[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
From a rollout simulation pont of view, winning two half pots is the same as scooping one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike - Sort of. Winning two half pots is tabulated separately from scooping. If a hand wins 2000 half pots for high, the number used to combine with the number of scoops to get a total would be 1000. Some simulators tabulate the high wins and then divide them as appropriate before showing a total. Other simulators divide the high wins as appropriate but do not add them to scoops and lows to show a total. And I suppose there are some other possibilities with which I'm unfamiliar.

I'm not a computer or simulation expert. I use twodimes.net and Wilson Turbo Omaha High-Low Split for Windows as tools to aid me in deciding whether I should be playing various hands or hands/boards or not. (And I've seen results from other simulators).

[ QUOTE ]
However, when you actually play with betting post-flop, then scooping of greater value. You are much more likely to drive the betting and win a bigger pot, if you have decent chance to scoop, than if you have a low and are worried about being quarted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. There are two ways you can scoop.
• win high with nobody winning low and with nobody wharing high with you.
• win high and low with nobody else sharing either high or low with you.

In the simulations, a high hand making a straight is just as likely to be tied as a low hand making a low. In real life there's a difference. You're more likely to get tied for low than for high, and the better your low, the more likely you are to get tied. Don't misunderstand this and start thinking you're better off playing poor low draws since you're less likely to get tied. (You're less likely to get tied with a poor low, but you're more likely to get beaten by a better low).

(In real life, how often a hand will scoop, win half one way or the other, or tie depends on how loosely your opponents are playing. Wilson allows you to use different characters as opponents. The various characters have different propensities to see the flop and then to stay in a hand or fold, and some are more aggressive than others. I mostly just use Painless Potters as opponents in the simulations, opponents who never fold. Twodimes.net is also a non-folding simulator).

Hope the above makes it clearer for you.

I'm currently adding the high, low and scoop sub-totals together. The high sub-totals shown by Wilson are actually halves/2 + quarters/4 + sixths/6 + eighths/8. Similarly, the low sub-totals shown by Wilson are actually halves/2 + quarters/4 + sixths/6 + eighths/8. Wilson doesn't add the sub-totals together. Twodimes.net does, and shows the totals as "ev." Bill Boston in his book added the sub-totals together, divided by 100, and showed them as "%." (I think that's how).

I'm suggesting there's something misleading with adding the sub-totals together, that the sub-total for scoops is worth more in real life than the sub-total for low. However, I agree the scoop sub-total is not worth more in the simulations.

At any rate, although I'm also doing it, it seems misleading to simply add the sub-totals together. Chaos suggested or implied this in response to a post of mine a while back, and I agreed with him. (I don't mean to drag you into this quagmire, Chaos).

Not sure I'm making myself clear. Some other posters evidently think I'm being completely bone-headed about this. (After I get hammered for a while, I start wondering if I'm not doing something wrong or missing something).

But I'm taking the hammering to try to get at the truth.

Buzz