2, 3 for low - consensus

[bodie]

Buzz wrote,
"Whatever. If you can see the flop for one small bet and if enough of your opponents also see the flop and tend to chase with poor or mediocre flop fits, then you're getting enormous implied pot odds."

This does happen alot where I play. Someone we both know just told me the other day that you should hold "any two low cards" because they just might make a low. What prompted this post was the fact that I folded:
2,3,8,8 rainbow (meanwhile thinking about all the "advice" regarding 2,3 I've been hearing lately). It was a kill pot and had been raised twice by the time it got to me, so it would have been $18.00 to call, and it got capped after me. I folded, and of course the flop was:
3,3,3
It was a huge pot, and though it was a freak flop, I thought I'd just see what others think of 2,3.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz wrote,
"Whatever. If you can see the flop for one small bet and if enough of your opponents also see the flop and tend to chase with poor or mediocre flop fits, then you're getting enormous implied pot odds."

This does happen alot where I play. Someone we both know just told me the other day that you should hold "any two low cards" because they just might make a low. What prompted this post was the fact that I folded:
2,3,8,8 rainbow (meanwhile thinking about all the "advice" regarding 2,3 I've been hearing lately). It was a kill pot and had been raised twice by the time it got to me, so it would have been $18.00 to call, and it got capped after me. I folded, and of course the flop was:
3,3,3
It was a huge pot, and though it was a freak flop, I thought I'd just see what others think of 2,3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, that is also why I never fold 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. You never know when the flop will come 666,KKK,222,888, or 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

Seriously, you fold trash hands because they hit fewer flops than better hands not because they never hit flops. You don't want to pay a high price with a hand that is less likely to win money. 2388 is a clear fold to a bet and raise preflop.

O8 newbie here, take my words with a grain of salt.

23 is a decent low, but I want more options. I don't think it's necessarily strong enough to take without any other benefits (options for high, suited, whatever).

Being an O8 newbie, I think of it this way -- I have six two-card hands; I'm not going to play on the strength of just one. A2 is better because of the ace, in case I get counterfeited for low, but I still like to see more options -- suits, more low cards, etc. Not that I'll fold a lot of A2 hands, but the more I have, the happier I am.

Long story short, 23 is good, but not enough to merit play with two crappy cards alongside.

[bodie]

Hi Cooker,

"2388 is a clear fold to a bet and raise preflop."

And that's why I folded it.
But it did motivate me to ask the posters here on 2+2 what their thoughts are on the conditions under which they will play 2,3.
It amounts to the same conditions under which I already play them: ideally single or double suited, either with a high pair or two other "good" wheel cards.

The nature of O8 keeps those playing who will play any four cards they are dealt over and over again - they can scoop just often enough that they have fun. I.e. flops like 3,3,3.
The funny thing about that hand was that it kept four callers until the end. You can guess who won it: the player with pocket Aces. There was no low. One of those crazy killpots which many players like to build so that they can throw the dice and hope to be the one to win it.

In a full, loose, ring game, I dont muck 2-3 unless it's two or three bets to me.

Some players will play any ace in H/L, so, note those players, and if some of them are in and it's looking like a seven way pot before you come in, i'd release a 2-3, because, the key card for your hand, an A, might not be available....

[Buzz]

Hi Bodie -

From your reply to Cooker, I realize you know this already, but after missing out on a nice scooper with quad treys, I think there are some ideas worth reinforcing.

Cooker wrote,
[ QUOTE ]
"you fold trash hands because they hit <font color="white">_</font>fewer flops than better hands not because they <font color="white">_</font>never hit flops."

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s pretty close and nicely succinct.

But I’d phrase it slightly differently. You fold trash hands because they <font color="white">_</font>win less and <font color="white">_</font>scoop less than better hands, not because they <font color="white">_</font>never win or scoop.

Your post was about 2388n, not 6788d or TJQQd, but allow me to use those two hands to illustrate how two different hands can hit the flop just as often as each other, and even end up with every category of high hand the same - but one of the two hands is clearly a better starting hand than the other.

I consider 6788d to be a “trash” hand while I consider TJQQd to be a “playable” hand. However, 6788d hits the flop just as often as TJQQd. The difference, in a nine handed game, is that TJQQd ends up <font color="white">_</font>winning more than 6788d. Below is the simulation data:
hand.....high...low...scoop...total
<font color="red">6788d.....519.....12.....355.....866</font>
<font color="blue">TJQQd.....653.....0.....875.....1528</font>
Both are against eight random hands with random boards, dealt 10,000 times.

If you think of a royal flush as an ace-high straight flush (which it is) then they both figure to make the same number of straight flushes. Indeed, both hands figure to make every category of high hand (straights, flushes, full houses, quads, trips etc.) the same number of times.

In addition, 6788d sometimes wins for low, whereas TJQQd can never win for low.

