Do bad starting hands do well short term or am I on tilt?

[steamboatin]

Is it the nature of Omaha Hi/Low that really bad starting hands can do exteremly well for a short peroid of time or am I just being stupid?

I am playing just under 20% of my hands and I am beginning to eat away the red ink from PTO stats. The red ink doesn't bother me, much because I still have a lot to learn and it costs money to learn.

I have a little over 6k hands now and it seems that Omaha can be really streaky.

It is my understanding that starting hand selection is even more imprtant in Omaha than in Holdem. Is this an accurate assumption?

[Beavis68]

Hellmuth wrote that Ted Forrest played all hands but pocket trips for a month and was profitable. I have been able to play up to 35% of my hands nad make money if the conditions where right (this includes the bb). I am not sure that there is a clear answer to your question. My answers only relate to limit.

I think that u can play those very maginal hands like KQ24 double-suited in limit O/8 from EP or MP. Even if this makes u "unpredictable", u still will be losing a lot of money just called with these hand PF (assuming that ur playing @ a game with decent players that can get away from hands. Even though u r doubled suited ur not drawing to the nuts, so what is the point of it being double suited? Especially in PLO8 u will lose a whole lot of money not having the nut flush when u get into big hands. From LP, opening the betting, i might raise with this hand to change things up. But playing these hands would be something i do very rarely ot make people think differently about how i play. With hands like KQ24, what type of flops are you looking for? Your looking for an Ace on the flop or you fold (unless u flop trips or nut straight). For the low ur looking for A3x, which is not going to come often. You are banking on an Ace coming on the flop with either 3 or a 2flush/straight for u, it just doesnt seem like this is +EV play (once again, if ur @ a very tight table u can play this hand from LP or even MP to take down blinds and so forth) 20% is about the right % of hands played, but u might not be playing them well Post flop or ur just not playing the right 20% (as mentioned earlier).
About the swings: The swings will be worse than u would originally think (even though its a split game) -- i think that the 2+2 split game book talks about the fact that OH8 has a very high variance and that it might not seem as much @ a B & M because so much time is being spent splitting pots and calculating everything but the swings are rather big. 6K hands is a good start, but if your really lost i suggest reading some books before you continue.
A note for the lower limit OH8:
At these low limits its usual to see 7 people in PF, so u might get the odds to call with these crappy hands (KQ24), this is why i suggest either playing higher limits of PLO b/c then u can Pot hands from LP and punish those people playing these marginal hands instead of having them call u down for 3-4BB. Also, since so many people are in these pots in the lower limits, post-flop and on you should only be drawing to (playing) the nuts, the 2nd nuts should be thrown away because there is a good chance that someone is drawing to the nuts. Also, if there are 2flushes out and u have an open-ended straight draw/wrap-around u can take 1 card off if u r going for a straight that will scoop and there are more than 4 people calling, but not more than that. A lot of ur outs are dead because of the flush draw that i can gaurantee at least 1 person is on.

[Beavis68]

My variance in BBs is definitely lower in Omaha. I go through streaks just as bad, or worse than in hold'em, but I do not lose as much on the bad streaks, I am usually folding on the flop.

r u sure ur not just playing better omaha than holdem?

[ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding that starting hand selection is even more imprtant in Omaha than in Holdem. Is this an accurate assumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard this; and Im not all for it. I think the better player you are, the more marginal hands you should play. You can play most A3xx and be able to get off troubled flops, unlike most players. You should be able to grind out profit from those types of hands. But if your rather new, tight if right, no matter what game your playing.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the better player you are, the more marginal hands you should play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullet Dodger - I wonder what you mean by “the better player you are, the more marginal hands you should play.” Do you mean expand the range of marginal hands? Or do you mean play marginal hands more often from early or mid position? Or both?

I think some who post here are better players than me - but I’m probably a better player than others who post here.

It’s moot because I’m not sure how it relates to me anyhow. I want to be unpredictable and you're less predictable when you play more, rather than fewer, starting hands. In addition, it’s certainly more fun to play a hand than fold it - but you can dribble away a lot of money by seeing too many flops.

It’s easy to predict what starting hands will or won’t do well for low - but before the flop it’s almost impossible to know if a given typical starting hand will win for high.

There are obviously some starting hands that are so horrible you can reasonably predict they will not fare well - but even very nice starting hands you generally need to connect with the flop to continue and then you generally need to connect with the board reasonably well on the river to win. In a loose game there are usually several players who hold hands having some reasonbable connection with the flop. After such a flop situation, assuming everybody involved plays reasonably competently, it’s then a matter of who draws best.

There’s no sharp dividing line between the starting hands I consider “marginal” and “playable.” Nor is there a sharp dividing line between “marginal” and “trash.” Yet I do more or less have starting hands grouped into these three categories.

I mostly reserve hands I consider “marginal” for late position play at loose tables. I also play some marginal hands in the unraised small blind and in the big blind even if raised. (I also play them or don’t play them at various other times, depending on circumstances).

Let’s use a set of hands I cite elsewhere in this thread,
K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],
<font color="white">_</font>
K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and
<font color="white">_</font>
K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

In a typical game in which I play, I’m probably going to see the flop from any position with the double suited version. I’m probably going to fold the single suited version before the flop unless I’m on the button or in the small blind. I’m probably going to fold the rainbow version even on the botton or from the small blind. I write “probably” because there are a number of various considerations, including table image and how I think the way I play the current hand will affect the action I’ll get from opponents on future hands.

At any rate, I consider the single suited version to be a “marginal” starting hand for me, and as such, a hand I’ll generally play from the button or the small blind, but not generally from other positions in a typical game.

It occurs to me that we may not be thinking of “marginal” hands in the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
But if your rather new, tight if right, no matter what game your playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you’re rather new, playing tight seems safer than playing loose.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a little over 6k hands now and it seems that Omaha can be really streaky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most forms of poker are streakier than most people realize. Variance plays a huge roll. Even if you could play at the same table with the same opponents for a very long time, you will have streaks when you run red hot and streaks when you're really cold.

If these streaks weren't around, losing players would actually realize that they suck and there would only be sharks at the tables.

If you are running cold, just stay positive and play through it. Realize that you actually deserve a cold run of cards since things are just averaging out. Review hand histories and ensure that you haven't developped bad habits that are causing you to leak chips. Don't let a cold streak slowly transform you into a losing player.

Good luck, stay positive and work through this streak.

[steamboatin]

I'm not running bad, I'm clueless, but it is getting a little better.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
Realize that you actually deserve a cold run of cards since things are just averaging out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though this might be a nice mental trick for you I wouldn't encourage others to think this way. This can lead to belief in things like heaters and being "due." You don't deserve a cold run of cards because you ran good for a while. This is just wrong as I understand it.