Help Needed - LL O8

[tortoise]

I played one other hand out of the small blind. 2-3-4-6. The game got short and my mindset wasn't the best after these hands. Yes the game was great but it's always great, generally much more passive though. The hands I described are standard hands in our game. Hence the frustration that I can't make big scores.

[tortoise]

I sense that playing high hands weakly is my problem. I don't want to sound like the hold'em players that whine "I always lose with aces, I'm never raising them again", but it's easy to feel that way in this game. I understand that if you flop the nuts and get 7 callers for a cap, although you win less often, the bets you put in have a positive expectation.

I'm surprised that you like the AA hand better. No disrespect intended (I love your responses and have learned much through them), but I have always tried to build a lo and "backdoor" into a high hand. In Cappaletti's article in CardPlayer this week he discusses this. Specifically he says that AAKKDS, and AA10JDS are not great hands in high lo. They just don't get a flop to fit them often enough, especially in loose games. That has been my experience as well. Most AA hands I get dealt are in the muck.

How do u feel about Cappaletti's article?

Thanks for responding and also for spending so much time helping players such as myself out.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically he says that AAKKDS, and AA10JDS are not great hands in high lo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tortoise - I don't think they are "great" hands either. But I do think they are both very good hands in Omaha-8.

And I think Mike thinks they are both very good hands in Omaha-8 too. Do you honestly think Mike Cappelletti isn't going to play AAKKd or AAJTd in Omaha-8?

Words. They often mean different things to different people, especially when written and not spoken. Writing that something isn't great may or may not mean it stinks. My interpretation of what Mike wrote is that neither hand is as good in the high/low game as it is in the pure high game (where they are both generally considered great hands).

In my humble opinion, in Omaha-8, AA48d is a better hand than either AAKKd or A247s. I think AAKKd and A247s are roughly equivalent and a bit better than AAJTd.

But AA48d, AAKKd, A247s and AAJTd are all very good Omaha-8 starting hands. I'm going to see the flop with all of them in a limit ring game - and from any position. But the primo hand of the four, in my humble opinion, is AA48d.

KK is a very strong two-card holding when there is a king plus a pair on the board. And KK is protected from an opponent having a pair of aces when you, yourself, have a pair of aces. But otherwise, unless the board has QJT, the aces and kings, don't really work together. In addition, when you make a flush with AAKKd, nobody is going to have a king high flush. Finally, you can't ever make a low with AAKKd. So, yeah, I don't think AAKKd is a "great" hand - but I'd still give it a 96%.

It's easy to overplay a hand-held pair of aces in a loose game of Omaha-8 - and obviously you don't want to do that. But if you're in the hand for some other reason than simply having the aces, like if you flop a nut low or a nut low draw, and if you pump your nut low or nut low draw, well... the aces somehow often end up taking the high half.

What I'm saying is you don't want to tag along with the aces when there's no ace on the flop just because they're aces - but if you have a fit with the flop aside from the aces, the aces often come in handy later. And of course if you catch an ace on the flop, then you have top set. Top set probably won't hold up in a loose game, but if the board pairs, you're King Kong.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[tortoise]

But how many times are you going to flop a nut-lo draw with A-4? I like the hand for it's 2 flush draws and that's about it. Later in the article Cappaletti discusses the pot equity of As-2-4-7 (which he has at 30%) and A-A-7-10-DS (20%). Does changing the 10 to a 4 add that much equity to the second hand?

I guess I'm seriously undervaluing this type of hand. While I agree that AAKK is a very good hand (not great), I think it's superior to AA48.

Also in your first post you asked me what I meant that hi hands tend to disappoint. Two things, first it's difficult to hit a flop (more so than a good lo hand). Second, if you do hit , the hand gets run down a lot more than usual in my game.

In addition, I didn't understand what you meant when you said I may be focusing on my cards too much, and not enough on interacting with the others. Could you expand?

[L0QTiS]

I'll add one thought to the fray on this topic that hasn't been mentioned as of yet. Variance. In the two hands you describe, there seems to be a lot of action - capped preflop raising with continuing aggression on later streets. These types of games add variance to the game so the bankroll swings will be larger.

I find the LL *ONLINE* games beatable at least so far in the micro-limits, but I tend to find more loose passive tables which are somewhat easier variance wise. I am NOT killing the game, but I'm still learning.

When I first started playing holdem at the local casinos here in California, I found them to be very very loose and in many cases included a lot of action much like the hands you describe. Of course, this wasn't EVERY hand, but I had many even to loosing sessions cutting my teeth learning the game, but eventually I had a couple 20-50 BB wins which brought everything back to even more or less, and eventually slightly profitable. I eventually moved to online holdem for rake considerations which can eat you up alive in the lower limits (around here at least).

While there may be other elements contributing to your lack of success, I think this may be a factor worth considering since 39 sessions may not be statistically long enough (also depending on the length of your sessions).

Anyway, just a thought...

