Hand from Cappalletti's book

[kitaristi0]

In his book 'How to Win at Omaha High-Low Poker', Cappalletti discusses the following hand.

v1 is a maniac who has no idea what he's doing.

v1 raises, hero reraises with AAT8 rainbow, 2 calls, v1 calls

Flop comes: K T 2 rainbow

v1 bets, hero raises, 1 fold, 1 call, v1, reraises, hero caps, 1 fold, v1 folds

On the flop Cappalletti explains his raises by saying that since he was going to call, he may as well raise. Would you play the flop the same way? Even though v1 is a maniac and could have anything, with his reraise and the one player still active behind you, do you really think you're ahead right now?

And more generally perhaps, how important is being the aggressor in low-limit O8? I know in hold 'em it's imperative for success, but does that same principle apply to O8?


On a sidenote, after v1's riconculous fold, he went on to tell Cappaletti that: "See? I told you - all you have to do to win in this game is raise," and by capping Cappalletti had given away that he had trip kings. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Against that player, yes I would.

And aggression is important. I find that there are times when it is appropriate to bet out with a made hight hand that is not the nut high when too many weak-tight players on this board would be inclined to check-fold.

[domester]

I think the idea Cappelletti's trying to highlight here is using info that your opponents give you against them. Earlier in that section, the maniac opponent gave Cappelletti some "hints," giving away some strategy and allowing him to reasonably guess the likely reaction to such a move.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop Cappalletti explains his raises by saying that since he was going to call, he may as well raise. Would you play the flop the same way? Even though v1 is a maniac and could have anything, with his reraise and the one player still active behind you, do you really think you're ahead right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cappalletti's not saying that he would cap here against any two opponents; instead, he's capping to push out the only other opponent who may be competent. Even in PLO8 I occasionally take risks like this to isolate the rare complete idiot--it is a +EV move if you can be sure other players in the hand will fold.

Obviously, though, this line does not apply in general. Don't take this hand example to be advice on anything other than exploiting the rare idiot in a specific set of circumstances. That kind of blind aggression against even mediocre opponets will end badly in the long run.

[mshalen]

Be very careful with the examples from this book. Most of the examples are of the type: I shouldn't have done this but I did and this is what happened.

Also most of the book is a reprint of articles from Cardplayer and don't seem to fit in with the surrounding text.

[gergery]

I think that’s a reasonable line to take against certain opponents in certain situations, but its by no means standard and best.

Keep in mind that Cappelletti’s goal is not demonstrating to a new player the correct/basic way of playing hand. He is trying to make things a bit interesting since it was originally an article, so he’s highlighting somewhat unusual semi-non-standard play.

The value in reading it is seeing how a decent player thinks. I’d think of it as a weaker version of MiddleLimit Holdem by Ciaffone – pay attention to the analysis and what he’s thinking about and why, but ignore what conclusions or actual plays he made.

--Greg