Omaha 8 Situation

[Buzz]

"Buzz, have you been hustling Chowaha down in Texas again?"

No, but it's an idea!

After the flop in any flop game you have an opportunity to make a wager on the second betting round. If you lose your wager you will have an opportunity to make another wager on the third betting round. What it amounts to is making two wagers, one on the second betting round and then if you lose that wager, another on the third betting round. If you lose one small bet on the second betting round, the cost will only be 1 small bet.

I had tentatively decided to play it cool until the fruit cakes busted out of the tournament. But then I got dealt a pair of jacks, which seem a very decent hand in ten handed Chowaha, especially with people still playing all sorts of poor hands.

After a raise by the small blind on the first betting round seen by five players, there were fourteen small bets in the pot when it was my turn to act on the second betting round. If I had made my hand on the turn, considering implied pot odds, I would have eventually collected, I figure, at least another four big bets (= 8 small bets). Thus the implied pot odds for that one bet were something of the order of 22 to 1. Considering that there are two turn cards in Chowaha, I figured the hand odds against me were roughly 10 to 1. (Actually, the hand odds were a bit lower, something like 9.4 to 1).

At any rate, I was getting an enormous overlay to see the turns. With pot odds of 22 to 1, and with hand odds of roughly 10 to 1 against, clearly I had odds to draw.

Still, I wonder if it is wise to take a long shot in any tournament if you think of yourself as a decent player. 10 to 1 is sort of a long shot.

But then, since there is only one river card in Chowaha, and looking at 13 cards after the flops and turns, I figured the hand odds against me were 37 to 2, or 18.5 to 1. Facing 1 big bet (= 2 small bets) and a limp, I figured my implied pot odds were in the neighborhood of of 23 to 2, or 11.5 to 1.

Thus the overlays had flip flopped. Instead of getting a big overlay, I would be paying a big overlay to see the river. There was still time left in the tournament. I still had half of my original buy-in left. And so I decided to save the last big bet.

Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe once you commit yourself to a hand, even though you're no longer getting favorable odds, you should tough it out.

When I saw the jack on the river it was as though someone had slapped me right across the face. And I'm left wondering if I was wise to play the pair of jacks to begin with, and then if I should have seen the turns when there was no jack on the flops. It just seemed like such a good deal at the time, seeing the turns and getting that huge overlay.

At the time I didn’t have the odds figured exactly. There was a time, thirty or forty years ago, when I might have calculated them in my head, when I was capable of calculating them in my head. Now I need more time and on most days I also need a calculator. I just get them approximately when I'm sitting at the poker table. I had it figured as approximately 10 to 1 against me on the turn with implied pot odds of about 20 to 1, and then approximately 20 to 1 against me with implied pot odds of about 10 to 1 on the river.

And so I'm left babbling to myself about the Chowaha hand that was.

But yeah, maybe Texas is the place to go to hustle Chowaha. No one here will play it with me any more, except for that once a year deal at ESCARGOT.

Buzz

[beetman]

I have several comments to add but am in a rush right now so I'll finish later. As far as our differences of opinions are concerned, the situation described sounds a bit contrived, so I may not be assuming the same number of opponents who will play for 2 cold versus 3 cold as you are assuming. As stated in the question it sounds like the opponents are playing the vast majority of their hands for 2 cold but a very limited percentage for 3 cold. It is difficult to calculate exact percentages as a large majority of playable 0/8 hands contain an ace; we have two aces in our hand and the UTG raiser almost certainly has at least one ace, so in all likelyhood there is only one ace in the deck. So I'm having trouble figuring out what starting hands these guys will be playing. It's almost as if they all know what a good starting hand is, and will completely ignore that and play everything for 2 cold, but suddenly they play correctly for 3.

In my experience, the type of player who plays most hands for 2 cold definitely doesn't know what a good hand is. He/she y might know that KJ77 isn't particularly good, but I can't imagine he/she realizes that 2389, KK64 etc. aren't "good hands."

I have more to add about post-flop mistakes and domination when I have more time.

[Phat Mack]

Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe once you commit yourself to a hand, even though you're no longer getting favorable odds, you should tough it out.

I put my money in, look my opponent in the eye, and say, "Feeling lucky Punk?" As of yet, I have never been confused with Clint Eastwood.

But yeah, maybe Texas is the place to go to hustle Chowaha. No one here will play it with me any more, except for that once a year deal at ESCARGOT.

Chowaha burned brightly, but briefly, in the Friendship State - then disappeared, never to be seen again.

