Totally blew this one (L08)

[GooperMC]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that doesn’t allow for him getting counterfeit or him getting 1/4ed but I don’t think it will bring down the result enough to make the call –EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is closer then my numbers said but as you said I think that a call is still +EV.

[Ribbo]

I LOVE maniacs on my left, it gives me the pseudo button all the time. I hate them on my right as i'm always first to act. Check raise FTW.

[Sean D]

Thanks for the replies again. Earlier I said I was getting ~5:1 on my flop call, obviously the number is 8.5:1 and the turn call is I think 5.75:1. I ran the numbers to see what came up.

Flop:
pokenum -o8 as 7s 2d 2s - ac ah 3s 5s - 7h 3h qc 6c -- 4c 8h td
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 666 enumerated boards containing 4c Td 8h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
As 7s 2s 2d 1 40 626 0 287 103 0 0.245
5s 3s Ac Ah 206 322 344 0 100 290 0 0.445
Qc 6c 7h 3h 108 304 362 0 3 387 0 0.309

With my equity at about .25 and getting 8.5:1 the call on the flop was correct.

Turn:
pokenum -o8 as 7s 2d 2s - ac ah 3s 5s - 7h 3h qc 6c -- 4c 8h td 9s
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing 9s 4c Td 8h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
As 7s 2s 2d 0 0 36 0 10 3 0 0.139
5s 3s Ac Ah 0 0 36 0 3 10 0 0.042
Qc 6c 7h 3h 23 36 0 0 0 13 0 0.819

Here is where it gets bad for me. I've only got .14 ev and ~6:1, so this was a bad call. Obviously during the hand I can't see the other player's hands, but if I had any notion that UTG+2 also had an A2 then it would have been a very bad call. However, if I thought that UTG+2 was not going to raise behind me, which I didn't, then my actual odds are around 7:1, which is pretty neutral EV, albeit slightly negative. So while the turn call was bad, if UTG+2 had not raised, then it would be a marginal call at worst. River should have been a definite fold either way, I goofed that one.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
With my equity at about .25 and getting 8.5:1 the call on the flop was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mixing apples and oranges here. Your equity per twodimes is calculated at 24.5% taking into account both the turn and the river .

Your odds of 8.5 to 1 take into account only the turn card

You need to add in the bets you and your opponents will make on the turn as well to compare to twodimes. Since you are calculating this off the actual hand/play, then to get to showdown you actually could have won 8.5sb on the flop plus your opponents 4 BB on the turn, or 16.5 sb. And you needed to pay 1sb on the flop + 2 BB in the turn or 5 sb to see the river, so your actual odds on this hand were just better than 3 to 1, which is almost exactly the odds that your 24.5% equity was giving you – making your flop call EV neutral in retrospect.

Of course, sometimes you make your hand on the flop, but then sometimes you get counterfeited and sometimes you get quartered. And sometimes you pay off the river with a weak set when a straight bets. So the net of all that is that it is probably still EV positive to play the flop, but it is no where near as favorable as the quoted text you show above.

--Greg www.o8poker.com

[Sean D]

Thanks for the clarification. But I certainly wasn't expecting to pay two big bets on the turn. If I thought one big bet would get me to the river, then that makes my call a little over 5:1 to see the river, which would make a call +EV. Given that I had to pay two, I guess now it becomes marginal. When I stated my equity on the flop, and pot odds, I did not mean for them to be proportional. Obviously I wouldn't advocate a call on the flop with an equity of .12, just because I was 8.5:1 at that point. Thank you for pointing that out. Its nice to have a LO8 discussion in here for a change.

Went back and looked at their stats, and UTG+2 was a total maniac with a VPIP at 98% and high aggression factors. BB was a passive fish with 76% VPIP.

[Buzz]

Ribbo - What you have written makes good sense - moreso for pot limit than limit - but also for limit. You should want to have the option of acting last - and with a pure maniac seated to your left, you do have that option.

However, there are a couple of problems with having a maniac on your left in a limit game. (1) Not many opponents are pure maniacs who bet and raise at every opportunity. It’s much more common to encounter an opponent with maniacal tendencies but who will sometimes fold to a bet rather than raise. You don’t know for sure if the “maniac” will raise or fold. (There’s even a chance, albeit slight, the “maniac” will call).

(2) Consequently, it becomes very difficult to play a draw because you don’t really know for sure how much the draw will cost.

And most of the time at a full table in a typical, loose, limit Omaha-8 ring game, I’ll either be playing a draw or folding after the flop. Even when I flop top set in a full, loose, typical, Omaha-8 ring game, I’m playing a draw because chances are the set won’t hold up. Indeed, even flopped straights, don’t usually seem to hold up in these games!

Most of the time when you’re drawing and call a bet in a limit game, you really don’t want someone raising behind you so that you will have to face the action twice in the same betting round. (Ugh!)

One might argue that on the second betting round, Sean should somehow have foreseen the possibility of bet by BB and a raise by MP2 on the third and fourth betting rounds. But that’s almost impossible here. With a different card on the turn, the hand doesn’t play that way.

One could argue that on the third betting round, Sean should have folded to BB’s bet because of the strong possibility of a raise from MP2. But Sean cannot know for sure MP2 will not fold to the bet from BB. You’ll get nickle and dimed to death in a limit game if you start folding on the third betting round with draws such as Sean’s. You can’t just play the nuts - you have to play your decent draws too.

I understand what you write about wanting to have the option of acting last - but the plain truth is it’s damned hard for Sean (or anyone who is on a draw) to play to a bet correctly with a “maniac” yet to act.

Having the option to act last is important, but since situations such as this one have a way of arising in limit Omaha-8 games, it’s much easier, at least for me, to play with the maniac seated on my right. And that, for me, takes precedence over having the option to act last.

Just my opinion as a limit player.

What does "FTW" mean?

Buzz

[Sean D]

Having a maniac to your right is also advantageous when you can isolate him. He will be raising with less than premium hands, and when you get a decent hand with good heads-up possibilities, you can re-raise and try to get the pot heads-up. Now this isn't always possible in loose low-limit games, but this play is useful to have.

I think my hand is just an example of how being OOP can really cause you to botch a hand. Though position isn't as critical as it is in hold'em, it is still a factor.

Btw, I think FTW means For The Win.