Is this O/8 advice right?

[jedi]

Incidentally, I'd be more likely to play this hand in a PLO/8 game. If an Ace flops and a low is possible (and especially if it's the As with flush possibilities), you'll be getting lots of action from people holding an Ace. The bigger bets on the turn and river make up IMO for the loss in EV in calling this pre-flop. Of course, if an Ace doesn't flop, you'll need to be disciplined enough to let go of the hand.

[El Dukie]

Not to echo what everyone else has been saying... Well, okay, I'm going to echo what everyone else has been saying: It really depends on the texture of the game. In an extremely loose game (typical at lower limits) where people are coming in with all sorts of crap, then the 2-3-4 combination is actually not a bad low starting hand, PROVIDED YOU CAN GET IN CHEAP. Lots of people will come in without an ace in these sorts of games, so you might get lucky and hit the flop. If you're in for only one SB, I think it would be a profitable hand in very loose games. But you have to be ready to get away from it if you don't hit the flop.

[iceflame]

Thanks for the replies , I think I got it (well, almost [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ). Allright, so in a loose passive game with 5 or more taking the flop, it's worth playing (though 5 people in the pot increases the chance one of them has A, no? ) if you can get in cheap.

At 'typical' $30-$60 games with 2-3 taking the flop. you need to be much tighter; yet Potting 32 ( from EP? ) will get those rocks that are holding A3 out of the game (we hope!) and perhaps even the A278.

I understand that the odds are not with you as far as hiting the K high flush, but well, it is there. . .

(Have I got it right so far? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] )

I'm still a bit confused as to the odds in going for low. Naturally if 654 hit, it's time to dump as you've got the 3rd best (hey wait a minute, I just made the nut straight unless some nut is in there with an 87 ) but I'm getting the feeling that there's a line between overvaluing connected low hands--which I think is what Ciaffone is referring to here, and being so tight that you only see a flop for low with with an A2xx or A3KK ds

Do you guys really play this tight?

BTW, if you did have A278 ,even if it was double suited wouldn't that be worse than the Ks 4s 3 2?

Like I said , I'm trying to transition from HE to Omaha and it seems there's great concensus in some areas but others are...? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Thx.

[Terry]

Do you guys really play this tight?
I do -- about 16% overall. I’m with Ciaffone on this hand; 23 is for strictly late position with no raise in sight, and if someone I know has an A2 has entered the pot I’m going to give even 234 a second thought, but will probably see the flop for one bet.

BTW, if you did have A278 ,even if it was double suited wouldn't that be worse than the Ks 4s 3 2?
No. I’ll take A289 (not a typo) rainbow against your hand all day long – unless you want to save time and simply mail me all your money... and I’m talking heads-up or at a full table.

it seems there's great concensus in some areas but others are...?
... a source of profit to those who do play very tight in this game.


PS: None of this applies to pot limit; I know nothing about that game.

[Buzz]

"(though 5 people in the pot increases the chance one of them has A, no? )"

Iceflame - Five people in the pot hold 20 cards between them. There's one ace for every 13 cards. So sure, it's likely that one or two of them have an ace or two. If it's a table where people aren't usually playing hands without aces, then you probably don't want to voluntarily play 234Ks when five opponents are already in the pot. In fact, if five people are in the pot they're obviously not all playing aces. I wonder what some of them are thinking sometimes - but God bless them.

"I understand that the odds are not with you as far as hiting the K high flush, but well, it is there. . . "

I'm not certain what you mean.

"hey wait a minute, I just made the nut straight unless some nut is in there with an 87"

87XX or 37XX. A solid player could have A237 or A378-suited - something like that. A478-double-suited, A578-double-suited and A78K-double-suited all seem playable to me. I think those hands are all within the top fifteen per cent or so range of hands in terms of earning power.

In addition, loose opponents play all kinds of stuff, and some of them regularly raise with junk. (God bless them).

"and being so tight that you only see a flop for low with with an A2xx or A3KK ds

Do you guys really play this tight?"

I don't play that tightly.

A3KK-ds? Wow! That's probably the best hand you'll see in four hours of play. Really! Yeah, I'll play that one for sure! In addition, I'll usually play any A3XX-single-suited-to-the-ace hand - and from any position. I mean, the XX doesn't have to be a pair of double suited kings for me to play A3XX. (But I'll probably routinely fold A378n).

"BTW, if you did have A278 ,even if it was double suited wouldn't that be worse than the Ks 4s 3 2?"

