omaha8 is killing me

[bodie]

Last night was one of those times when every hand I had got beaten: when I had a perfect low hand, there was no low. When I got a full house, someone got a higher one. When I got quads, hardly anyone was in the pot before I even got a chance to call. I was trying to be very picky about my hands, it didn't seem to matter. It wasn't that I didn't get any cards, when I did they hardly ever played. Do others find this typical of this game - ? I love the game, but it's driving me crazy! Meanwhile, the kid next to me joined into a preflop raising frenzy which cost him a bunch, had nothing but won it all by grabbing a flush with two low diamonds.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Last night was one of those times when every hand I had got beaten:

[/ QUOTE ]

Bummer.

[ QUOTE ]
When I got a full house, someone got a higher one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bodie - There is no good way to completely avoid losing to a higher full house, but you can reduce your chances of that occurance by tending to not play starting hands with low pairs. Maybe you're already doing that. (And of course sometimes you should play small pairs in starting hands, as for example when you are dealt A-2-2-K. Then, if the board ends up with a pair and a deuce, you may be stuck because of the size of the pot, even though you suspect an opponent has a higher full house).

[ QUOTE ]
Do others find this typical of this game

[/ QUOTE ]

Not typical, but it occasionally happens.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's driving me crazy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Could be you're expecting something different than the way things are.

Buzz

[benfranklin]

Your post was pretty vague, with no details about your experience, what you have read, or what levels you are playing and where. Some more info about what you are doing might give a hint as to what you might be doing wrong.

[bodie]

Thanks Buzz & Ben Franklin -
Buzz asks: could I be expecting things to be different than the way they are. -- I don't think so. I understand the complexity of the game (though I am definitely not a master of it) - I know when I make a mistake, and I don't count those times as part of what happened last night. I scooped a few pots, but ultimately lost it all, I couldn't build anything. Maybe my biggest mistake was not leaving when I was ahead.
As far as Ben Franklin's question about my experience and what I've read - I've got two books I'm still reading "Omaha High-Low, play to win with the odds" by Bill Boston, and "How to win at Omaha High-Low Poker" by Mike Cappelletti, as well as reading forums, practicing with Wilson software, playing online and playing live. It just seems like you have a lot less "control" than HE.
It was just nearly uncanny last night how, no matter what hand I had, except for a few times, they would not follow through. I had an A,2,4,5 of diamonds for instance, and all high cards came out on the flop. Similarly, I had a 2,3,4,5 unsuited and all high cards. It was just the way it went, I guess.
I know I have a lot to learn - I'm probably maddest that I didn't leave sooner.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't build anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bodie - That happens to us all sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe my biggest mistake was not leaving when I was ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we're always going to feel that way when we once were ahead but then come to be behind, I honestly don't think quitting once you are ahead is a very good strategy unless you suddenly realize that you are playing superior opponents and you have simply been lucky.

But once you recognize that you are playing superior opponents, whether you are ahead or behind, you should seriously consider leaving the game.

Against inferior opponents, I think you should stay in the game, as long as you feel like playing, regardless of whether you are ahead or behind.

Thus whether or not you should leave the game has nothing much to do with being ahead or behind - but has everything to do with the strength of your opposition.

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems like you have a lot less "control" than HE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you should feel that way. I feel exactly the opposite.

That viewpoint seems to be held by recent Texas hold 'em converts who think a good hand plus a good flop should hold up. But Omaha-8 is a drawing game - a river game - much, much, much more so than Texas hold 'em.

[ QUOTE ]
I had an A,2,4,5 of diamonds for instance, and all high cards came out on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

1140/17296 = ~ 1/15. A bit of bad luck, but at least you're out cheaply, assuming you didn't jamb before the flop with the hand. What's worse (more expensive) is to get two low cards on the flop and then not see another low card on the turn or river.

Although before you see the flop, A-2-4-5 figures to qualify for low roughly half the time (53.08%) the hand only makes the nut low about a third of the time (33.93%) - and then it's going to get quartered or sixthed quite often.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, I had a 2,3,4,5 unsuited and all high cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

2345n is not a very good starting hand, IMHO. If you do decide to see the flop with it, you certainly should want the price to be only one bet, IMHO, and then you'll usually gone after the flop anyway (or at least I will be).

