[Terry]

I’m not saying that my way is “the” way to play this game -- just that it has served me well in games ranging from extremely wild aggressive $3/$6 home games in which $300 pots were not at all uncommon to the Mirage $10/$20, which is probably about the toughest game you’re likely to find at that level.

In those very loose aggressive 8 players to every showdown low limit games, where it seems that the 3 bettor on the flop of 458 is just about as likely to raising with 99J2 (“I had an overpair”) or 842Q (“I was afraid of the straight draw”) as he is to be raising with A2, I’m simply unwilling to put in five or ten more bets to find out whether my A3 is any good, even though it just might show a profit against that sort of competition.

What I think is likely the biggest problem with A3 type hands for a person trying to play well in wild games is that he will too often feel forced to fold to the excessive action after the pot gets big, and a lot of those folds will turn out to be wrong.

Flopping the flush draw and getting tied on for several more bets in hopes of winning half the pot is not where I want to be, particularly since I will so often miss the flush and be faced with the prospect of calling two or three bets cold with the second best low on the river. For my taste, the increase in profit is just way too small for the huge increase in variance. If you see me putting in multiple bets on all streets in a loose game, you won’t have much difficulty reading my hand; I either already have the nuts one way (probably with counterfeit protection and or redraws) or I’m drawing (with 12 or more outs) for a scoop.

But that’s just me. I’m a grinder. I’ll gladly settle for 5% less earn if I can cut my variance in half. I certainly wouldn’t say that it’s wrong to go after that additional edge, just that it isn’t necessary to do so to have a nice win rate at Omaha 8.