Educational O8 RGP threads

[AKQJ10]

Buzz's RGP post in that other thread here has inspired me to go digging around RGP to find threads that might be helpful in improving my O8. Frankly the only reason i don't do the same for this forum is because its search engine is pretty awful. Nevertheless, there's a wealth of advice on RGP so i figured i might as well see what i can learn from it.

Probably not all of these will be of interest to everybody, but let me know if these are helpful and i'll come up with some more search terms. I'll list the searches in bold:

Omaha "starting hands"

link - thread giving the probability of 0, 1, and 2 suited pairs or rank pairs in an Omaha hand.

I'm sure there's more under this search if i dig a bit more.

Omaha sucker

link -- I got the idea for this search from this post on that same thread as Buzz's. Oliver's name is familiar from a soccer listserv i used to be on, but i'm more interested in learning how to tell these "sucker straights" where having a nut straight on the flop leaves me an underdog. So i looked for some more material....

link-- Oliver's common mistakes. Scroll past the Hold 'em material to where Omaha begins right before the truncation. I found this post very educational.

link-- yet another hand analysis by Oliver

link-- by someone else named Chris,

link-- by Greg Raymer, praising loose Omaha for its moneymaking potential but warning of its lack of strategy at all but the highest levels.

link-- interesting advice from Steve Badger and discussion of marginal opening hands like 2347

link-- another Badger contribution, although the "sucker" reference came in the post replying to him.

link -- Yet another good post by Badger, about the value of AAT9.

link - hutchinson system of point counting, linked in one of those threads.

link - some archived RGP posts from Oct 2001 on Badger's site. One of the threads linked above directed me here for starting hand analysis. I don't see exactly what they were pointing at, but there's still a lot of good O8 material.

Anyone else find these links helpful or am i just wasting my time playing RGP librarian? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Other searches I'd like to combine with Omaha or O8:

"pot odds"
"board pair*"
"promot*"
"double wrap straight draw"
roulette (I'm fascinated by the concept of the Omaha river as a roulette where each player has a certain number of cards "covered")

[AKQJ10]

I did want to ask for confirmation on the following quote from Oliver Tse's "Common mistakes" thread though:
[ QUOTE ]

Some common mistakes at Omaha tables:

...4. Not folding a made straight on the flop when you have no possibility
to improve and the board has a possible flush draw. You may be a serious
underdog against someone with a flush draw and another player with a top
set who is drawing to a full house or quads. In particular, a made
broadway straight (TJQKA) with no possibility to improve after the flop is
one of the biggest Omaha sucker hands because other players have more
"outs" to beat you than the number of "blanks" that you need to draw for
your hand to hold up. (Emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds just crazy, although i understand that Omaha can be a counterintuitive game. I can buy that a straight would be the underdog to hold up as the nuts with two cards to come, like the double wrap case. What i can't believe is that it would be such a severe underdog that the odds offered by the pot make it not worth calling a bet or two.

Opinions, anyone?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I did want to ask for confirmation on the following quote from Oliver Tse's "Common mistakes" thread though:
[ QUOTE ]

Some common mistakes at Omaha tables:

...4. Not folding a made straight on the flop when you have no possibility
to improve and the board has a possible flush draw. You may be a serious
underdog against someone with a flush draw and another player with a top
set who is drawing to a full house or quads. In particular, a made
broadway straight (TJQKA) with no possibility to improve after the flop is
one of the biggest Omaha sucker hands because other players have more
"outs" to beat you than the number of "blanks" that you need to draw for
your hand to hold up. (Emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds just crazy, although i understand that Omaha can be a counterintuitive game. I can buy that a straight would be the underdog to hold up as the nuts with two cards to come, like the double wrap case. What i can't believe is that it would be such a severe underdog that the odds offered by the pot make it not worth calling a bet or two.

Opinions, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring to pot-limit Omaha.

[Beavis68]

I can see it in PLO, not but not in limit.

Ac Jh Th on the board

Omaha Hi: 666 enumerated boards containing Ac Jh Th
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Ts Qc 9d 193 28.98 436 65.47 37 5.56 0.317
6s 5s Ah Qh 254 38.14 375 56.31 37 5.56 0.408
Js Tc 9c Jd 182 27.33 480 72.07 4 0.60 0.275




The key is to make it to the turn without putting in a lot of chips, you if you can make it that far, you are much better off.

[Buzz]

AKQJT - Good post. Those other posters you've singled out consistently exhibit wisdom in writing the truth. I hadn't read some of those posts before you provided the links. Good stuff there. Thanks.

Buzz

(There are a bunch of great posters on this forum too).

[MKR]

This is very helpful. Thanks.