However, you don’t have to be a math wizard to see from the simulation numbers that TJQQd is clearly a better starting hand than 6788d.

As a comparison, here are the numbers for 2388n, the actual hand you held:
hand.....high...low...scoop...total
<font color="red">2388n.....219.....528.....275.....1022 </font>

In the typical low limit Omaha-8 games in which you play, you figure to do better by folding 2388n from every position (except the unraised big blind).

The long and the short of it is there are plenty of other starting hands that you should be playing that are better than 2388n. I have over 1500 hand types listed in my nine-handed data bank that I think are better starting hands than 2388n - and all possible hand types are not listed in my main data bank. (There surely are many additional hands better than 2388n that I don’t have listed). You don’t need sub-par hands to get lots of action.

I know you enjoy playing for jackpots. I can’t remember if you need quad tens or better beaten to qualify for the jackpot where you play, or if any quads beaten qualifies. I know that quad treys with three on the board and one in your hand does not qualify. (You need two in your hand and two in the board for a hand with quads to qualify as a possible jackpot hand - and then you need someone to have a better hand).

In a nine player game, if nobody folds, I think 2388n might make quad eights and be beaten by a better hand approximately one time in 140,000 or 150,000 - something like that. But the casino is not going to pay $140,000 or $150,000 when quad eights are beaten. They’re only going to give the table a fraction of that (if, indeed, quad eights beaten even qualifies for the big bad-beat jackpot - maybe it’s quad tens or better beaten). So if you’re thinking that you might win the jackpot with 2388n, the jackpot aspect doesn’t add enough value to the hand to make it playable.

And flopping quads with any hand is obviously a freak. Even if you’re playing KKQQd (a hand you should be playing), you’ll only flop quads 92 times out of 17296 - one time in 188.

I believe that anybody who told you any hand with two low cards is playable gave you poor advice. But although poor (IMHO), it might not have been malevolent. The person advising you might actually think that you should see the flop with any two low cards.

I don’t.

Maybe the person meant any two wheel cards.

But I don’t even think you should see the flop with any two wheel cards, (let alone any two low cards).

At any rate, you clearly did right in folding the 2388n to a double bet on the first betting round. IMHO, it’s not close. 2388n is not even worth playing for a single bet - not even with the enormous implied pot odds you get for seeing the flop if almost everybody else limps and if, in addition, there are a couple of calling stations at the table.

But I do know how frustrated I feel when I fold what would have been a winner before the flop - especially when three opponents go to the river after I’ve folded.

It’s small consolation to know you played correctly.

My condolences. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Buzz]

I originally wrote
[ QUOTE ]
There are two categories of negatives for 23XY hands, each worth either one or two negative points.
• (a) single suited is one negative point, rainbow is two negative points.
• (b) one middle card is one negative point, two middle cards is two negative points.

• Consider all 23XY hands with no negative points playable.
• 23XY hands with one negative point are either playable or marginal.
• Consider all 23XY hands with two negative points marginal.
• 23XY hands with three negative points are either marginal or trash.
• Consider all 23XY hands with four negative points trash.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still seems reasonable to me. <font color="blue">Except for 23KKn and 23QQn</font>. I think both of those are playable (rather than either playable or marginal), even though they have the two negative points for being rainbows. I think you should see the flop from any position with either of those starting hands.

Thinking back to Kurto's post, I'd probably almost always see the flop with the two hands he cited. But in the interest of keeping things simple, neither of them seems worth singling out. However, both 23KKn and 23QQn are worth singling out.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[bodie]

Hi Buzz,

Thanks for the reply. The jackpot for O8 where I play requires quad 9's or better beaten. So there was no possiblity of a jackpot with that hand anyway. But oddly enough, just before that hand a certain person had told me that he *always* plays any two low cards, he didn't specify if they had to be wheel cards or not. Then of course along came that hand and I thought to myself, I have to post to 2+2 and find out the consensus on playing 2,3 there.
It is a small consolation to know one has played "correctly" as you watch your erstwhile folded hand turn out to be the nuts. It usually doesn't bother me unless I had considered playing the hand and then decided not to. Then it can hurt, especially in those wild action games where players just want to "gamble" and cap the betting every round.
Oh well.
It's all part of the game.

Bodie

[bodie]

Buzz,
I did think of your strategy the other day when playing, and it automatically fell in line with what I would have played anyway (I was pleased to see).

Omaha is a 4 card game...RULE # ONE. Regardless of how loose a om8 game is, 23xx rarely wins more than half the pot to show a profit. In a loose om8 game, you can expect the majority of A5xx and A4xx, plus any Axsuitedxx to be played...thus, when an A hits the flop and gives you a low draw, or the nut low...loose om8 players are RARELY folding their top pair...thus you are usually looking at half the pot from the start. This leads to RULE # TWO: om8 is all about scooping...THAT is where the real money is to be made...ESPECIALLY in loose om8 games.

THE FOOL