smart move or chip spewing?

[steamboatin]

Party .50/1.00 Hi/low split.

I am first to act. Button has bet every street. Three of us in the pot. River is a deuce and gives me the nut low. action is check, check, bet, I raise, call, call. Button has the high.

I get quartered and the player in middle posistion says "don't raise split pots, stupid." Out of character for me, I reply "Don't call raises when you are quartered, retard."

A big discussion followed which is also out of character for me because I never discuss strategy in the chat window. I have been thinking about it a lot since last night.

I raised because if the other person had the same hand, it was an unprofitable call and that was my only chance to win half the pot. I assumed I was quartered and a raise was correct.

Is this a good raise because it makes the other nut low pay to much or is it chip spewing because at this limit, the low hand is calling two bets regardless?

don't worry, you won't hurt my feelings so flame away if you think I have it coming.

[Cooker]

Lets look at the EV of your opponent with perfect information. With 3 people in the pot and at least 1 bet being put in every street, the pot is at least 9 BB after your raise and your opponent has to call 2 BBs. Knowing the hands, folding for him is 0BB EV, and calling for him (assumes the action that the high player just calls as well) is EV=12(final pot with his call)/4 BB-2BB (how much he has to call) = +1BB EV, so he should call. Had you not raised, the EV of his call becomes 9/4BB-1BB=1.25BB, so his EV did go down (as did yours since you both have the same EV if you both stay in). Now if you consider the chance that the high hand could raise and then you might cap, he should probably fold, but at .5/1 you should realize no one ever folds a nut low, so this would be bad for you as well. There will be times where you can make it incorrect for the other person to call with a nut low (and therefore gain quite a bit of EV over flat calling), but at this level, they will always call and cost you both money, so don't bother with looking for or trying to exploit those situations (it might be a good exercise to figure out the proper pot size to make this play correct though).

Still, I don't mind the raise on your part since a 2 fell, and someone that was drawing at a nut low with something like A259 will likely call the raise anyway without the nut low at this level.

[Tom Bayes]

Nobody ever folds the nut low on the river in a $0.50/$1 game, either because the concept of folding a nut low to avoid quartering never occurred to them or because the thought of folding has occurred to them but they've seen too many people show down horse manure to actually do it.

That said, if I'm you, I'm just gonna call and hope the quarter doesn't happen.

[TGoldman]

This thread goes off on some tangents, but it does have some solid theory discussion re: the topic you mentioned.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I raised because if the other person had the same hand, it was an unprofitable call and that was my only chance to win half the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

steamboatin - Because of the money that's already in the pot, calling with the nut low, in a limit game, is almost surely profitable.

The break even point with two opponents is two big bets in the pot from previous betting rounds.

If there are already two big bets in the pot from previous betting rounds, and if it costs a caller two big bets, then Hero's two opponents also contribute two big bets and the total in the pot is eight big bets. In this case if the caller gets quartered, then the caller would get back those two big bets.

It's almost impossible to come up with a scenario where the caller who was going to get quartered would lose by calling with the nut low. In a $4-$8 game, for example, if only three opponents limp to see the flop, and then if there's no betting at all on the second or third betting rounds, the pot will contain $12. Then if there's a bet and a raise in front of you, the pot size will be $44. If you call the $16 bet, the pot size will become $60, and your share for getting quartered will be $15, one dollar less than it cost you to call the double bet on the end.

But anything more than three small bets already in the pot at the start of the fourth betting round results in the caller getting back more than the last double bet, even though quartered.

The caller with the nut low may end up losing money on the hand overall by getting quartered, but in a limit game, because of the money already in the pot will almost surely get back more than the amount of the last double bet.

Thus your raise didn't give your opponent unfavorable calling odds. Your opponent, by calling, played correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed I was quartered and a raise was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were certain you were quartered, and if you were certain your raise would not induce an opponent to fold a hand that otherwise would have beaten you for high, then raising with the nut low would be a poor play.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this a good raise because it makes the other nut low pay too much or is it chip spewing because at this limit, the low hand is calling two bets regardless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither.

You don't know for certain that your opponent actually does have you quartered. And if you have any remote chance to win high (maybe just a minimal pair) your raise may knock out an opponent with a non-nut high that is a better high than yours. If you can do this with a raise, you get 3/4 or if your opponent who has not folded has a second or third nut low and no better high than you, you scoop.

Thus the raise is not a poor play, even though you do lose money on the raise when you get quartered with only two opponents.

But you're going to take some flak from a pissed opponent who also has the nut low every time you raise with the nut low.

In a live game if the raise proves to be unprofitable for both my opponent and me, I might glance over and murmer, "sorry" or "bad raise." That apologetic gesture usually somewhat defuses my irate opponent and makes the game more pleasant.

Buzz

[steamboatin]

I still have a lot to learn about his game and I can't tell you all how much I appreciate the feedback. My thoughts were that a call was wrong. I thought I had to either raise or fold.

[BruinEric]

I'm new (new new new)to O8 (playing .25/.50; .5/1) and I've found that LO8 is a magnet for table coaches.

A common springboard for "coach" is when someone goes aggro with A2 nut low, when "anyone" should know that the call-down guy has the same lo hand.

[Buzz]

steamboatin - Your 3rd betting round raise was a good play. Period.

In this particular case, a call would be my second choice. A fold here would be horrid - a "big" mistake.

Rightly or wrongly, I raise a lot more in Texas hold 'em than in Omaha-8.

The difference, from my perspective, is you're usually on a draw in Omaha-8. The general principle involved is when you're on a draw you get better odds by just calling. However, where you have the nuts and where you want to promote your hand into a scooper or a three quarterer, I think a raise is better than a call.

In a live game, when my raise costs both of us money, I know I'm going to catch crap or get a free pedantic lesson from somebody who also has the nut low. But over the long haul, I'm certain you make much more by raising here than you lose. Not raising with the nut low on the turn could amount to a "big" mistake whereas raising with the nut low on the turn is, at worst, only a small mistake.

Just my humble opinion.

Buzz