Planktonic Big Blind Hands in OM8 poker

[Carl_William]

Planktonic Big Blind Hands in OM8 poker:

In the ocean and lakes, plankton are very small: weak swimming animals or plants whose fate is essentially at the mercy of the proximate currents and tides.

Sometimes in Omaha 8 HiLo, our big blind hands are very much like plankton after the flop: we flop the best hand, but our position is very weak, and we are at the mercy of the turn preceding the river; the river; and our downstream opponents. I recently experienced a plankton type hand.

In the BB, my pocket cards were: (10, 7, 6, 3) unsuited. They were three callers including the SB. The flop was: 10, 10, and 6 – giving me the nuts. I bet hoping thar everybody folds. I got two callers – the small blind folded. The odds were that one of the callers had a ten. The turn was a jack – I bet again and both players called. The river was a king (the board: 10, 10, 6, J, K); I checked; called a bet and lost to a Full House (K 10) 10, 10, K.

Probably in the long run it may be possible to show a small profit with hands like this, but as you all know they are very shaky – especially in OM8 games with a few experts in the ring. I would appreciate opinions on how any of you would best play my hand after the turn and the river. Also would anybody try for a check raise after the flop?

Thank you,

Carl

[Buzz]

Hi Carl - I wondered if you were thinking of those minute inhabitants of the sea when I read your title. And then when I saw that you were, I wondered how you'd tie your analogy to Omaha-8. Nicely done.

"In the BB, my pocket cards were: (10, 7, 6, 3) unsuited. They were three callers including the SB. The flop was: 10, 10, and 6 – giving me the nuts. I bet hoping thar everybody folds. I got two callers – the small blind folded. The odds were that one of the callers had a ten."

I know you’ve been playing some pot limit Omaha-8 recently. If you were playing pot limit Omaha-8, I’m assuming you bet the size of the pot. I think anything less would be a mistake. You are the favorite here and should bet as much as possible to either knock out your opponents or make them play unfavorable odds. You can't give them a free or cheap ride.

(If you bet the size of the pot, the opponent with TKXX will call - but then you’ll be certain he/she has a ten, probably with at least two overcards).

The small blind evidently checked, and thus should be read (tentatively) as not having been dealt a ten. Two other opponents saw the flop. What are the odds one of them has the missing ten?

Between them, the two opponents have eight cards. After the flop you see seven cards and presume the small blind does not have a ten. You don't know exactly what the small blind holds, but lets take four random cards not including a ten from the pack. That leaves, at the point the action is upon you in the second betting round, 52-4-3-4=41 unknown cards, including one ten.

Your two opponents (other than the small blind) have 8/41 of these cards. What are the odds a ten is included as one of these 8 cards, if we assume randomness for the eight cards? Randomness is not exactly reasonable for an ace (which selective opponents tend to favor) or a nine (which selective opponents tend to dis-favor) - but I think assuming randomness is not unreasonable for a ten.

Assuming randomness in selection of starting hands with a ten, there are 1*40!/(7!*33!) ways the ten can be included in the eight cards dealt to your two opponents. That's out of 41!/(8!*33!) ways.

That quickly reduces to 40!*8/41! or simply 8/41. Thus the odds are about four to one that neither of your opponents holds a ten at the point where you make your bet on the second betting round.

How much respect do these two opponents show towards you and each other? I think your bet on the flop represents a ten (or a pair of sixes) - but could also be a bluff. If these opponents respect your bets, then when they call after the flop, they recognize that you probably have a ten.

When you bet and they both call, you have to wonder. Clearly both of them can't have the missing ten. But does either one of them have the case ten? If so, you have to be concerned, because the kinds of hands opponents play with tens tend to have at least two, and probably all three other cards higher than a ten.

Since this is the case, you really wanted all of your opponents to fold to your bet here. Although you have flopped the full house, if you are facing an opponent with a ten, and if higher cards appear on the turn and/or the river, you’ll probably have a losing full house - arguably the very worst hand in Omaha-8.

However, since there’s only one missing ten, clearly at least one of your two opponents doesn’t have a ten. What does that opponent hold? And if one of them doesn’t have the missing ten, could it be that neither of them holds the case ten?

