| |
Main
Date: 09 Dec 18:44:19
From: Kincaid
Subject: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in Omaha
8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
Kh 3d 5d
I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding the
river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
little value in betting here (IMHO)
What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 18:53:36
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 10:44 AM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in
> Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
>
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding
> the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
>
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
>
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
>
>
I can see putting the pressure on the turn if no diamond hit, but with two low
cards already out there, I want to bet/raise right now.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 18:59:56
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 10:53 AM, Super Steamer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 9 2006 10:44 AM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> >
> > I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in
> > Omaha
> > 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
> >
> > I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
> >
> > Kh 3d 5d
> >
> > I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> > it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding
> > the
> > river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
> >
> > This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is
> > very
> > little value in betting here (IMHO)
> >
> > What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
> >
> >
> I can see putting the pressure on the turn if no diamond hit, but with two low
> cards already out there, I want to bet/raise right now.
Not to mention they are both wheel cards, and the low could scoop you for high.
I am going to bet it right now. If somebody, hopefully more than one person, is
going low, I want to get their money in the pot, and maybe knock out a weak
diamond draw. If it was just a straight draw, or diamond draw out there, I
might lay back on the flop and push hard on the turn.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 19:08:11
From: Kincaid
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
This is Limit. There will be no pushing hard on the turn.
> Not to mention they are both wheel cards, and the low could scoop you for
> high.
> I am going to bet it right now. If somebody, hopefully more than one person,
> is
> going low, I want to get their money in the pot, and maybe knock out a weak
> diamond draw. If it was just a straight draw, or diamond draw out there, I
> might lay back on the flop and push hard on the turn.
>
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 19:18:13
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 11:08 AM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> This is Limit. There will be no pushing hard on the turn.
>
I know it is limit, I meant bet or raise, maybe I should have said play
aggressively on the turn.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 21:38:45
From: Roy
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
A check call is the correct play, in my opinion, since it's limit not PL or NL.
Opening out of position, you'll usually see somebody w/ a draw check raise to
get a free turn card.
Of the remaining unknown 45 cards, 10 diamonds (assuming you don't have the K)
and any A,2,4,6,7,8 hurt you (24 - 6 aforementioned diamonds). Case K, two 3's
and two 5's help, but minute chance they could hurt you too. Any non diamond
9,10,J,Q is what you truly want, but that opens the door for the straight
drawing crowd...
Bottom line, long term, the draw, about 28 cards out of 45 is a favorite. Take
away the four 8's out of the equation, which still give you half-pot equity
(i.e. low drawers), and the 24 cards are still favorite to beat you by the turn.
Alas, then that dreaded river card...
Roy
On Dec 9 2006 1:53 PM, Super Steamer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 9 2006 10:44 AM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> >
> > I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in
> > Omaha
> > 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
> >
> > I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
> >
> > Kh 3d 5d
> >
> > I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> > it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding
> > the
> > river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
> >
> > This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is
> > very
> > little value in betting here (IMHO)
> >
> > What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
> >
> >
> I can see putting the pressure on the turn if no diamond hit, but with two low
> cards already out there, I want to bet/raise right now.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 1:38 PM, Roy wrote:
>
> A check call is the correct play, in my opinion, since it's limit not PL or
> NL.
> Opening out of position, you'll usually see somebody w/ a draw check raise to
> get a free turn card.
>
> Of the remaining unknown 45 cards, 10 diamonds (assuming you don't have the K)
> and any A,2,4,6,7,8 hurt you (24 - 6 aforementioned diamonds). Case K, two
> 3's
> and two 5's help, but minute chance they could hurt you too.
I'm not going to be overly concerned about somebody making quads, and the case K
can't possibly hurt me. Also just because a small card can make a small
straight possible, doesn't make it probable, especially if you get heads up.
Now if the guy has a wrap around wheel draw and a flush draw, you're in rough
shape, but more than likely you are not up against this hand.
Any non diamond
> 9,10,J,Q is what you truly want, but that opens the door for the straight
> drawing crowd...
>
That is fine, a one card draw to a straight isn't really so hot and I will
happily bet into them.
> Bottom line, long term, the draw, about 28 cards out of 45 is a favorite.
> Take
> away the four 8's out of the equation, which still give you half-pot equity
> (i.e. low drawers), and the 24 cards are still favorite to beat you by the
> turn.
>
A lot of the low cards will still leave you half the pot, even if they make a
low straight possible, especially if you manage to get heads up. He may have
some good draws, but not every possible draw. He's not going to have a high
straight draw, a flush draw, and a wraparound wheel draw, it just isn't
possible. He could have A246 and a flush draw, but it's VERY unlikely.
> Alas, then that dreaded river card...
