O8 Newbie questions

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz (or possibly beavis68) also posted a link to 'suggested' playable starting hands a few days back. Search around for this- it will help you out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to bump this thread to ask for help finding this. I saw it at the time; it was a link to RGP, right? Now i can't seem to find it.

Maybe i'll go use Google's search on RGP. Any way we could get Google to index this site nightly? :-)

EDIT: Answered my own question, but i'm gonna leave it on this thread for others to bookmark.

Buzz's RGP thread on O8 starting hands

[sammy_g]

Thanks for finding this. Thought I'd post the hands Buzz recommended directly in the thread for future reference. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

While learning how to play in a limit game, I’d advise you to stick to the following list when you’re not posting the big blind: AsAXX, A2XX, As3XX, As45X, AsTJQ, AsTJK, AsTQK, AsJQK, ATJKs, ATQKs, AJQKs, 23KsK, 23QsQ, 2345, TTKsKs, TJQKs, TJKsK, TQKsK, JJQsQs, JJKsK, JQKsK, QQKK.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have been playing a lot more hands than this. Who else is going to print this and tape it to his monitor?

[AKQJ10]

I hate to say this about such a superb post, but i suspect some of the math may be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I never guarantee I didn’t make any math mistakes, but here’s how I got the
10%:
5112 + 15136 + 3408 + 1184 + 148 + 148 + 148 + 148 + 48 + 48 + 48 + 72 + 72 +
256 + 6 + 148 + 72 + 72 + 6 + 30 + 72 + 36 = 26418

Then 26418/270725 = ~10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off all, as his denominator Buzz is taking the number of distinct Omaha hands, which makes sense although i'd probably do this with the total number of non-distinct hands. Since the order of the cards makes a difference to me, i'd get 52*51*50*49 or 6497400
hands. Buzz got 6497400 / 4 * 3 * 2 -> 270725
because there are 4 * 3 * 2 -> 24 ways to arrange a four-card hand. I think the calculations should work for either so from here i'll count everything in terms of distinct hands for consistency with Buzz.

But for the first hand, AsAXX, i calculate the number of distinct hands meeting that requirement as:

Hands with first card Ace: 4
Hands with second card Ace given first Ace: 3
Third card suited to the first Ace: 12
Fourth card, not another Ace: 47 (three cards already seen and two Aces not seen)

Of course it doesn't really matter whether the second card is the Ace suited to the fourth card or what have you, but that's where that 24 by which we divided the numerator comes into play.

So i get 4*3*12*47 AsAxx hands, or 6768, whereas Buzz gets only 5112.

I haven't tried the rest of them, but can someone critique my methodology?

[Phat Mack]

Hands with first card Ace: 4
Hands with second card Ace given first Ace: 3
Third card suited to the first Ace: 12
Fourth card, not another Ace: 47 (three cards already seen and two Aces not seen)


First let me say that I am no mathematician.

In the above example, I don't think it matters that the suited card be matched to the first ace, so I think that there might be 24 picks for a matching card. Then, when picking the last card, if you use the number 47, you run the risk of double counting when you pick a second suited card. (e.g. AsAh7s3s vs. AsAh3s7s.) Also, there must be some agreement as to where double counts are eliminated in situations such as AAxx vs. A2xx where the first hand contains a 2 and the second an ace.

This might account for some of the discrepancies.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say this about such a superb post, but i suspect some of the math may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

AKQJT - Thanks for the compliment. You may well be correct about some of my math being wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
First off all, as his denominator Buzz is taking the number of distinct Omaha hands, which makes sense although i'd probably do this with the total number of non-distinct hands. Since the order of the cards makes a difference to me, i'd get 52*51*50*49 or 6497400
hands. Buzz got 6497400 / 4 * 3 * 2 -> 270725
because there are 4 * 3 * 2 -> 24 ways to arrange a four-card hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of my math may be wrong, but not the 270725. That's the number of possible different four-card combinations in a standard 52 card deck.

Here is how some of my mathematician friends might write it: C(52,4).

Then computing, 52!/4!/48! = 270725.

Here's another way:
52*51*50*49/24 = 270725.
The 24 in the denominator comes from 4*3*2*1 = 24.

[ QUOTE ]
But for the first hand, AsAXX, i calculate the number of distinct hands meeting that requirement as:

Hands with first card Ace: 4
Hands with second card Ace given first Ace: 3
Third card suited to the first Ace: 12
Fourth card, not another Ace: 47 (three cards already seen and two Aces not seen)

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been clearer when I posted the list. I was thinking that a pair of aces with at least one of them suited should be very playable.

Here's my scratch work for AsAXX:
6*24*23/2+6*24*24

That's what I did. Let me try to explain the reasoning to you.

There are six different ways to put two aces together. Here they all are:
AsAh, AsAd, AsAc, AhAd, AhAc, AdAc.

The order in which the cards are listed is not important. Thus AhAs and AsAh is the same two-card combination, the ace of spades and the ace of hearts. I listed it above as AsAh, but I could just as well have listed it as AhAs. Either way it's the ace of spades and the ace of hearts.

24*23/2 is the number of ways to choose two cards with both of them the same suit as one of the aces.

24*24 is the number of ways to chose one card the same suit as one of the aces and the other card a different suit from either of the aces.

Looks to me like there's no mistake in the total for AsAXX. I still get 5112.

