#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded pots
Zee:
"As you can see, the high hand in a short-handed pot tends to do better [than a low hand]." Cappalletti: "But at head-to-head, good high card hands are usually an underdog to any random hand with several low cards." Don't these statement kind of contradict each other? Or is there a distinction to be made between short-handed pots and head-to-head pots? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded pots
As you suggest, I think there is a distinction to be made between short-handed and one-on-one play.
And there's a huge distinction between starting out short-handed and starting out at a full table where you soon end up short-handed, presumably playing against the better starting hands dealt to a larger number of opponents. When you start out one-on-one, I think you want a hand with a couple of high cards plus a couple of low cards. Aces reign supreme. A pair of aces with any low card, even an eight, is probably a favorite over almost anything you'll likely encounter, one-on-one. With a better low card than an eight, especially a low wheel card, even better. I don't like four high cards much for one-on-one play. (I like it better than three high cards plus one low or middle card, but that isn't saying much). When you have four high cards, low is more likely to be enabled on the board than when you have some low cards. The quality of the low cards matters more as you have more opponents. One-on-one, any two low cards can take the low half of the pot, but with just two opponents, especially when you started out with more, at least one of your opponents is very likely to have a very nice low holding. Lastly, "high hand" and "high cards" don't mean the same thing. Just some random thoughts. Buzz |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded pots
This is how my mindset changes as the game gets shorter,fwiw.
In a full game,a hand with a strong chance of winning low & a long shot chance of picking up the high side is a pretty good hand.You get some sort of return on your investment when you only win low,& then you occasionally scoop it to make some real money. In short games,the low side is more of a safety net.You're basically trying to take the high & hope nobody makes a low.If you don't "win the hand"(the high),you can hopefully "get your money back"with some kind of low. A hand like A suited,J,J,5,for instance,is not a very good hand in a full game,but I'll take it every time heads up. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded po
I ran a few twodimes simulations to see how high hands do in 3-handed pots. I tried to make the simulations such that this is a 10-handed table, from which 3 people are in the hand. So the low hands I'm including are quite good.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432136 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qd ks tc jh - as 2s 6h 9d - 2h 3s 4d ac Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Ks Tc Qd Jh 143687 245453 254547 0 0 0 0 0.389 As 2s 9d 6h 38151 148098 346609 5293 9233 112887 150558 0.272 3s Ac 4d 2h 59141 101156 393551 5293 147146 4696 150558 0.339 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432139 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qd ks tc jh - as 2s 6h 9d - 2h 3s 4d 5c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Ks Tc Qd Jh 135772 224984 275016 0 0 0 0 0.361 As 2s 9d 6h 76666 137584 361011 1405 137778 124053 1960 0.314 3s 5c 4d 2h 76654 136027 362568 1405 171467 127878 1960 0.325 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432141 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qd ks tc jh - as 2s 6h 9d - ah 3s 4d 8h Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Ks Tc Qd Jh 125096 213481 286519 0 0 0 0 0.339 As 2s 9d 6h 95421 146513 353302 185 163292 96163 4302 0.349 3s 4d Ah 8h 83405 139821 359994 185 143979 153534 4302 0.312 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432143 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qd ks tc jh - as 2s 6c 9d - ad 3d 4h 8h Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Ks Tc Qd Jh 116561 192047 307953 0 0 0 0 0.309 As 2s 6c 9d 95878 143705 356123 172 163630 96003 4315 0.348 Ad 3d 8h 4h 100224 164076 335752 172 143897 153856 4315 0.344 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432146 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 kd ks qc ah - as 2s 6c 9d - ad 3d 4h 8h Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Ks Qc Kd Ah 131736 206548 293452 0 0 0 0 0.338 As 2s 6c 9d 95349 136766 363053 181 157764 89026 4253 0.337 Ad 3d 8h 4h 95853 156505 343314 181 125369 150923 4253 0.324 KQJTr is definitely one of the lesser high hands, and it seems to do well against almost all but the very best strictly low hands (e.g. A348ds). A much better high hand, KKAQr fares better than average even against the better low hands. If, however, there are two high hands and one low hand in the pot, the low hand is by far the favourite. http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432152 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 kd kc qs ah - as 2h 6c 9d - ad qc jh ts Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Qs Kc Kd Ah 81574 215882 267106 17012 0 0 0 0.311 As 6c 9d 2h 136701 136701 363299 0 315338 0 0 0.478 Ts Qc Ad Jh 66026 130405 352583 17012 0 0 0 0.210 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded po
