’m not going to mention any names but it’s interesting that some evidently would shun the 3456 hand while tending to embrace the 9TJK hand.

Although it’s hard to exactly compare the totals because the 9TJK hand scoops more than the 3456 hand, as you can see, the total number of whole pot equivalents won are really rather close, with the 3456 hand actually having a slight edge over the 9TJK hand.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz, as usual I appreciate your post.

I admittedly am not familiar with your simulations. My question is, does your data derive from thousands of runs of 8 random hands that always play through to the end? Becuase I wonder if that is not a realistic way of considering 3-4-5-6. In reality, if someone plays at you, chances are you are either behind or looking at 50% at best. If you are not behind, you're probably looking at a small pot. So I wonder if valuing 3-4-5-6 based upon simulations of thousands of random hands that don't fold is appropriate.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

Great stuff.

But I think in practice the 3456 will be less bet-able and win less money.

but it did better than i would have expected.

-g

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really a 'very standard laydown' preflop full ring?

I play 99% 6-max, so this is a genuine question. I'd like to hear your reasoning to see if it holds true at the shorthanded tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, playing LO8 with atleast 8 players at the table, your high hands need to ...

1.) Be strong already.
2.) Develop into the nuts
3.) Seen for one bet (results usually in good position)

With KJT9ds, not only is your hand not that strong to begin with, but you have very little chance of developing into the nuts. You can flop the low end of a straight, a J High or K high flush, or only two pair. You could get a good flop of 789, but even then your hand is extremley vunerable. If there is a flush on the board that is not yours, you have to dodge that, along with a pairing of the board. If a low card comes, that will also take 1/2 the pot away from you. (the same holds true when you catch a draw or a wrap draw, like the hand in question) There isnt one flop with this hand that I would feel comfortable with. (well maybe quads, but then your just a lucky fish)

Your position is decent, but there is also still a great possiblity of a raise or 2 raises behind you and having to put 2 or 3 bets in.

That's just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

Bullet,

I hear what you are saying and agree with the vast majority of it but there is something more to these wrap around straight draws when they hit.

I haven't entirely thought this through yet, but bear with me. I think it's worth mentioning.

The reason someone wants to see a flop with either 3,4,5,6 or 9, 10, J, Q is not so much that they win frequently, but because they win HUGE pots when they hit well...even when splitting the pot because so many people hit a part of the pot and keep chasing along.

See a cheap flop. Throw it away when you miss.

Just some thoughts,

Dave

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I admittedly am not familiar with your simulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss - The Wilson turbo-Omaha-8 simulator has a screen with blank spaces to put cards and with all the cards in a full deck shown below from which to click, hold, and pull any card to the blank space where you want that card. If you don’t specify any card for a space, the simulator presumably deals a random card to that space.

There are five blank spaces for the board, and then four blank spaces for every player in the game. If I stipulate nine players for the simulation, seat #1 disappears, leaving seats #s 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. I generally pull Hero’s cards to seat #10, and then sometimes (depending on the simulation) drag some cards to other spaces.

[ QUOTE ]
My question is, does your data derive from thousands of runs of 8 random hands that always play through to the end?

[/ QUOTE ]

I specified 10,000 runs for each of these simulations. (10,000 separate deals apparently with different random cards distributed to the blank spaces each time).

The opponents I chose play all the hands through to the end. Wilson has about fifty or so other characters who play according to certain specified parameters, some tighter than others, some more aggressive than others, some more tenacious than others. You get different results using different line-ups. For the results in his book, Bill Boston used a ten-handed tough, tight, aggressive line-up. I could have done that too, or I could have chosen a line-up of other various opponents with other various characteristics, some loose, some tight, etc.

Instead I want to know how each hand would fare if the opponents stayed to the end, rather than folding for unfavorable situations. I don’t generally want simulation opponents (who actually would end up beating Hero if they had stayed) folding prematurely. And I wanted to see how each test hand would fare if Hero stuck it out to the end. And I used a nine player line-up rather than a ten player line-up, because nine players is standard for a full Omaha-8 table in the Los Angeles area.

[ QUOTE ]
Becuase I wonder if that is not a realistic way of considering 3-4-5-6. In reality, if someone plays at you, chances are you are either behind or looking at 50% at best. If you are not behind, you're probably looking at a small pot. So I wonder if valuing 3-4-5-6 based upon simulations of thousands of random hands that don't fold is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Obviously in a real game neither you nor your opponents will see every flop and stick it out to the end. But each table at which I play has different individual opponents who play somewhat differently - and at any particular table there’s a gradual exchange of opponents, so that the dynamics of the game continually change. It’s impossible to know what to expect from an unknown group of opponents.

At any rate, these particular simulations were for each of the specified hands (specific cards dragged to seat #10) playing eight non-folding opponents with unspecified cards. The Wilson simulator presumably dealt random cards to all the opponents, also dealt random cards to the board, and then tabulated the results for a number of data screens. It did this 10,000 times in an amazingly very short time.