I think A278-ds is considerably stronger than 234K-suited.
A278-non-suited seems about the same strength as 234K-suited.

234K-suited is not a great hand by any means - but I'd usually see the flop for a single bet with it in the loose, limit-ring-games in which I play. For a double bet it would depend on who raised.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

"it seems there's great concensus in some areas but others are...?"

Isn't it that way in Texas hold 'em too?

Part of the difference in our opinions probably has to do with the opponents we usually encounter.

[chaos]

This ia a marginal hand since you need an Ace to flop.

There are not many Aceless 23 hands that I play. I definitely need a 4 for counterfeit protection. For the fourth card I want it to be coordinated to at least one of those three cards to give me some potential to win the high side. So I will play 2234, 2334, 2344, 2345, and 2346 either non-suited, single suited or double suited. I'll also add in the hand under discusiion 234K with a suited King.

Playing these hands past the flop will usually require some good poker judgement. You will often end up with small trips, the low end of a straight draw and a small flush draw for high. It can be difficult to play these as a one way high hand when you only have the third nut low. Their real benefit is when you flop the ace giving you the nut low, then these highs allow you to be more aggressive building the pot and occasionaly scooping. As has been said many times the object of the game is to scoop pots.

Making the correct decisions is easier from late position so I tend to favor playing these type hands in late position over early position.

Note that these hands do not come up very often. Using my above criteria, I get a playable Aceless 23 hand less than once every three hundred hands. So I can go for a couple of sessions without seeing one. If I simply decided to fold all Aceless 23s it would probably have little impact on my overall results since it comes up so infrequently. Maybe my results would even improve slightly since flopping an Ace is a longshot and it is easy to get in trouble with these hands..

[Buzz]

“2234, 2334, 2344, 2345, and 2346 either non-suited, single suited or double suited. I'll also add in the hand under discusiion 234K with a suited King”

Chaos - 4*4*4*4 = 256 combinations for 2-3-4-K hands.
4 out of the 256 have three cards suited to the king.
36 out of the 256 have two cards suited to the king.
108 out of the 256 have one card suited to the king.
Are you going to play all of these? Let’s say you play the ones where two cards are suited to the king and also where one card is suited to the king. In that case, you’re playing 144/256 of the 234K combinations. And in that case, you’re playing a total of 896 four card combinations that include a two, three and four.

Here’s my chart.
2234 ----96----6*4*4
2334 ----48----2*6*4
2344 ----96----4*4*6
2345 ----256----4*4*4*4
2346 ----256----4*4*4*4
234Ks ----144----36+108
total ----896

True, 896/270725 doesn’t amount to much.

But are you not going to play 23KKd, 23KKs and 23QQd? (I really think you should play these hands, probably most of the time, but at least under some conditions).

In addition, I think 2347d, 2348d, 2349d, 234Td, 234Jd, 234Qd, 2355d, 2355s, 2355n, 2357d, 2357s, 2348d, 2359d, 235Td, 235Jd, 235Qd, 235Kd, 2366d, 2366ds, 2367d, 2368d, 23TTd, 23TTd, 23JJd, 23JJs, 23QQs, 23QKd and 23KKn all have some playability, especially for a single bet from late position in passive games and where a raise from anyone yet to act would be a big surprise.

You wrote, "I definitely need a 4 for counterfeit protection."

Some of the hands I've listed have a 4 for your counterfeit protection. But some of them have only a 5 or a 6, and the hands with pairs have neither. You're right that four is a better back-up than a five or a six. (I think a four is about a fourth better than a five as back-up for two lower cards - something like that).

I don't think these 235X or 236X hands are particularly profitable, but when you're a tight player, I think you want to sometimes try to play a few more hands to disguise your tight play a bit. Although you may not show much of a profit on these marginal hands, I think you may do better on some of your more solid hands by getting more action from your opponents. Most of the loose aggressive players (the "action" players) I encounter in casino games already have me pegged as a solid player who plays solid hands. I imagine they have you pegged the same way.

One can make the tight solid image work better (stealing pots) in Texas hold 'em than in Omaha-8. Avoiding or blunting that super-tight table image is the principal reason I play marginal hands. (And besides it's more fun to play, especially if you've been purely folding for a while). It's a fine (and wavering) line for me. I don't generally like 245X hands. I guess that's where I draw the line (although I'll sometimes play some double suited 245X hands). A45X and 235X hands seem a step above 245X hands and so sometimes I'll play some A45X and some 235X hands - and even a few 236X hands. (in all of these X is not a lower card than any shown).