>
> Roy
Bring on the river, if he makes it he wins, and I am probably going to pay him
off.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 1:38 PM, Roy wrote:
>
> A check call is the correct play, in my opinion, since it's limit not PL or
> NL.
> Opening out of position, you'll usually see somebody w/ a draw check raise to
> get a free turn card.
I welcome their check raise.
>
> Of the remaining unknown 45 cards, 10 diamonds (assuming you don't have the K)
> and any A,2,4,6,7,8 hurt you (24 - 6 aforementioned diamonds). Case K, two
> 3's
> and two 5's help, but minute chance they could hurt you too. Any non diamond
> 9,10,J,Q is what you truly want, but that opens the door for the straight
> drawing crowd...
That's fine, they're going to have to pay on the turn to draw to that straight.
>
> Bottom line, long term, the draw, about 28 cards out of 45 is a favorite.
> Take
> away the four 8's out of the equation, which still give you half-pot equity
> (i.e. low drawers), and the 24 cards are still favorite to beat you by the
> turn.
>
> Alas, then that dreaded river card...
>
> Roy
I still say bet or raise here. I still should be getting equity off any
callers, and if I do get check raised, cool, I might put in another just to
knock out as many draws as possible, and lock up some dead money in the pot. I
am not going to let anybody draw for free here with two low cards out.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 18:02:37
From: Roy
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong w/ your approach either, but I
think it boils down to personal preference, and knowing your opponents'
tendencies, of which, if you don't have any, I favor a check/call. Again, the
draw is the statistical favorite so anybody holding, for example, A2dXX, could
hurt you very bad, hence I abdicate the passive approach. I've learned my
lesson in flopping sets, with low, straight, AND flush draws on the board -- I
back off. But that's me...
The game is for the nuts, so you can also argue, "Well, I currently have the
nuts, I should bet it to get people out." Easily said, not easily done in limit
games.
I have found the more people in the pot, especially limit, the harder it is to
get them out of the pot, and the more important it becomes to truly play for the
nuts. Completely different in PL or NL.
Roy
On Dec 9 2006 8:47 PM, Super Steamer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 9 2006 1:38 PM, Roy wrote:
>
> >
> > A check call is the correct play, in my opinion, since it's limit not PL or
> > NL.
> > Opening out of position, you'll usually see somebody w/ a draw check raise
> > to
> > get a free turn card.
>
> I welcome their check raise.
> >
> > Of the remaining unknown 45 cards, 10 diamonds (assuming you don't have the
> > K)
> > and any A,2,4,6,7,8 hurt you (24 - 6 aforementioned diamonds). Case K, two
> > 3's
> > and two 5's help, but minute chance they could hurt you too. Any non
> > diamond
> > 9,10,J,Q is what you truly want, but that opens the door for the straight
> > drawing crowd...
>
> That's fine, they're going to have to pay on the turn to draw to that
> straight.
> >
> > Bottom line, long term, the draw, about 28 cards out of 45 is a favorite.
> > Take
> > away the four 8's out of the equation, which still give you half-pot equity
> > (i.e. low drawers), and the 24 cards are still favorite to beat you by the
> > turn.
> >
> > Alas, then that dreaded river card...
> >
> > Roy
>
> I still say bet or raise here. I still should be getting equity off any
> callers, and if I do get check raised, cool, I might put in another just to
> knock out as many draws as possible, and lock up some dead money in the pot.
> I
> am not going to let anybody draw for free here with two low cards out.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 21:48:56
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 10 2006 10:02 AM, Roy wrote:
>
> I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong w/ your approach either, but
> I
> think it boils down to personal preference, and knowing your opponents'
> tendencies, of which, if you don't have any, I favor a check/call. Again, the
> draw is the statistical favorite so anybody holding, for example, A2dXX, could
> hurt you very bad, hence I abdicate the passive approach.
I'm sure you meant advocate, not abdicate. Anyways, even if you get heads up
against A2dXX, you're really not in that bad of shape, unless he has A2d4X.
I've learned my
> lesson in flopping sets, with low, straight, AND flush draws on the board -- I
> back off. But that's me...
>
You're going to lose a fair amount of the time with this hand, but there is
still equity there, and I'm going after it. If you are planning on calling,
then you might as well be in there betting and raising, and not giving free
cards.
But, you can play it your way, and I'll play it mine.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 19:24:22
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Kincaid wrote:
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
You have the nuts with plenty of draws to keep your opponents fishing
along. Welcome this situation. It's better with 8 opponents, but 3 is
fine too.
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand.
The high nuts with a 10-out redraw to a lock in a high-action situation
is not "pretty weak."
> I checked and called with the intention of folding the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
Yuck.
If you're going to play KK with no low and this isn't the flop you want,
what is?