However, as you suggest, the simulations are clearly not realistic. They only indicate how often a hand would win (and with what) if nobody folded. In real games people sometimes fold and for various reasons.

Everybody knows that ace-deuce is the best two-card combination for low, followed by ace-trey, deuce-trey, and ace-four. Almost all players in my games will see the flop with almost any holding that includes any of these, especially the first two.

So starting out with three-four as the best two-card low combination in your hand, you’re probably up against at least one opponent, and probably more than one, who has a better starting low combination than you. If you insist on not continuing with three-four for your low unless there’s an ace plus a deuce on the flop, I don’t see how you can play a hand with a three-four combination unless the hand also has an ace or a deuce (or a pair of kings or queens plus some suitedness). Thus if that’s the way you play, then 3456 is (logically) unplayable as a starting hand, even if double suited (except from the unraised big blind).

As knoll wrote in his response to Jeff’s post about the 3456 hand: [ QUOTE ]
Not much to be said here. You know you made a questionable preflop call, got trapped, then got sniped. Your play was fine on every street, just got an awful river. But as we all know that's omaha.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, Jeff played a skimpy starting hand, and then got out-drawn on the river by someone who didn’t have proper odds to see the river. However, that could happen with any hand, even a premium starting hand.

I’ll agree it’s less likely to happen with a premium starting hand, but that’s reflected in the higher simulation results for a premium starting hand.

I thought your comparison of a 3456 hand with a 9TJK hand suggested an interesting way to perhaps put non-paired, aceless high only hands in perspective. We all know that 3456 is not a very good starting hand, but there seems some lingering doubt about non-paired, aceless high only hands.

(I’m not suggesting anyone should play or not play either the 3456 hand or the 9TJK hand. Not that it matters, but I’ll play or not play both of them sometimes, depending. When and if I do play them, I like them to at least be single suited.)

Lastly, a few other comparisons:

hand.....high.....low.....scoop.....total
9TJKs-.....478.....0.....710.....1188
3456s-.....304.....593.....345.....1242
6789s-.....458.....9.....243.....710
9TJQs-.....514.....0.....704.....1218
AA23s.....314.....1599.....1016.....2929

Except for the premium hand, the 3456 hand seems the best of the lot, winning slightly more than it’s fair share (which would seem to be 1111.11 in a 9 handed game) while the hand with all middle cards is clearly the worst.

Buzz

just a note regarding the high and low columns:
The high and low totals shown evidently represent half pots divided by two plus quarter pots divided by four, etc. Thus 9TJKs- could win a half pot either (1) by tying for high with no opponent qualifying for low, or (2) by not sharing high but splitting with a low hand. We could probably come up with a pretty good estimation of how often 9TJKs was tied for high and how often it split with low, but I don’t know as it matters much. A half pot is a half pot, whether you share with high or low.

Re: Wraparound draw LO8 .5/1
 

[ QUOTE ]
the 9TJK is much easier to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

kitaristi0 - I agree it’s easier to play.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as the flop comes you can quite easily judge whether you want to continue or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument seems generally true for any starting hand. Depends a bit on who's in the game with me and exactly how well my hand fits the flop is, but as soon as I see the flop, I pretty much know if I want to continue or not. (I suppose you could come up with a hand and situation that would be tough to play after the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
With a 3456 the only flop I'm going to be happy with is A2x.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I agree you shouldn't play the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Even another good flop (I think the flop in the hand in question was 236?) is going to be hard to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the post to which you refer, Jeffrey simply took a bad beat from an opponent who didn't really have proper odds to continue after the flop or turn. That could happen with any hand, even a premium starting hand (although it's admittedly less likely to happen with a premium starting hand). But it certainly could easily happen to the 9TJK hand.

The 3456 hand is not hard to play after a 236 flop. (You don’t fold. Whether you raise or not depends on how your opponents will react to a raise). And it's surely not hard to play 3456 after another six on the turn makes the board 2366. (But I’ll admit the turned nut full house is more vulnerable to an over-pair than a nut full house made with 9TJK; the higher the turned full house, the safer).

And I’ll admit I do like the higher scoop potential of 9TJK.

But when 9sThJsKd makes a flush it will often not be the nuts. In the 10,000 run simulation, the best hand 9sThJsKd made was a flush 713 times, but the flush only won 229 times. (It lost the other 484 times). So what do you do when you have a non-nut flush on the river using a jack-nine from your hand? (It’s a rhetorical question). And the hand made a straight 2007 times, but only won high with a straight 560 times (and tied for high with a straight another 368 times). You’re going to end up with a non-nut hand on the river more often than not - and then what? (Another rhetorical question). The point is, the hand may be easy to play after the flop, but it’s not necessarily easy to play on the turn and river.

I’m certainly don’t mean to put a halo on the head of 3456. That hand can be tough to play also. It’s just that 9TJK has some of the same problems as 3456 and isn’t as easy to play as it might at first seem. I’m not recommending you play or don’t play either hand. I think they’re both sub-marginal (but I might sometimes see the flop with either of them).

That’s just my opinion.

Buzz