Omaha/8 - 5/10 limit hand

[Cue-Ball 66]

FullTiltPoker Game #227984232: Table Alexander - $5/$10 - Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 2:59:42 ET - 2005/09/23
Seat 1: InstinctMan ($260.50)
Seat 2: LavLaw ($167)
Seat 3: BayBomber ($134)
Seat 4: Riverwreckage ($21)
Seat 5: WALSH ($142)
Seat 6: drack57 ($108)
Seat 7: OsoGrande ($98)
Seat 8: Cue-Ball 66 ($270.50)
Seat 9: Perry Friedman ($90.50)
Riverwreckage posts the small blind of $2.50
WALSH posts the big blind of $5
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cue-Ball 66 [2h 3h Ad Kd]
drack57 calls $5
OsoGrande calls $5
Cue-Ball 66 calls $5
Perry Friedman raises to $10
InstinctMan folds
LavLaw folds
BayBomber folds
Riverwreckage folds
WALSH calls $5
drack57 calls $5
OsoGrande calls $5
Cue-Ball 66 raises to $15
Perry Friedman raises to $20
WALSH calls $10
drack57 calls $10
OsoGrande has 15 seconds left to act
OsoGrande calls $10
Cue-Ball 66 calls $5
*** FLOP *** [5d Ks 2d]
WALSH checks
drack57 checks
OsoGrande checks
Cue-Ball 66 bets $5
Perry Friedman calls $5
WALSH calls $5
drack57 calls $5
OsoGrande calls $5
*** TURN *** [5d Ks 2d] [3d]
WALSH checks
drack57 checks
OsoGrande bets $10
Cue-Ball 66 raises to $20
Perry Friedman folds
WALSH folds
drack57 folds
OsoGrande calls $10
*** RIVER *** [5d Ks 2d 3d] [5h]
OsoGrande checks


--------


Ok, I have two questions about this hand...

1. Perry Friedman said he had AQQT. I've always thought high only hands played better against a big field, yet he said he prefers to play against a small field (although at these FT games, a raise from a pro hardly limits the field). I'm sure there are probably other posts about this, so a redirection to one of them would be great if noone wants to comment on it.

2. Do I value bet on the end? Any other comment on my play are also welcome, thanks.

[Buzz]

Cue Ball - Premium starting hand, and then you catch a decent, albeit non-ideal, fit with the flop.

Turn counterfeits your low but gives you the current 2nd nut high (because a straight flush is possible). And now you're praying for the board not to pair. You shouldn't worry about the straight flush but about one time in twenty you'll get clobbered by one here.

Good raise on the turn. You're betting for value and also to try to dislodge an opponent who might beat you if the board pairs.

But pair it does! Phooey. However, not all is necessarily lost. Worth a call on the river, and possibly a bet if it's checked to you.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Perry Friedman said he had AQQT. I've always thought high only hands played better against a big field,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think too.

[ QUOTE ]
yet he said he prefers to play against a small field

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. Maybe he's more skilled at playing against a small field.

The hand itself (AQQT, suited or not, but especially if suited) figures to do better against a big field.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Do I value bet on the end?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to say. I rather doubt OsoGrande will fold to your bet, conceding the whole pot to you - but you never know. More likely you'll probably be splitting the pot, but OsoGrande might be calling with a weak diamond flush or worse. (OsoGrande might also have a full house, but I wouldn't worry about getting check raised here - and if you do get check raised, you should call, because the check raise would not necessarily be from a better high hand than yours).

These various factors considered, I like a value bet on the end better than a check.

(Sometimes a table comaraderie developes such that you just check these sort of hands when one-on-one on the end, and that might be what OsoGrande is doing here. But in terms of pure cut-throat, beat-up-on-your-own-grandmother poker, you should bet on the end).

Just my opinion.

Buzz