MKR

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the positive feedback. Since it seems like these are well-received, here are some more:


O8 "pot odds" group:rec.gambling.poker

link - REALLY excellent short thread about why not to raise with most low draws.

link - Recent short thread about a pitfall in figuring pot odds on a flush draw, namely pairing the board with your flush card -- also Buzz explainss his "chip demo" for split pot odds, so how can you ask you for more? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

link - More good advice from Buzz on high sets; if i'd read this earlier i could've saved myself a post on that other thread.

link -- Good hand analysis from two Steves about when not to be timid in O8.

link - Buzz analyses the wisdom of playing a mediocre hand in a raised pot out of the big blind.

[Buzz]

AKQJT - Thanks. Interesting for me to read through some of those threads again.

[ QUOTE ]
"Good hand analysis from two Steves about when not to be timid in O8."

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion is centered around holding
2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the big blind when the board after the turn is
T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

You certainly should, in general, want to get as much money in the pot as possible.

But how you get your opponents to contribute as much money into the pot as possible depends on how your opponents react to your actions.

For example, there was a guy sitting directly on my left for a while tonight, and every time I bet a flop I liked, he raised - making it two bets for the other players, who might chase one bet but would generally fold to two bets (unless they had great fits with the flop). When I checked, he checked too, and sometimes nobody else bet. It was maddeningly frustrating! My choices were to face everybody with two bets or no bets - never just one bet unless I passively checked every flop I liked, waiting for somebody else to bet, which usually didn't happen. Finally another seat opened up and I moved. (The guy who raised my every flop bet lost of course, but with him sitting directly on my left, I didn't do well either).

With the hand/board shown above, it’s not the time to be timid or afraid of the monster under the bed, but maybe it’s not the time to scare away your customers either.

With that hand, from the big blind position, after the turn, I think you should usually simply bet straightforwadly - and then if raised, you might re-raise or not - depending on how you read your opponents. You might do better against some opponents by going for a check raise.

The other thing about the discussion thread cited is that getting quartered or sixthed for low is ignored by both of the posters. The only considerton is getting counterfeited. In fact, getting quartered or sixthed in a full game when your nut low is ace-deuce happens more (about 40% or the time) then getting counterfeited on the river (6/44 or about 14% of the time).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
link - More good advice from Buzz on high sets; if i'd read this earlier i could've saved myself a post on that other thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't agree with this one.

Ideally, you want everyone to fold. But if everyone
doesn't fold, you want all non-nut flush draws to fold. That way, if the board
flushes but doesn't pair, your top set may hold up.

It's true that you want everyone to fold, but if you have a set, you don't want a non-nut flush draw to fold unless it is the only flush draw, and there is no way to know that. If you flop top set when the flop comes with two of a suit, the ideal situation would be to oppose five flush draws, all of whom you'd want in there throwing money at the pot. When you have a set, all of the flush draws save one are dead money.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't agree with this one.

Ideally, you want everyone to fold. But if everyone doesn't fold, you want all non-nut flush draws to fold. That way, if the board flushes but doesn't pair, your top set may hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mack - Me neither. In truth you want everyone to fold who would beat you if they didn't fold and you want all the people who couldn't beat you to stay in the hand and pay you off.

In the case of flush draws, I agree if you can't get rid of all of them, you want as many as possible to stay in the hand.

When I wrote the statement with which you take issue, I was thinking you probably wouldn't generally be able to induce the nut flush draw to fold after an unpaired flop with two cards of the same suit - but if nobody had the nut flush draw, you might get a non-nut flush draw to fold. Obviously it doesn't do you any good to have somebody with a non-nut flush draw fold if somebody else calls with the nut flush draw .

Flopped sets are very vulnerable in loose games! For example, when you hold
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and the flop is
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], whatever action you take, you’ll probably need the board to pair to bring in a winner.

• 2nd betting round

The odds are 38 to 7 against the board pairing on the turn - 5.4 to 1 against it - but if the board does pair you won’t have to split with low. If you have five opponents here and figure at least one of them will pay you off for two more betting rounds if the board pairs on the turn, you have proper fresh money odds to bet your draw. If you miss on the turn, unless you get an ace on the turn, the odds will become 34 to 10 (3.4 to 1) against the board pairing on the river. If you miss and the board gets an ace on the turn, then the odds will become 36 to 8 (4.5 to 1) against the board pairing on the river.

Stacking up chips in front of me here, I’m using one chip for a small bet and two chips for a big bet. If the odds against the board pairing on the turn are 5.4 to 1, then you’re getting odds to initiate fresh money into the pot if you get 6 chips for a 1 chip investment. To get 6 chips, all you need is one chip from each of two opponents on the 2nd betting round and then two more chips from only one opponent on the third and fourth betting rounds.