I've seen opponents chase a flop like this to the river with one overpair. A more selective opponent without a ten would want two overpairs to continue after this flop. And an opponent with a pair of sixes (making the baby boat) would be expected to continue play here also. Finally, I've also seen opponents with low draws chase here, hoping to make a winning low hand.

So here are some possibilities for opponents who might exercise judgment in choosing starting hands in limit Omaha-8:
(1) THHH (where H is jack, queen, king or ace)
(2) one overpair, JJXX, QQXX, KKXX, or AAXX,
(3) two overpairs, JJQQ, JJKK, JJAA, QQKK, QQAA, KKAA,
(4) 66XX (probably as A266 or AA66 by a selective opponent),
(5) low draw with a ten (something like A23T maybe).

You wrote “The odds were that one of the callers had a ten.” Well......sort of. Before you bet, the odds were 33 to 8, or about 4 to 1 against either of your opponents holding a ten. However, after you bet, and your opponents both call, if your opponents have respect for you (and each other), then you have to strongly suspect one of them has the missing ten.

“Also would anybody try for a check raise after the flop?”

Depends - but, in general I wouldn’t risk giving a free card.

“The turn was a jack – I bet again and both players called.”

If one of them was drawing for low, your bet doesn’t do anything for you - since anyone going for low will fold to your bet - but would lose on the river anyhow, if you didn’t bet here.

If either (or both) of your opponents made a full house using the jack, (JTXX and/or JJXX), your goose is cooked - by betting you lose.

In a limit game, if one of them is still drawing for high after the jack appears on the turn, then your bet probably doesn’t cause that player to fold. The player in last betting position was getting 6 to 1 pot odds on the second betting round, and (when the player in middle position calls) will be getting 5.5 to 1 pot odds on the third betting round. It’s more complicated for the player in middle position, but ends up the same as for the player in last position when they both call.

It’s a different story in a pot limit game, assuming you bet the size of the pot. In that case, the player in middle position is getting two to one pot odds on the second betting round with a possible raise from the player in last position. Then on the third betting round, assuming you bet the pot, the player in middle position is again facing two to one pot odds.

O.K. It must have been a limit game. Either that or you weren’t betting the size of the pot in pot-limit. (Nothing else makes sense to me).

Against an opponent who is going for high you should be concerned when a jack appears on the turn. Going back to possible hands held by selective opponents, the high hand possibilities are:
(1) THHH (where H is jack, queen, king or ace)
(2) one overpair, JJXX, QQXX, KKXX, or AAXX,
(3) two overpairs, JJQQ, JJKK, JJAA, QQKK, QQAA, KKAA.
(4) 66XX (probably as A266 or AA66).

Thus a jack on the turn is very scary. If you bet, you’ll collect from anyone who is stupidly drawing for a straight or flush (or was unfortunate enough to have started with A266 or AA66). However, after this flop, nobody, in my humble opinion, should be drawing for a straight or a flush. There is a very good chance somebody who has the missing ten also has a jack.

All things considered (I hope), if you have respect for your opponents and if they have respect for you, I don’t think you have a bet after the jack on the turn.

“The river was a king (the board: 10, 10, 6, J, K); I checked; called a bet and lost to a Full House (K 10) 10, 10, K.”

Yes. Might have all turned out the same anyhow. That is, if you had checked on the third betting round, your opponent with KTXX might have bet, and then it would have been proper, in my humble opinion, for you to call on the third betting round and also on the fourth betting round.

In summation, I would favor checking (rather than betting) on the third betting round, after the jack appears on the board, even though it would have been proper for you to have bet if you could have seen your opponent’s cards - and if you knew your opponent needed exactly a king to beat you. But you can’t see your opponent’s cards, you’re out of position on the third betting round, and the danger of one (or both) of your opponents having a better full house after the turn is just too great - assuming your opponents respect you and each other.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Aragorn]

I disagree buzz. On the turn, he has the best hand, and yet gets two callers (unless the person with KT also has a jack in his hand). Not betting gives them both chances to to draw out for free. I would have bet the turn, although with a bit of fear, and this particular case illustrates exactly why it is the right play.

[Aragorn]

I agree with everything else in your typically solid post.