But it's important to understand that I'm not advocating playing these hands because of their inherent value. You make the nut low with A4HH only 7.14% of the time. With the five for back-up, as in A45H, you still only make the nut low 10.12% of the time. (H means high card, 9 or above, but not an ace).

234H does a bit better, making the nut low 22.51% of the time. By contrast, 235H makes the nut low 16.49% of the time. In other words, 235Ks is only about three quarters as good as 234Ks for the nut low. (235H is exactly the same as 234H, or for that matter, the same as A23H or A45H for making any low - 49.52%).

(For comparison, A23H makes the nut low 43.14% of the time).

So, yeah, 235Kd isn't a very good hand for low. But when it does make the nuts for low you have a good chance to scoop with possibly a small (non-nut) straight or possibly a (non-nut) baby or king high flush, in addition to the nut low. But I'm not extolling the virtues of 235Kd so much because it's a decent, playable (albeit possibly dangerous) hand as because playing it might enable you to profit more from other higher potential hands. Of course when you play 235Kd, you need to play it well and carefully.

Does that all make sense?

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[ironman007]

I actually think Bob's advice is very good and don't play 234K, I don't play much low limit but this is not a scooping hand and will cost you money. Sure you can dump it when the Ace doesn't hit but what do you do with this flop 5 6 K. This is a hand you play when your bored and want to give back some winnings. In a tourney it's an obvious fold. So I think Bob's advice is solid, TJ gives the sames advice in his book.
K K 2 3 is a hand, I would play because it has scooping potential, it's an odd hand because you don't want to see an
A with K K, but you do want the A with 2 3.

[Buzz]

Ironman - Did you notice the king was suited to one other card in the original post? You seem to have ignored this important fact in your post.

"...this is not a scooping hand and will cost you money."

Sometimes you'll lose with it. I'm still wondering if you're referring to 234Kn or 234Ks. It makes a difference. Overall, I think you probably show a small profit with 234Ks and a small loss with 234Kn.

But you don't play hands in a vacuum. I tried to better express that concept in the post to which you have responded, but you don't seem to have responded to my logic. I'm not sure if you understood the principal reason I advanced for playing marginal hands. Or maybe you understood my logic but didn't buy it. Playing marginal hands is only one way I try to disguise the tightness of my play. Maybe you feel it's unnecessary to disguise your play. You can steal in some (tight) games when you play tight, but in truth it's very difficult to steal in a loose, low limit game of Omaha-8. (And they're always loose games, else you probably shouldn't want to be playing in them).

I can play every bit as tightly as you can. It's not a problem for me. Honest. However, on the basis of my experience, I think you can play too tightly in some games. Too loose is clearly no good. But too tight, while not as bad as too loose, does not represent optimum performance, in my humble opinion.

Most of the opponents I encounter in the casinos I frequent seem aware of my (tight) style of play. It's difficult to use a tight style to your advantage in Omaha-8 (except that you obviously risk less if you play less).

"This is a hand you play when your bored and want to give back some winnings"

I humbly disagree. I don't think it's always profitable, but I think sometimes it is (assuming you play well). And my mind keeps coming back to the issue of playing too few hands to get much action from aware players on the solid hands you do play.

"In a tourney it's an obvious fold."

Sometimes.

"..I think Bob's advice is solid"

I'm not going to disagree with you on this point. Did it seem to you as though I was denigrating what he had evidently written? Such was not my intent.

"K K 2 3 is a hand, I would play because it has scooping potential, it's an odd hand because you don't want to see an A with K K, but you do want the A with 2 3."

(Do you somehow play in a game where everyone is completely oblivious to suitedness? You keep ignoring the concept!)

But yes, in a ring game I'd generally play 23KK too, even if non-suited. It's clearly a better hand than 234K. And yes, it's interesting that an ace helps the 23 part of 23KK and devalues the KK part.

In a tournament, playing either 23KKd, 23KKs, or 23KKn would depend on a number of factors, in addition to which of the three hands (non-suited, single-suited, or double-suited) you mean.

Just my opinion.

At any rate, thanks for your response.

Buzz

[DPCondit]

For whatever it's worth, I like this hand, and it can be played profitably. I would not play this hand without a suited king (in most situations).

Just my opinion,
Don