THE Omaha H/L Starting Hand? - Page 3

schroedy · #21 01-10-2005, 09:31 AM

which calls to mind my favorite HE starting hand:

"pair of Kings . . . suited."

Cue-Ball 66 · #22 01-10-2005, 02:07 PM

If we attempt to capture proposed betting patterns...may I suggest 8899 double-suited, as possibly the worst O8 hand?

Cleveland Guy · #23 01-10-2005, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If we attempt to capture proposed betting patterns...may I suggest 8899 double-suited, as possibly the worst O8 hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is insane.

While hardly a great hand, 8899DS will win a lot more pots, and split a lot more pots than 2222 or 3333.

Cue-Ball 66 · #24 01-11-2005, 01:19 AM

You miss the point sir. I obviously am not saying this from a statistical which is more likely to win you money point of view...otherwise for starters I would not have made them double suited. I am merely suggesting that 8899ds will lose you a lot more money than 2222 will.

BradleyT · #25 01-11-2005, 08:18 AM

How exactly does it lose money from the big blind? It either hits the flop and you stay in or it misses and you fold.

Only a moron would not win more money with that hand than 2222 from the BB.

Cue-Ball 66 · #26 01-11-2005, 10:25 AM

Hey, wohhh, easy there.

I didn't realise we were limping from the big blind here, and I don't particularly want to get into a stupid internet argument about it. I was just saying that it's a dangerous kind of hand because at best you hit a mid-range hand, and that's where you lose money in this game.

Also please note I did not say 2222 will win you more money, as you eluded to, I said it will lose you less...as you will never lose money with 2222 because you will never play it.

Didn't expect to have my head bitten off for mentioning it, it was half tongue-in-cheek anyway...

...I'll be more careful not to annoy people in future...

BradleyT · #27 01-11-2005, 11:17 AM

Well if you took the time to read the thread before presenting your argument you would have known we were comparing hands from the BB.

And losing less is the same as winning more as far as bankrolls are concerned.

Cue-Ball 66 · #28 01-11-2005, 11:25 AM

The big blind fact makes no difference to my argument anyway. And winning more is definitely different to losing less. If you get 2222 you have an expectation of 0, because you don't play it, you don't win, you don't lose.

I am merely saying that unless you're extremely cautious with 8899 and have good knowledge of your opponents, you may have a large NEGATIVE expectation with this hand, and if it's positive it will be very very slightly. It's a win a little/lose a lot hand. The best flop you can hope for is one like 349 (unless you're happy to flop the nuts and just pick up the first round bets, i.e. win a little)...and that's a very risky prospect as we all know.

BradleyT · #29 01-11-2005, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And winning more is definitely different to losing less.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we each start out with a free $2,000 and have to play 1000 hands of $5/$10 before we can keep it in a game we cannot beat who ends up better?

Me who loses less than you at 1BB per 100 hands.
You who losses more than me at 3BB per 100 hands.

I end up losing $100
You end up losing $300

A bet saved is an extra bet in your bankroll. It's a basic poker concept.

Cue-Ball 66 · #30 01-11-2005, 12:12 PM

Yes, a bet saved is equal in value to a bet earned, but they are different things.

And this is exactly my point, you save a lot of bets with 2222 that you may not otherwise save with 8899. This has been my whole point all along.

Anyway, I've made my point, if you don't agree with it that's fine, but there really is no need to be so condescending.

You may be a better poker player than me, you may be right about this, but I still have the right to state my opinion. Please can you try a different tone in future?