Playing 234 or 235?

[Ribbo]

And in revenge to make your brain hurt after reading that post.....

[ QUOTE ]
In hands such as 234x and 235x, I think that x is a lot more important than many people believe. If x is worthless, these hands go way down in value. Remember, you are playing for scoops and 3/4s. Also important is their suitedness, but small suited cards need to be played as blockers or "escapes"--don't get strung out on them.

You don't say whether you are playing big bet or limit. In big bet games, I'm going to play some of these hands near the button. In limit games, a lot also depends on the number of players taking the flop, as well as how much action the table is seeing on later rounds. In both formats, it's better if your opponents don't suspect you of playing these, so play them sparingly.

6532 isn't a bad hand in many situations, especially if has suits and you have good impied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

That has got to be true... I reexamined my stats and any hand where the x is over 6 or 7 is a loser (except a suited K I think would be playable). I'm playing almost exclusively limit O8 at the $.50/$1 level or below... started about 10 weeks ago as an alternative to NLHE and just passed 3000 hands. My win stats, if you graphed them, would probably look like a swimming pool, with the steep drop off the deep end ("this oughta be a piece of cake... what the...") followed by the slow climb back. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm enjoying learning the game and appreciate all the replies.

[Wintermute]

touche

[gergery]

23xx hands were much bigger losers than I expected they would be, after i completed myy first chunk of hands in PTO and reviewed stats.

I think they need at least 2 other features with them to make them playable, features being:
late position
another wheel card,
suited to K, Q
etc.

[mxyzptlk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if I have a 234x hand, I don't want the action TOO multiway, because most people need an A to play their hand

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, you are playing in the wrong games. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cheap jab. The ace is a key card in many O8 hands, and even the worst players know this. I admit, you can make decent money off of people playing total crap hands like 5568, but there are a fair number of people who play any a{wheelcard}xx. If you got a 5-6 way pot, I feel there is a good chance your aces are dead.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In limit, these are hands are automuck, because the implied odds just aren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. "Implied odds" aren't static, and they certainly exist for 234 combos in all sorts of situations. If you disagree, it is much better to explain why, rather than clumsily citing something about implied odds, which you appear to misunderstand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is well appreciated that implied odds are generally higher in PL and NL than in limit. You may be able to extract high implied implied odds in limit, but you really need to be against a real donk, your opponent have a very close second best hand, or somehow get a ton of chasers when you have the nut/nut. What I mean about 234 having better implied odds in PL is that you may be able to cheaply see the flop and then make a killing of a hand when someone who holds an ace and won't give it up. Some bad players won't. In limit, I may get a couple of big bets out of them. In PL I can get their whole stack when they go to war with something like top and bottom pair and no low, and I have the nut low and am freerolling them for high. However, as it was pointed out later by others, this situation I feel comes up somewhat rarely, and thus results in a fairly low win rate for these kind of hands. In addition, even when you hand good hand selection, things don't work out and you get quartered by A23.

[sy_or_bust]

Obviously implied odds are greater in big bet games. But they are very important in limit poker. Though implied odds vary greatly from hand to hand, they are surprisingly finite and allow for some fairly accurate judgments on correct play.

All I contend is that these hands have been profitable for me, and deserve some serious consideration before hitting the turbomuck. I wasn't talking about pot-limit at all - not sure why you are.

As for the first part, the whole point is that if you assume all of your opponents have a reasonable range of hands, you'll miss out on some profitable opportunities against weak, unreasonable opposition. Assuming aces are always dead is one of these mistakes, that's all.

[mxyzptlk]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously implied odds are greater in big bet games. But they are very important in limit poker. Though implied odds vary greatly from hand to hand, they are surprisingly finite and allow for some fairly accurate judgments on correct play.

All I contend is that these hands have been profitable for me, and deserve some serious consideration before hitting the turbomuck. I wasn't talking about pot-limit at all - not sure why you are.

As for the first part, the whole point is that if you assume all of your opponents have a reasonable range of hands, you'll miss out on some profitable opportunities against weak, unreasonable opposition. Assuming aces are always dead is one of these mistakes, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about PLO8 because its the game I play and it's appropriate for this forum. I agree every situation needs to be evaulated on its own, but one of the factors in evaluating whether to continue should be the number of callers, because it might be an indication of the number of live aces. Just as automucking everytime would be wrong (although with 23 hands, not necessarily detrimental on your win rate), not considering the number of live aces out there is also short sighted, but you usually *need* an ace to flop to continue. If you are saying *on average*, in a six way or more pot, that 2 or more of the aces aren't in people's hands, I am dubious. If just two aces are dead, you still have a shot, but considering this, I wouldn't get involved without at least 23{4,5} for counterfeit protection and some reasonable high possibilities.

[mxyzptlk]

For what it's worth, here is an old thread on 23 hands:
23 discussion

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
not considering the number of live aces out there is also short sighted

[/ QUOTE ]

mxyzptlk - Some of the aces are probably dead. But so are some of the nines and tens and all the other ranks.

Groups of opponents are very different. Sometimes there will be a flop such that it's hard to imagine more than two people at the table could have a fit. For example, suppose the flop is K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. What can anyone hold to call a bet after that flop? Then somebody bets the flop and gets two callers before it's your turn to act - and you're holding
K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] - (and then you know you're sitting in the right place at the right time).

It's much the same with aces. Sometimes I'll have a starting hand with a pair of aces in late position, and three opponents will limp in ahead of me on the first betting round. Does that mean I'm not likely to see an ace on the flop? I have to admit it's scary. What can they all be playing? Surely two of them have hands with aces, don't they?

Well... it ain't necessarily so!

Buzz

[Buzz]

Air humper - Yes!!! You've captured the essence perfectly.

Great post. Well phrased.

The metaphorical post by Swami Whoever was also excellent. And our own Mack also got in some good licks in that same thread. I don't often read other forums. (Basically there is nothing I have to do but take my pills and get in my daily exercise - and there's just not enough time in the day to get that nothing done).

Anyhow thanks for the reference and thanks even more for your excellent re-phrasing of the message in the other thread.

Buzz