Yet another starting hand question O8

[JustSam]

Been a lurker here for a bit, and I have come to value the opinions expressed here...

I was criticized for playing a couple of hands today and would like some input-from a bit more objective view. (Forgive me if I don't use all the right terminology, or wrong info...first post and still learning.)

So $10 fixed O8 single table tourney. 5 people left. I'm am in the lead with approx 3800 in chips, more than twice the stack of the guy in second. Table has been pretty loose, with some pathetic bluffs/raises early on.... but is tightening up as blinds are now 50/100.

I'm first to act and limp in with [Ks 8h 8s 7h]

Couple people fold, OTB raises, SB folds, BB calls for 37 more (putting him all in)..so I call to see the flop.

Terrible idea?

I know it's not the greatest hand, but this is not pot limit or NL....is it a really bad starting hand though, given the circumstances?

Thanks in advance

[jaeon]

i would definitely be mucking a hand like that. i'm currently using the hutchinson point system to determine what starting hands to play, and it seems to work pretty well.

hutchinson pt system

this site has a good starting hand article as well:

low limit omaha starting hands

and here:

lou krieger omaha article

[chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
this site has a good starting hand article as well:

low limit starting hands


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that site is that they do not differentiate between non-suited, single-suited, and double-suited hands in their starting tables.

Many of the hands listed are not playable when they are not suited. You will surely lose money calling multiple raises with 23QQ not suited, as they recommend.

[chaos]

That hand is pure junk. And you are in the worst position, acting first preflop.

The worst cards in Omaha/8 are 7s, 8s, and 9s. You have three of them.

In Omaha/8 you would like to have the nuts or a draw to the nuts. There are very few flops where this will be the case. I would fold this hand from any position including the small blind.

[Yads]

That hand is not "not the greatest hand" it's an absolute junk hand. I'm going to disagree with the above poster and take out 9s from that list, but 7s and 8s are death cards in O8.

[pipes]

The 9 is the worst card in O8b. With a 7 and an 8, he could make a low.

[Yads]

[ QUOTE ]
The 9 is the worst card in O8b. With a 7 and an 8, he could make a low.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of low can one make with a 7 and an 8 exactly? Maybe in a heads up situation and even then they're pretty useless. At least with a 9 if you hit there's a good chance a low won't be out. In a full handed game I generally play any 4 cards that are 9 and above if there's at least a single suit.

[pipes]

Yes, its the worse possible low, but sometimes, just having a low is all you need. Granted it doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and thus having a 7 and 8 in your hand is way better than having a 7,9 or 8,9.

But it really doesn't matter, because I don't play many hands with 7,8, or 9s in them.

[chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally play any 4 cards that are 9 and above if there's at least a single suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little tighter.

I do not play any starting hands where the lowest card is a 9, even if they are double suited. I think hands like 9JQK ds and 9JKK ds are not profitable. If I have double suited A9 with two big cards I may play it in position. The suited Ace adds value with a nut flush but it is too far from the 9 to be coordinated to make a straight. Even these A9 ds hands are marginal.

I'd rather wait for suited cards, Ten or higher.

[Buzz]

Chaos - From reading your posts, I think I probably play (rightly or wrongly) a good deal more loosely in ring games than you do.

However, one group of hands where we are in complete (or at least very close) agreement, are

[ QUOTE ]
starting hands where the lowest card is a 9, even if they are double suited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think hands like 9JQK ds and 9JKK ds are not profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that over the course of a playing session one would be expected to do better for these particular starting hands by avoiding playing them than by seeing the flop with them. I would categorize both of these as sub-marginal starting hands.

But, depending on your opponents, there may be an advantage to playing more starting hands. And one way you play more starting hands is to include marginal or even sub-marginal hands as starters.
• One reason to play more starting hands may be that it's more difficult for opponents to put you on cards when you play more hands. Thus although you may show no gain or even a small average loss on these particular hands, your pay off with other hands may be higher. (Of course, if too few of your opponents are putting you on cards anyway, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason).
• Another reason may be that if you're playing opponents who are throwing their money away by playing almost everything and then chasing with poor flop fits, you have to be in the hand with them to catch some of the money they're throwing away. If you're sitting the hand out, although you're not risking anything, you're also not profiting from the poor pre-flop and post-flop play of opponents. (Of course, if a sufficient number of opponents don't play loosely before the flop and poorly after the flop, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason). I'm not suggesting playing as loosely before the flop as your loosest opponents - and I'm certainly not suggesting chasing after the flop with a poor fit - just that playing like a rock, although relatively safe, may not be the optimum strategy for everyone.
• A third reason for playing these hands is that when you play more starting hands, you might tend to get more action when you play your excellent starting hands. (Of course if your opponents give you just as much or nearly as much action when you play very tightly as when you loosen up, then it's silly to play these hands for this reason).

I'm not criticizing tight play. I'm sure I play more tighly than most of my opponents typically do. I'm just pointing out that besides being more fun and less boring to play more hands, depending on your opponents, it may be more profitable over the course of a playing session to play marginal and even sub-marginal starting hands. Let me make it very clear that I believe you still should play a disciplined game, exercising discretion and good sense both before and after the flop.

{quote]If I have double suited A9 with two big cards I may play it in position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree that these hands are better played in position. This is part of exercising discretion and good sense.

(I don't think we're actually very far apart on the playability of these hands although I probably play more of them than you. However, I do recognize them as poor starting hands and I do have the discipline to fold them when folding seems to me the best overall course of action.)

[ QUOTE ]
The .... Ace .... is too far from the 9 to be coordinated to make a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Actually any honor card (ten for example) can only make one nut straight with an ace (AKQJT for example). By contrast, KT can make two nut straights, (AKQJT and KQJT9) while JT can make four (AKQJT and KQJT9, QJT98 and JT987).

Thus you're clearly not playing hands with aces because of the straight making capability of the aces. However, I'm sure you'll agree that aces are the most prefered cards you can be dealt. There's obviously more to playing hands with aces than making straights with them.

Even so, I strongly agree with you that A9 suffers as a two card combination because it cannot make a straight.

[ QUOTE ]
Even these A9 ds hands are marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I don't think you mean to include double suited AA9X hands, some of which are quite strong.

Just my opinion.

Buzz