Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Poker > Omaha/8
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-06-2005, 03:37 PM
gergery gergery is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SF Bay Area (eastbay)
Posts: 719
Default Weak tight check

PLO8 $200, full ring

EP limps – he later folds
MP limps ($150) – played a bunch with him, he’s bit loose, losing player, bit of call station
MP+2 limps ($500) – solid player, is being table coach, has turned over only good hands
I limp on Button ($250) – I’ve been moderately tight preflop, and loose aggressive postflop
BB checks

I have 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

$9 in pot and Flop comes A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
All check

Turn is 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
I now have nutlow and bottom set, and am happy.
However, BB pots it for $9.
MP/LooseCally min-raises to $18
MP+2 Solid player min-raises to $27

With 3 people liking their hand here I am fairly certain someone has 23xx possibly with diamonds/set, and someone has nutflush.

Call or Raise?

--Greg
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-06-2005, 03:59 PM
Wintermute Wintermute is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 612
Default Re: Weak tight check

Personally I'd raise the max. It's possible that nobody has the nut flush, and you may be able to get the weaker flushes to fold and end up quartering the other potential 23. Or it could be that BB has 25 and bet out with the 2nd nut low, then got raised by two flushes. Anyway, there are a lot of ways good things can happen to you if you get max money in on this hand.

The only way something bad happens is if you raise the max and the only caller (raiser) has 23 with a flush. And even then you have the boat redraw for the river. As for higher set, if someone has 23 and higher set, that's just tough luck.

But I've seen too many crapass hands get shown down in situations like this not to shovel my money in two-fisted.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-06-2005, 04:23 PM
JoshuaMayes JoshuaMayes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 338
Default Re: Weak tight check

I would max-raise. I want to get rid of any non-nut flushes and 1/4 or 1/6 the nut low holders. Not many hands can withstand any serious heat on that board, so I want to apply maximum pressure. Hopefully, someone was "slowplaying" the nut flush and I can get heads up with him and freeroll his stack.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-06-2005, 08:47 PM
emptyshell emptyshell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 33
Default Re: Weak tight check

I guess I disagree with the other posters here. You have a read on the second min-raiser to be a solid player. What kind of hands would he put in a second min-raise with? A non-nut flush seems unlikely. Could he have the nut low with some high worse than yours? Maybe, but a good player would either be trying to play a small pot with such a hand (by calling) or drive people out (by raising big). The only type of hand where his play makes sense is a monster: nut flush or nut low + decent flush. Making the assumption that you would not be able to get BB or MP to fold the nut low, a big reraise is just asking to lose a lot of money.

I would call, hoping to bring others along with crappy hands and play a smaller pot. If the board pairs, or you see weakness on the river, I'd push. If you see a pot and re-pot before you on the river, you can fold.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-07-2005, 12:30 AM
Zoelef Zoelef is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PSP\'s Tower
Posts: 231
Default Re: Weak tight check

Apologies if I repeat anything someone mentioned.

I pot-raise because I have the nut-low and redraws to a better hand (full house).

Max-raising is the best way to get naked 23xx low-draws to fold...someone has a flush out there so I don't get huffy on the river unless I spike a 4, 8, or T...I'll hazard a guess and say that underfulls are safer in O/8 but I could imagine a A238 or A234 running around somewhere, especially if there are multiple callers on the pot-raise.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-07-2005, 01:00 AM
Vlight Vlight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Weak tight check

Maybe off-topic, but from the button, I would have raised with that hand pre-flop. On the flop, I would probably (probably not) have bet as well if I was last to act (counterfeit-protection)..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-07-2005, 07:42 AM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 46
Default Re: Weak tight check

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe off-topic, but from the button, I would have raised with that hand pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really????
This hand is total garbage! The only reason he limps at
all is that he has the button.

Suerte,
Jonathan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-07-2005, 11:22 AM
JoshuaMayes JoshuaMayes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 338
Default Re: Weak tight check

[ QUOTE ]
You have a read on the second min-raiser to be a solid player. What kind of hands would he put in a second min-raise with?


[/ QUOTE ]
Answer:
[ QUOTE ]

the nut low with some high worse than yours

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that min-raise as a feeler/isolation bet. I would put him on a nut low with a weak high (like TPTK or two pair). He is trying to get headsup with another perceived nut-low so that he can quarter him, but he is not sure how the other hands are and wants to find out. He is afraid that a flush might be lurking, and wants to know now whether it will fold. It might be a trap with a nut-nut or nut low + flush, in which case you will have to hit your boat on the river to avoid gettting 1/6ed or 1/4ed, but most of the time, it won't be, as those hands should be max-raising.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-07-2005, 11:28 AM
Wintermute Wintermute is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 612
Default Re: Weak tight check

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe off-topic, but from the button, I would have raised with that hand pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you hate money?


[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, I would probably (probably not) have bet as well if I was last to act (counterfeit-protection)..

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does that mean? I'm going to assume you are saying if it checks around on the flop, you would bet out. That's probably (probably not) the stupidest piece of advice I've read in this forum in... a week. No high hand at all. No draw to a high hand as of yet. An obvious check-raise board for EP nut flush. Betting there is a fantastic strategy if you hate money and would rather give it away in a poker game than just light it on fire.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-07-2005, 12:02 PM
Vlight Vlight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Weak tight check

[ QUOTE ]


What the hell does that mean? I'm going to assume you are saying if it checks around on the flop, you would bet out. That's probably (probably not) the stupidest piece of advice I've read in this forum in... a week. No high hand at all. No draw to a high hand as of yet. An obvious check-raise board for EP nut flush. Betting there is a fantastic strategy if you hate money and would rather give it away in a poker game than just light it on fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt meant as advice, it was meant to spark a little discussion here.
Well, in my experience it doesnt hurt to try a medium-sized bet to see if there really are (nut-)flushes out there or not and to see if there are other 23s out there or not. Baby flushes without a low draw might even fold this hand after you make a reasonable bet.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.