[Buzz]

Ken - Successful players have different opinions about the playability of high cards.

[ QUOTE ]
Hutchinson clearly states that a playable high hand should have all 4 cards ten or above with a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? It's been a while since I've looked at Hutchinson's site, but that's not what I recall. I thought he opined something about playing all four cards above ten with:
• one pair,
• two pairs, or
• double suited.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe he's amended his site to read as you claim.

My own opinion is it depends on the specific situation in which you're playing, on how many opponents will be seeing the flop with you, on how well they'll play after the flop, on the suitedness of the hand, and probably on some other factors which don't immediately come to mind.

I personally don't think K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is a very good starting hand, although it evidently meets the requirement of having four cards over ten with a pair. Would I play it? In a home game where everyone will chase all the way to the showdown with trash, I'd generally see the flop. In a casino ring game I'd probably fold the hand. But with the king suited to a ten, I'd probably see the flop with it from the button for one bet at a passive table. Depends. In a tournament, the hand would almost surely go straight into the muck. The differences in playability in various situations have to do with the implied odds the pot is laying compared to the odds of ending up with a winner. At a loose table with chasers for one small bet, you're getting much better implied pot odds than you're getting at a tight table for two small bets. (There are also differences in what you'll need to win at each table).

I don't think K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is a good starting hand either. However, as with the hand cited in the previous paragraph, whether or not I would play it would depend on the circumstances. Or if the king is suited to one other card, the hand seems (to me) playable.

Different "experts" do have different, sometimes conflicting opinions. And when the experts disagree, it's hard to know who to trust. The more I have played Omaha-8, the more I have come to trust and appreciate the very solid advice given in Ray Zee's High Low split poker book.

A few things I have read in some other Omaha-8 books simply have seemed incorrect to me. I don't mean typos - I mean concepts. (I don't want to go into specifics here).

I imagine part of the difference of opinion of "experts" regarding the playability of various hands stems from differences in their own experiences. Note that differences of opinion by experts is not limited to Omaha-8. For example, there are various books written by medical doctors, presumably experts, which offer different opinions regarding what we should eat.

I personally think there are some hands with four cards of nine and above, and without a pair that are playable, at least in some games. For example 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] seems very playable for one bet in a loose game. I'm basing my opinion mostly on simulation results.

However, even though I'd generally play the above listed hand (A9TJd), I think if you stick to Hutchison's advice regarding starting hands, you'll at least not be playing too loosely before the flop yourself.

Regarding the playability of cards of nine or better, Steve Badger's web site originally advised playing four cards of nine and above, but then he revised it to read four cards of ten and above. He might also have some additional qualifiers, pairs and such, - I don't remember, off hand. But at any rate he evidently changed his opinion about either (1) the playability of four cards of nine and above or (2) the prudence of advising people to play them. Please don't misunderstand me here. This is by no means a criticism of Steve Badger. On the contrary, I admire people who make corrections to set the record straight. It's just that exactly what hands to play and what hands to fold is not always black and white.

Just my opinion.

Buzz