I think you only need two opponents who will see your bet to initiate fresh money into the pot yourself on the 2nd betting round with the hand/flop shown above. I think you’ll easily have that in a loose game. Therefore in a loose game you bet your flopped set of kings because you’re getting proper fresh money odds to do so.

Against tight players, especially weak/tight players, it’s a bit of a different story. I think your play is to bet because of the distinct possibility a bet from you will induce tight players who actually have diamond flush draws, but non-nut diamond flush draws to all fold. A bet from you may also get tight players who have what they consider 6-out straight draws to also fold.

Thus in tight games you bet your flopped set of kings to induce tight players to fold non-nut drawing hands that might draw out on you. You bet your flopped set of kings to enhance the probability of them holding up, unimproved. Since you might be able to drive tight players out of the pot (tight players who would have otherwise ended up with winning but non-nut hands at the showdown), your flopped set of kings may not need to improve in a tight game - even if the board flushes or straights.

I made the example such that you wouldn’t have to worry about splitting the pot with low if the board paired. You’re probably wondering how things would be different if you held
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and the flop was
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

In that case you still might bet your set of flopped kings to drive tight players who might beat you with non-nut flush or straight draws out of the pot - players who might out-draw your flopped set of kings if you didn’t bet, but who would fold non-nut flush or straight draws if you applied pressure.

But what about a loose game? Holding
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] after a flop of
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], the odds against the board pairing on the turn are still 5.4 to 1, but if the board pairs on the turn and subsequently enables low on the river, although you’ll win for high (about 95% anyhow), you’ll have to split with low 22/44 while you’ll scoop 22/44.

We already figured when you scoop you need at least 2 opponents calling your bet on the second betting round to have proper odds to initiate fresh money into the pot.

What about a pot that will end up being split? In that case, I think you can figure on more bets going into the pot on the turn and river - lets (conservatively) estimate 3 more. To end up with more than 5.4 as your split, looks from here like you need at least four opponents calling your bet on the 2nd betting round.

Thus for half of the possible river cards you need two opponents and for the other half you need four opponents calling your bet on the 2nd betting round.

Immediately after the flop, you don’t know if low will be possible or not when the board pairs on the turn or river. Taking the average, I’d guess three opponents would even out in the long run.

Bottom line, to get proper odds to bet or raise on the second betting round with nothing going for you hand but a flopped top set of kings, you need two opponents when low won’t be possible if the board pairs. You need three opponents when low will be possible about half the time if the board pairs.

There’s another important consideration on the second betting round when you have odds to jam. That consideration is how much better will you do on the third and fourth betting rounds if you don’t jam on the second betting rounds. I think sometimes you do better by waiting for the third betting round to pull the trigger. But it depends on your opponents and your interaction with them.

• 3rd betting round

Suppose you flopped top set and then didn’t improve on the turn. Let’s first take the case where low will not be possible if the board pairs on the river. For example, suppose you hold
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and the board after the turn is
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

There’s going to be enough money in the pot to call a bet, but what about initiating fresh money into the pot? In the example given above, you have 10 outs. The odds are 3.4 to 1 against the board pairing on the river. Assuming you can get one opponent to pay you off on the river if the board pairs, you need three opponents who will see your bet to give you proper odds to bet. You need three opponents who will see your raise to give you proper odds to raise. And it doesn’t matter if the game is tight or loose.

Finally let’s take the case where low is already possible. For example, suppose you hold
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and the board after the turn is
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

You expect to win for high if the board pairs on the river, but you also expect to split with low. With odds of 3.4 to 1 against the board pairing on the river, you need to win 3.5 chips when the board does pair. Looks like you need at least five opponents who will call your bet on the 3rd betting round to have proper odds to bet - and that’s assuming four of them will also call a bet on the river if the board pairs on the river.

You might get a weak/tight opponent who has a non-nut flush or straight plus no low or a poor low to fold, but with low already possible, someone playing a good low hand could also coincidentally have a non-nut flush or straight. So it’s a tough decision whether to bet (or raise) or not. You’re not getting proper odds to initiate fresh money into the pot, but you may increase your chances of winning if you bet.

• 4th betting round

There’s no problem if the board pairs. Once in a while (roughly one time out of twenty) you’ll get clobbered by an opponent with quads, but otherwise your kings full (or any overboat) is very strong.

But what if the board doesn’t pair. In that case you’re left with a set of kings and a board that almost surely enables a better hand - a straight or a flush. However, you don’t know whether or not an opponent has the necessary cards to make the straight or flush. If an opponent bets, do you pay off with your top set or not? If you’re last to act and nobody bets, do you assume nobody has the flush or straight or not?

Ah.... but this post is already too long. My time is up.

Buzz