[ QUOTE ]
I know I have a lot to learn

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

Cappelletti's advice might not be the best advice for you to follow when starting. Some good ideas there, though - worth reading, IMHO.

Bill Boston's book is also worth reading but might have you playing too tightly, IMHO, in the loose games you generally encounter. For example, look up 2345n in Boston and you'll see that he shows the hand as a money loser. I don't think 2345n is a very good hand, but neither do I think it's a money loser if played correctly in a loose game. (It might lose money in a rock garden, but nobody makes much money playing low-limit Omaha-8 in a rock garden anyhow).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[bodie]

Buzz, thanks for all the advice. It's great!

As far as the other players being superior, I'm sure there were several regulars there who had more experience, but after watching their play for hours, I understood the choices they were making. It really was the cards which beat me - except for a couple of times I knew I made a mistake. It makes me feel better actually to hear you say that everyone feels that way when you once were up, and then go down. But that's the way I felt at the time, I was enjoying playing, so I kept playing. In the back of my mind I probably thought I'd get some good hands before I left. Oh well.

As far as HE seeming more controlled - I feel that way I think because it is less of a river game - (though of course it can be a river game!) I'm trying to work up to the same level of confidence I feel when playing HE.
I did start out playing rather tight, but had to get looser since it was a loose game and the "rules" weren't applying!

thanks again.

[GMan42]

Bodie--

Your session sounds like a couple of mine this week--I sympathize. Don't forget that if you're playing well, it'll swing back in your favor sooner or later.

Regarding the whole "should have quit while I was ahead" thing--this can actually be a dangerous frame of mind. I used to think like this, and when looking at my results, I found mostly short sessions with small profit, dotted by a few long sessions with *huge* losses, where I stuck around trying to break even, and just dug a bigger hole. You'll do better sticking around at the good tables, even though you'll occasionally give back your winnings.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as Ben Franklin's question about my experience and what I've read - I've got two books I'm still reading "Omaha High-Low, play to win with the odds" by Bill Boston, and "How to win at Omaha High-Low Poker" by Mike Cappelletti, as well as reading forums, practicing with Wilson software, playing online and playing live. It just seems like you have a lot less "control" than HE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Buzz, you have a lot more control in O8 than in HE. In O8, by the flop you've seen 7/9 of the cards that will make up your hand. The options are now limited, and you can figure the odds. And as Sklansky and others have pointed out, O8 is more of a game of hand evaluation, while HE is more a game of psychology. Hand evaluation is much more objective, and much easier to learn. The key to low limit O8 is good preflop hand selection, and only playing postflop with the nuts or a draw to the nuts.

To learn hand evaluation, you just need to study. I'm not familiar with the Boston book. I would not recommend Cappelletti for a beginner. Mike plays a lot by the seat of his pants, and his style might not fit yours. I say put it away for later, when you can evaluate his recommendations in light of how you develop.

The best beginner's book is the one by Tenner and Krieger. Read it, and then go back and study it. Some articles by the authors, based on the book, are at
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...me/Lou_Krieger

Two very good sites for O8 strategy are
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/
http://www.winningonlinepoker.com/

I'd recommend that you print out the O8 articles from those sites and put them in a 3-ring notebook, and treat that as an important addition to your library. Read and study. Also search the 2+2 site for O8 discussons involving Buzz and PhatMack. Put those in the notebook too.

After going through all that stuff and playing a lot, get Ray Zee's book on Hi-Lo split and study it.

There, that should keep you off the streets for a while [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bodie]

Buzz,

Thanks for the article referrals, I'll look those up for sure (after I write this post!). As far as hand evaluation, what do you do when you realize the game is loose? It's hard to try and play only the best hands when people are betting on crazy things, and winning.

[bodie]

Gman42,

Thanks for the encouragement - of course I like the idea of "not" stopping while I'm ahead, it gives me a reason to keep playing! Anyway, it was sort of a bummer of a session, though I did have fun playing. It's always a surprise when you realize you can't control what is happening.