[Carl_William]

Buzz

The event and outcome (in my post) was in a fixed very low limit game at Partypoker. I didn't give any thought to pot limit because not too many people play pot limit (my opinion), and because I have never seen a OM8 pot limit game spread in B&M casinos in the Los Angeles, CA area. (I do play Pot Limit OM8 on the Internet and enjoy it more than fixed limit -- especially when I win 8-o)

If my post was for a pot limit game, other than bet size, I don’t think the betting would be that much different. Usually after the flop, the pot is still relatively small: so betting the pot would not scare out somebody with a ten and one or two big kickers. For the scenario, described and if in a pot limit game, a check raise after the flop might be the best way to go assuming the opponent with the ten bets the flop. If this happens, the pot will be sufficiently larger (bigger?), and hopefully I could bet my entire stack on the turn and get it over with…. If I lose – I just buy another stack – the beauty of pot limit. As you know, your stack size is very important in pot limit – you have to be careful and position is important (very) and the blind is poor position. (Describing all the variables in situations like this is really beyond my scope.)

You all stay well

Carl

[Buzz]

"On the turn, he has the best hand, and yet gets two callers (unless the person with KT also has a jack in his hand). Not betting gives them both chances to draw out for free."

Aragorn - Could be. Could be that a bet on the turn is Carl's best move. My first impression upon reading Carl’s post was that he had played (bet) his cards perfectly and just had a bit of bad luck on the river. That well might be the case, depending on the respect Opponent-A and Opponent-B should be given.

If neither Opponent-A nor Opponent-B is a solid player, if neither of them follows basic Omaha-8 precepts such as not drawing to a low in a low action pot when there is only one low card on the flop, or not drawing to a flush or straight in a low action pot after the board has paired - if neither Opponent-A nor Opponent-B plays decently - if both Opponent-A and Opponent-B are calling stations - then it would seem reasonable for Carl to doggedly bet after the turn.

One might argue there is little or no possibility of a solid player at low limits. That doesn’t seem an entirely unreasonable view point to me. However, when you play at low limits, I think you’re really practicing for future play against solid opponents who will need to be respected if you hope to be successful playing against them.

Although one can’t extract as much hourly profit from non-solid opponents, by showing these opponents more respect than they deserve, I think one better prepares oneself for tougher games in the future.

I remember listening to a talk by Chris Ferguson once (at an ESCARGOT banquet at the Bike in L.A.) where Chris (then the reigning world champion, fresh from a million dollar plus world series tournament win) stated that the money didn’t really matter much to him, that winning was what mattered - that he tried just as hard to win when playing for play money as with real money. (That’s as I remember it anyhow).

My own thinking is similar (but without the million bucks in my pocket). The money doesn’t really matter to me - but winning does. It’s confusing, because the way you keep track of winning in poker is with money - and because some people are really playing poker for the money rather than primarily for the winning per se.

At any rate, perhaps Carl’s opponents don’t deserve as much respect as I would give them, and I realize that giving them more respect than they deserve cuts into one’s hourly win rate. Therefore you have a very good point - especially if your goal is to extract a maximum hourly rate from these two particular low-limit opponents. I’d agree that you do need to exploit calling stations to maximize your profits in a low-limit game.

But suppose instead that your two opponents are solid players. Now what? If I assume Opponent-A and Opponent-B are both solid players, then when they both call Carl’s flop bet, after the small blind has already checked but has not yet folded, I have to wonder what cards they hold.

Put yourself in Opponent-A’s shoes. 5 small bets in the pot.... a player who has not yet acted this betting round sitting behind you.... the small blind who still has a chance to act after you..... After this particular (T-T-6) flop, you realize the big blind (Carl) may either have a ten or may be exercising the “right of first bluff.”

What cards would you, yourself (in Opponent-A's position), need to call (but not raise) one small bet from a solid big blind after this (T-T-6) flop and with a solid player yet to act behind you?

I think a solid Opponent-A might tend to raise with bluff exposing type hands like AAXX, KKXX or AAQQ. I also think a solid player would tend to raise with an underboat (holding something like A266, A366, or AA66).

Thus I think a solid Opponent-A would want a ten to just call here (but possibly might hold two over-pairs - JJQQ, JJKK, JJAA, QQKK, QQAA, or KKAA). What would a solid Opponent-A have to go along with the ten? I think something like A23T, AATH, ATHH, or THHH (where H is J, Q, or K). Therefore a solid Opponent-A who just calls would seem to have a drawing hand. Of course the call, since it seems to represent TXXX (or possibly two overpairs), could be a maneuver to possibly set up a bluff on the next betting round.