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
But how many times are you going to flop a nut-lo draw with A-4?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tortoise - Not much. But the A-4 gives you a chance to scoop when you make the nut high on the flop or turn (or river) and a deuce comes along on the river, counterfeiting an opponent’s low.

I'm not suggesting you play starting hands with A4. But AA4X-double-suited.... well, that's a whole other ball game.

[ QUOTE ]
I like the hand for it's 2 flush draws and that's about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know what to write. You seem determined to disregard the pair of aces.

[ QUOTE ]
Later in the article Cappaletti discusses the pot equity of As-2-4-7 (which he has at 30%) and A-A-7-10-DS (20%). Does changing the 10 to a 4 add that much equity to the second hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the article. But as I look for it here, I don’t see it. Guess it got tossed. Wish I’d kept it because without it in front of me, I don’t feel qualified to discuss the issues involved, especially taken out of context.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm seriously undervaluing this type of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s what I thought when I read and responded to your post.

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree that AAKK is a very good hand (not great), I think it's superior to AA48.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don’t forget they were both double suited!

You collect more when you make a flush with AA48d than with AAKKd, and for two reasons.

(1) When you have A4 or A8 in a suit, there’s room for an opponent to hold KX in the suit.
(2) When you make a flush on an unpaired board, low is usually possible. Suppose you hold A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and the board at the river is 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Although A4 isn’t have the nut low (A3 would be), A4 is at least good enough low to prevent an opponent who holds A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] - or another opponent who holds 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from taking half the pot.

Do you see? You’re not playing the hand because you have the A4 and you’re hoping for a deuce to come along on the river and counterfeit someone with an A2 or 23. You’re playing the hand because you have the nut flush. Then the deuce on the river is a kind of bonus for you. No deuce on the river and you have to be content with half the pot. But _having the A4 in your hand puts you in a position to scoop, whereas having just aces and kings doesn’t. Get it?

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I didn't understand what you meant when you said I may be focusing on my cards too much, and not enough on interacting with the others. Could you expand?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is difficult for me, but okay, since you've asked, I'll try. Go back to your response to Chaos. You wrote,

[ QUOTE ]
"With a lo made I have no problem laying down the nut str8 or a set. Even with 2 to a lo I'm much more careful with my high hands.

Post flop I'm passive with my high hands. I rarely proceed with 2 pair because I just don't see the value in LL. Even with a flop of K-9-3 I'll check fold top 2 unless I have A-2 or a str8 draw with it."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that there is a glaring error in what you have written.

I simply had the feeling as I read the above that you had the emphasis in the wrong place. (And the above is just an example. I had a similar feeling as I read your other posts in this thread.)

You do, IMHO, need to play decent starting hands and you do, IMHO, need to find a fit with the flop to generally continue to a bet on the second betting round in a loose game of Omaha-8. A flop fit is much more important than in Texas hold 'em.

But you're writing _entirely about what you'll do with this or that. You're focusing _entirely on the cards in your hand and the cards on the flop.

There's not really anything wrong with what you wrote. It's more like you're "missing the forest for the trees." The game is Omaha-8, but you still have to play poker. You still have to play your opponents.

That's just my opinion, Tortoise.

But hey, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. No harm intended. On the contrary, I was trying to be helpful.

And you do have the order of those two starting hands (AAKKd and AA48d) bass-ackwards.

Buzz

[tortoise]

t

[curmudgeon]

Forget about specific cards.
Do something different, cause what you're doin don't work...
Seems like you are very PREDICTABLE, mix it up more.
Perhaps playin your highs more actively would help.... selective agression gets the $. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[snip]
(1) When you have A4 or A8 in a suit, there’s room for an opponent to hold KX in the suit.
[snip]
Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this can be emphasized enough. Some players play a king-high flush as if it were the nuts even when there is no ace of that suit on the board. Two nights ago in an online $5/10 game I held A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in early position on a all-diamond, one low card flop. I bet out and am raised by the button and I call. Another low card on the turn and I check-raise the button, and we end up capping. Another low card on river giving me nut nut and I bet out, am raised, and we cap. I kept wondering where the straight flush was that I was missing, but no, it was just the king-high flush with a second nut low who refused to believe. This happens quite a bit and to me at least makes the AAKKds hand somewhat less attractive than say AAQQds.

[Beavis68]

I just bought Ray Zees book, and it is pretty interesting, especially in talking about low-limit vs, higher-limit games - or more specifically, bad player vs good players.

In games with good players, naked A-2 and A-3 hands lose value, because you are so likely to get quartered. Also, hi-hands game value, as they hold up better with fewer callers.

In the loose game, you lose money folding hands like A 3 7 10 that you could not play profitably in a tight game - also hands like AAKKds are less likely to hold up for the high end as there will be more middle straights and small sets played.

What tilt boy said is funny, I was playing .50/1.00 on Party last night, I get KKJ10 DS in the BB, I flopped a flush and straight draw, and it was bet pretty heavily, on the end, the board paired, and no low hit, I was pretty sure I was beaten, but check called it, the re-raiser was chasing a Q-high flush - with two low cards out and no other draws. Almost doubled up on the first hand.