Here are some simulations for heads-up situations.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432179 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qs kc kh qd - ad 5s 2h 8s Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Qs Kc Qd Kh 155684 285912 214088 0 0 0 0 0.442 8s 5s Ad 2h 214088 214088 285912 0 310438 0 0 0.558 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432186 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 as kc th qd - ad 5s 2h 3c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV As Kc Qd Th 182259 310057 189943 0 0 0 0 0.492 5s 3c Ad 2h 189943 189943 310057 0 291833 0 0 0.508 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432193 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 as kc kh qd - 4d 5s 7h 6c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV As Kc Qd Kh 169747 281410 218590 0 0 0 0 0.451 5s 6c 4d 7h 218590 218590 281410 0 291017 0 0 0.549 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432196 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 qs kc kh qd - 2d 3s 4h ac Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Qs Kc Qd Kh 165910 307438 192562 0 0 0 0 0.473 3s Ac 2d 4h 192562 192562 307438 0 310732 0 0 0.527 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432199 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 as kc kh qd - 2d 3s 4h 5c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV As Kc Qd Kh 180744 306864 193136 0 0 0 0 0.488 3s 5c 2d 4h 193136 193136 306864 0 291439 0 0 0.512 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432201 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 as kc kh qd - ad 2s 4h 8c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV As Kc Qd Kh 188814 340707 159293 0 0 0 0 0.530 2s 8c Ad 4h 159293 159293 340707 0 291884 0 0 0.470 http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1432206 pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 as ac kh qd - ad 2s 4h 8c Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV As Ac Qd Kh 204959 353364 146636 0 0 0 0 0.558 2s 8c Ad 4h 146636 146636 353364 0 271767 0 0 0.442 Some observations: A low mixed bag vs. a high mixed bag is usually a coinflip or the low bag is a favourite. A high hand without an ace is usually a dog against a low hand with an ace. In general, the high hand seems to do worse than the low hand. One time when the high hand is a favourite, is when the high hand has an ace and a pair, e.g. AQQJ vs. a low hand with an ace. However, if the low hand doesn't have an ace, it's usually a coinflip or the low hand is a favourite. AAxx hands are always a favourite, unless they're up against a better AA hand. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded po
this twodimes stuff is like a disease. its not a good tool for limit poker analysis... and i'm increasingly seeing limit players abuse this stuff to their peril.
when thinking about the low, you have a spectrum of hands from 'any draw' to 'nut draw'. heads up and SH, nut draws are not so important, but as you drift further toward the terrible draws your hand becomes harder and harder to play well. heads-up, AAKK vs. 278J is pretty equal by hot/cold simulation (the latter is slightly better), but on a flop of A6J or QJ3 or 23T, how do you play the low hand? it's conceivable that you simply cannot play, because you are drawing to a hand that really can't scoop much at all. despite the 'any draw' flopping OK, given the aggressor has no draw, the aggressor is going to win a lot of these pots unless the low hand gets out of line. continuously drawing to a crummy 2-way hand like 278J on one of those boards is a sure way to get killed by a good heads up Omaha/8 player. nonetheless, the low hand will do better in a simulation, and I suspect that's what Cap. says. the high hand is the underdog because 'any low' is good enough. without perfect information, though, 'any low' is not good enough. the high hand must have a playing advantage. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two quotes from two books, concerning high hands in shorthanded po
[ QUOTE ]
nonetheless, the low hand will do better in a simulation, and I suspect that's what Cap. says. the high hand is the underdog because 'any low' is good enough. without perfect information, though, 'any low' is not good enough. the high hand must have a playing advantage. [/ QUOTE ] That's definitely something to think about. Cappalletti does use simulations as supporting evidence for many of his arguments, including the "which hands do good in head up situations" section of his book. Zee however, I feel, writes more from experience and from intuition. So even though the simulations say the low hand has the best of it, in practice the high hand plays much better/easier, and this causes the "true" result of a heads up match-up to lean more towards the high hand? |
|
|