Now what about a solid Opponent-B? The flop is T-T-6, the big blind has bet, Opponent-A has called, and the small blind is yet to act. What does a solid Opponent-B need to call? A solid Opponent-B might tentatively put the big blind on a “right of first bluff” play and put Opponent-A on TXXX. If so, a solid Opponent-B would seem to need TXXX or possibly two overpairs. Holding TXXX, the Xs (as with Opponent-A) would probably be jacks, queens, kings and/or aces. With two overpairs (ten to one against making a boat on the turn), Opponent-B might not seem to be getting proper pot odds to call, but would, however, be getting proper *implied* pot odds to call.

Thus when both a solid Opponent-A and a solid Opponent-B call after the flop of T-T-6 - a jack (or indeed any card over a ten) subsequently appearing on the turn (or river) creates a very threatening situation for someone holding T-7-6-3 in the big blind. Even in a low limit game if only one of Carl’s two opponents is a solid player, then I think there is reason for Carl to be realistically concerned when a jack (or any card over a ten) appears on the turn.

Consequently, I don’t think Carl should blindly bet into two decent opponents after the jack appears on the turn. As it turns out, the bet is a good bet because the best hand he was facing at the time was probably TKXX. However, Carl didn’t know that when he blindly and doggedly bet into his two opponents. Either one of them holding TJXX or JJXX, very realistic possibilities, could shove that bet right down his throat.

On the other hand, if Carl had both of these opponents pegged as calling stations, betting here does not seem unreasonable to me. Thus you have a good point. (All the same, I'd tend to check rather than bet on the turn).

Just my opinion. Thanks for yours.

Buzz

[Aragorn]

Buzz,

We can certain disagree respectfully, and that is what seems to be happening. And since most of the answers aren't black and white, hopefully both our prespectives have merit.


>>However, when you play at low limits, I think you’re really practicing for future play against solid opponents who will need to be respected if you hope to be successful playing against them.

I have a bit different philosophy. I am always trying to match my play to the skill and play of my opponents. I think that is strong poker at any level. But then, I am not looking for strong opponents to improve my game. I am looking for weak ones to win money.

[Buzz]

Hi Aragorn -

“ hopefully both our perspectives have merit.”

Yours certainly does. (That’s a compliment).

“ I am always trying to match my play to the skill and play of my opponents. I think that is strong poker at any level.”

I completely agree.

“But then, I am not looking for strong opponents to improve my game. I am looking for weak ones to win money.”

That point of view certainly makes sense to me. (Yet it has little appeal to me at low limits).

At any rate, what kind of credit are you willing to give Carl’s opponents in terms of their knowledge of Omaha-8 starting hands? Then what kind of credit are you willing to give Carl’s opponents in terms of playing after the flop?

I’m very curious as to what you think Carl’s opponents are thinking in both of these places. Or do you think what they are thinking is unimportant?

My thinking is they don’t have random cards (even though this is a low-limit game). My thinking is there is probably some kind of reasoning before the flop by Carl’s opponents in terms of wanting their starting cards to be coordinated. My thinking is there is some kind of reasoning after the flop by Carl’s opponents in terms of how their starting hands fit with the flop. If one of Carl’s opponents holds the ten - and if the opponent with the ten only plays hands with cards that are coordinated - and if the opponent with the ten tends to avoid middle cards - then Carl’s opponent with the ten is more likely to have a jack than not. At least that’s how it works out for me when I list all the possibilities (assuming I got them all).

In other words, after two opponents call his second round bet - if Carl is thinking one of his opponents must have a ten, and if Carl respects the opponent with the ten - then when the jack appears on the turn, Carl should expect the opponent with the ten is more likely to also have a jack than not.

As it turns out, the opponent with the ten does not have a jack. Nor do either of Carl’s opponents hold a pair of jacks. But Carl, who is out of position and no longer holds the nut boat after the jack appears on the turn, cannot know the opponent with the ten (<font color="red">and is yet to act behind him</font color>) does not also have a jack.

On the other hand, if Carl thinks neither of his opponents deserves respect, then perhaps betting the turn has merit.

Just my opinion.

Buzz