[ QUOTE ]
So i get 4*3*12*47 AsAxx hands, or 6768, whereas Buzz gets only 5112.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try a different approach. We'll see if I get the same result. Here's the plan: I'm going to calculate the total number of AAXX combinations, suited ace or not. Then I'm going to subtract from that the number of AAXX combinations without a suited ace.
Here's the math:
4*3*48*47/4 - 4*3*24*23/4 =
6768 - 1656 = 5112.

Using a different approach I still get 5112.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't tried the rest of them, but can someone critique my methodology?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I followed (understood) your explanation of your logic.

I don't know what to write exactly. From my perspective, some things work and others don't. I just try to keep straight in my head what works and what doesn't.

I think your methodology has to come up with a way to get the correct answer.

I believe the correct answer is 5112.

Buzz

Here's all my scratchwork for those various totals:

6*24*23/2+6*24*24
4*4*44*43/2
4*1*40*39/2+4*3*10*30
4*1*4*32+4*3*1*32+4*3*3*8
4*1*4*4+4*3*1*4+4*3*3*1
4*1*4*4+4*3*1*4+4*3*3*1
4*1*4*4+4*3*1*4+4*3*3*1
4*1*4*4+4*3*1*4+4*3*3*1
4*1*3*2+4*3*2*1
4*1*3*2+4*3*2*1
4*1*3*2+4*3*2*1
6*2*4+6*2*2
6*2*4+6*2*2
4*4*4*4
6
4*1*4*4+4*3*1*4+4*3*3*1
6*2*4+6*2*2
6*2*4+6*2*2
6
6*5
6*2*4+6*2*2
6*6

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the reply, Buzz. I'm glad that we both are approaching this dispassionately as a search for the right answer, and it definitely sounds as though i'm making some false assumptions in my AsAxx calculation.

As for the denominator, i have no question it's correct. I'm just pointing out that you used C(52,4) whereas i might have used P(52,4), the number of permutations that meet the criteria. Therefore order of the cards would be important if the denominator is that much larger permutations number of 6 million. But i don't dispute that 270725 is correct for the number of combinations. By "Buzz's way" and "my way" i was just trying to refer to the concepts where the standard vocabulary had temporarily escaped me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm at work so i can't really troubleshoot my math at the moment, but i will do so when i get a chance.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Thought I'd post the hands Buzz recommended directly in the thread for future reference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sammy - Someone over on r.g.p. asked what per cent of flops an Omaha-8 beginner should see. I wasn't so much trying to come up with a beginner's list of starting hands as I was trying to get a rough idea of the percentage of hands that might be wisely played.

So I listed some hands and did some calculations to come up with a reasonable percentage.

I could have made a beginners list and posted it here and done a better job. But there are some very good reasons not to give some one a list. The hands you should play are variable and depend on various factors, including your position and on your opponents. The list you have quoted doesn't take those nuances into account. Also, I think you should understand why you're doing something. Blindly following a starting hands list misses the essence of "playing poker."

Anyway, that's why I didn't post the list here. (Although I think I did post an even better one on 2+2 a while back - but maybe that one wasn't for beginners). At any rate I think the list you re-posted is a reasonable beginners guide.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
I could have made a beginners list and posted it here and done a better job.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt it. I apologize if I took your post out of context.

[ QUOTE ]
But there are some very good reasons not to give some one a list. The hands you should play are variable and depend on various factors, including your position and on your opponents. The list you have quoted doesn't take those nuances into account. Also, I think you should understand why you're doing something. Blindly following a starting hands list misses the essence of "playing poker."

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, of crouse. These elements are important.

The first time I played hold'em I played way too many hands. Then I found some starting hand charts. I adhered to them strictly. They weren't perfect, but they did one thing for me: they made me play tightly preflop. This really helped while I learning the game.

Now when I pick starting hands in hold'em, I think about a lot of things. I consider my position, the texture of the game, the number of players currently in the pot, how many players might call behind me, how well my opponents play, whether the pot is raised, how likely someone will raise behind me, my table image, and so forth. I'm sure you think about these same factors when choosing Omaha/8 hands.

A list will help me play tightly while I learn Omaha/8, even if it's not perfect for all game conditions. It's a crutch, but I was playing too many hands before. It will allow me to focus more on post-flop play without agonizing over whether hand xyz is profitable under the gun.

This looks like a good starting point to my beginner's eyes. Eventually, I'll learn the nuances of different hands in different kinds of games and, as you say, learn to "play poker."

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]

The first time I played hold'em I played way too many hands. Then I found some starting hand charts. I adhered to them strictly....

Now when I pick starting hands in hold'em, I think about a lot of things....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Like most human pursuits, you have to really learn the "rules", the fundamentals, before you can get away with breaking them.

If your 6-year-old starts their name with a lower case letter, you need to correct them. When e e cummings starts his name with a lower case letter, that's artistic license.

Thus i have no problem with mindless "rules" to keep me out of trouble as a beginner. Others may say it prevents me from thinking for myself, but that's not true -- it gives me a framework upon which to build as i learn to think for myself. Then i'm learning to adapt my knowledge to new observations, which is far more important than any arbitrary "fact" that i may have discovered for myself in the early days.

[paland]

I love it when newbie's think that they are going to start a new game and win money. You don't even know what percentage of hands you want to play and you are already counting your wins.

Omaha takes a lof of playing to learn the nuances. And nut hands are completely destroyed on each of the turn and river. And counterfeiting will kill many low hands. I would start at a low stakes just to learn some of these but good play takes time. Good luck and enjoy but beware of the traps.