[DPCondit]

Yes, I think I see what you are saying. I was probably taking the first post too literally about 4 to 6 people calling for 2 bets, but getting heads up for 3 bets. It seems that with a pair of aces in your hand (and at least one in your opponents hand) that the deck is totally crippled. Probably 4 to 6 players will see the flop for 2 bets most of the time, but I thought he was saying they would call here for 2 bets but not 3, but that seems to be a stretch when at least 75% of the aces are already accounted for. I think this accounts for some of our differences on this hand, but I am interested in what else you have to say (when you have the time of course).

Thanks for your input,
Don

[beetman]

I just noticed I forgot to finish my previous thoughts. Since this is an old thread, feel free to start a new one if you think this issue deserves more discussion.

You made a comment along the lines of "wanting to get more dominated money in the pot." An interesting thing about domination is that it doesn't quite work the same way in O/8 as it does in Hold'em. In Hold'em, if you have AK in a multiway pot, the presence of a guy with a dominated hand like AT really helps you. But in O/8, if you have a hand like AA2Q, you dominate a guy with A28T or similar but his presence in a multiway pot probably hurts you more than it helps as you'll be quartered for low. Heads up, you have him dominated as his high chances are much more limited than you, but multiway your aces are much less likely to win high as they are heads up.

Because we put the original raiser on a hand like A2xx or AAxx, we are likely to have him dominated in one direction or the other, so heads up is a great scenario for us, but multiway his presence probably hurts us more than it helps.

[DPCondit]

I'm not necessarily thinking that a reraise is a bad play here. I was originally going by the first post that said it would go 5 or 6 handed if you didn't. I am questioning the soundness of that original assumption. With all or most of the aces already gone, I think you might get less callers than first assumed. If you figure 36 cards are dealt out, a little less than 3/4 of the deck, then there should be an average of a little less than 3 aces dealt out to the players pre-flop. To get those 5 or 6 players for two bets each on an average flop, much of the time half of them will be holding aces, this time you already have half of the aces, and I think that you get a lot less players here even if you don't raise. Plus, if the players who would have called with an ace fold, I think you might get a reverse schooling here where it triggers a lot of other folds (sure they'll usually call for 2 bets "because it is going to be a big pot", why call for 2 bets with 2389 if it doesn't look to be a big pot?). In other words, I am surely questioning that a smooth call will go 5 or 6 way here.

In simulations that I have run however, it appears to have a higher expectation overall to have all those loose callers in if you assume the raiser has A2XX, if he has AAXX, you do better by folding the loose callers. But there are 6 ways for him to have A2, and only one way to have AA, so A2 seems much more likely. Now you may be able to assume that he doesn't raise all of his A2 hands, even if he only raises half, or one third of them, A2XX is still much more likely than AAXX. I know that I am going to have to abandon ship a lot of times if I let too many callers in, but I still think the overall expectation is higher. As far as being quartered for low, I don't think a reraise will fold any A2 in this type of game anyways, and if I am going to get quartered, I want a lot of people in there putting in money (reraising does not reduce my chance of being quartered for low in my opinion). Of course by not isolating the hand becomes much more vulnerable, but the expectation is still better in my opinion (unless the raiser has AAXX, then isolating is higher expectation). I'm sure to get some disagreement here (and from people whose opinions I respect), but that is the way I see it.

I have not finished my thinking on this situation yet, and I am not necessarily thinking a reraise is incorrect. If calling makes it 5 or 6 way, then I like a call, however, if a call makes it 3 or 4 way, and a raise makes it 2 or 3 way, then I like the raise better, and this may be more the case in this scenario. Of course if the aces were not suited, then they become just a pair of aces which does much better heads-up or 3 way. To me the question of whether to reraise hinges on how many callers I would get by just calling. If the original raiser would only raise UTG with aces, then it is no contest, always reraise.

I am always capable of changing my opinion, but that is where I am at right now. If we really want to break this down, then it is going to take a bit of work, and a lot of theoretical scenarios to make my case here, I have already ran several simulations of different scenarios here, in response to this thread. If we want to work this all out, then we should start a new thread, and it is going to take some time and work to put this together.

Don

[beetman]

I think we both disagree with the assumption in the first post about the number of callers. While there are games where people routinely call 1 bet but not 2, it seems quite out of the ordinary if people routinely call 2 bets but not 3, plus the lack of aces.

I am surprised at the results of your sim. I would expect that you would want the loose callers when the raiser holds AAxx but you would want to fold them when he holds A2xx.