Hand rankings

[Tilt]

Does anyone have a table of Omaha Hi preflop hand rankings?

I've searched this forum, but couldn't find anything.

[Bartholow]

It's very difficult to rank omaha hands the way you would for texas hold'em, because there are SO many variations. The closest thing I've seen is point count systems which are actually pretty reasonable: Hutchinson point count system

[PorscheNGuns]

Hand rankings are best done in groups. My personal selection, not based on any Omaha books, is:

Top hand can easily be placed on AAJTds.

Group 1, the best hands, are AA(paint)(paints)ds, KK(paint)(paint)ds, any four paint cards doublesuited, or AAKK and AAQQ.

Group 2, any run of cards higher than 4. 5678, 89TJ, etc. ds preferred.

Group 3 is any 3 card run (one gappers allowed) that has nut flush backing, or high pair backing, so QQT9, JJT9, or KKJ9 for instance. Or A5s67, or ATs89, or A6s78 for example.

Beyond that I dont play anything, unless its AA rag rag and I can go close to all in on the flop against 1 or maybe 2 opponents tops (which is preceded by a huge preflop reraise of course)

-Matt

[PorscheNGuns]

I should note that with a group 1 hand, you are looking to flop top set with a flush draw on board. A set of aces vs. a flush draw in Omaha, one on one, is 75% to 25%, and often at low stakes Party PLO flush draws pay off to the max.

Group 2 hands are looking for 13 outers or 17 out wraparounds. Again when they hit, you are just betting out with a 50% or sometimes 70% chance of winning, also often getting paid off to the max

Group 3 hands are marginal but can often pick up open ended straight/flush draws, both to the nuts.

-Matt

[Hans Gruber]

Porsche-
I'm fairly new to Omaha, and I'm just now starting to make somewhat steady money in .10/.25 PL on stars. Your hand selections look great...but do you ever play big pocket pairs if they have rags with them? For example, would you play KK72 if you were pretty certain that you could limp in and see a cheap flop? Obviously, you're hoping to flop a King, which is like 7.8 to 1.

I tend to play this kind of crap hand at .10/.25, since it is so passive before the flop and quite often you see 7 or 8 limping pre-flop. When you hit that set, you can often win a huge pot from people calling you down with terrible draws. So I guess my question is, would you consider this kind of hand profitable at the low stakes tables, where the pre-flop play is so passive?

[joewatch]

Ciaffone's book says it is ok to limp in with KKxx. But you should only call a raise if you the raiser is known to be an LAG player who will raise with a large variety of hands such as 8764, QQxx, JJxx, etc. Otherwise, most raisers have AAxx and you will be a significant preflop dog.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, most raisers have AAxx and you will be a significant preflop dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see how this matters much. If the purpose of calling with the KK is to flop a set and dump it if you dont. I guess my point is not that you think you are winning, but that you have implied odds if you hit.

[Spellmen]

I will limp with anything JJ-KK hoping to flop top set. In certain situations I will also call a raise with these bare pocket pairs because of the immense implied odds of hitting top set (in low limit of course)

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone's book says it is ok to limp in with KKxx. But you should only call a raise if you the raiser is known to be an LAG player who will raise with a large variety of hands such as 8764, QQxx, JJxx, etc. Otherwise, most raisers have AAxx and you will be a significant preflop dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

When calling a raise with KKxx, I much prefer my opponent to have AAxx than any other hand.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
if he raiser is known to be an LAG player who will raise with a large variety of hands such as 8764 . . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, I might be a LAG . . .