I would take this K3d5d over KT5 rainbow or K55 or KK5 any day.
With the latter flops your hand is "safer" than it is on the one that
you got, but being "safe" isn't the point. The way you make money in
Omaha (one of the ways) is when you have the best hand and they have
draws. Sometimes you win, sometimes they win. You don't make money
flopping a lock or near-lock that kills the action.
Are you honestly going to fold, even if no diamond comes? Fine, fold if
you want if A, 2, 4, or 6 comes and the board doesn't pair, but folding
to any other combo is silly. 7 coming doesn't mean somebody else
automatically has 46. High cards coming doesn't mean someone
automatically has broadway.
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
No, what there's "little value in" is giving low and diamond draws a
free shot at making their hands when your hand is the best.
What if they all check and a 9 comes on the turn, then you decide to
check because there's "little value" in betting, and the river is a 9,
or a 3, or a 5, or a King? You'll bet then, and make nothing.
"What's the point in betting? They would have called the whole way
anyway," right? That's EXACTLY the point in betting. It doesn't matter
how they might end up beating you.
Sometimes you'll scoop, sometimes you'll split, sometimes you'll get
scooped. The only time you should ever check this flop is if you intend
to checkraise. Declining to bet this flop is weak and hopeless.
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
There are plenty but this is just about the perfect example of when NOT
to be passive.
As Badger once said about a similar hand "Please give me the cards other
people don't want!"
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 15:05:07
From: minus200(DELETETHIS)
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
top set is the most expensive hand in Omaha but sometimes you just must
bet and this is one of them
Kincaid wrote:
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
>
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
>
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
>
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
--
MINUS200
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention
of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but
rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, scotch in the
other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming
"WOO HOO what a ride!"
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 21:01:44
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 2:52 PM, minus200(DELETETHIS) wrote:
> top set is the most expensive hand in Omaha but sometimes you just must
> bet and this is one of them
It just depends. It depends on players, position, etc. About the only good
card you can hit on the turn is a pair or a 9. If your opponents don't know how
to push a strong draw then you should probably bet. If you're against 2 or 3
active hands who know how to push a strong draw than you probably should be a
little more careful.
Sometimes I'd bet this. And sometimes I wouldn't. Sometimes I'd check/call.
Sometimes I'd check/raise. I don't think I'd ever fold it. It also matter
what the suit of xx is. If it's diamonds I'm betting.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 21:27:45
From: Kincaid
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On this particular hand, the bet on the flop came from the button and the SB
folded leaving it three-handed going to the turn. The turn was a black deuce.
The XX in my hand were J8 or T9 or some cards which didn't play into the outcome
of the hand except to say that they were potentially good cards for me to hit on
the turn/river. With diamonds, I think that a bet or c/r would be a more
valuable play.
In this instance, I had the draw to improve my set and nothing else. Given that
my opponents in this hand have demonstrated a propensity for calling bets cold
to chase any draw (however weak), do you favour my line of checking and calling
and folding the river unimproved if the diamond hits? Or do you pay this hand
off?
On Dec 9 2006 1:01 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 9 2006 2:52 PM, minus200(DELETETHIS) wrote:
>
> > top set is the most expensive hand in Omaha but sometimes you just must
> > bet and this is one of them
>
> It just depends. It depends on players, position, etc. About the only good
> card you can hit on the turn is a pair or a 9. If your opponents don't know
> how
> to push a strong draw then you should probably bet. If you're against 2 or 3
> active hands who know how to push a strong draw than you probably should be a
> little more careful.
>
> Sometimes I'd bet this. And sometimes I wouldn't. Sometimes I'd check/call.
> Sometimes I'd check/raise. I don't think I'd ever fold it. It also matter
> what the suit of xx is. If it's diamonds I'm betting.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 22:57:41
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 3:27 PM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> On this particular hand, the bet on the flop came from the button and the SB
> folded leaving it three-handed going to the turn. The turn was a black deuce.
>
> The XX in my hand were J8 or T9 or some cards which didn't play into the
> outcome
> of the hand except to say that they were potentially good cards for me to hit
> on
> the turn/river. With diamonds, I think that a bet or c/r would be a more
> valuable play.
>
> In this instance, I had the draw to improve my set and nothing else. Given
> that
> my opponents in this hand have demonstrated a propensity for calling bets cold
> to chase any draw (however weak), do you favour my line of checking and
> calling
> and folding the river unimproved if the diamond hits? Or do you pay this hand
> off?
>
>
I don't know. If the river is small but doesn't make a straight and action is
mild and I'm closing the action then I'll probably call.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 20:55:21
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 12:44 PM, Kincaid wrote:
>
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in
> Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
>
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding
> the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
>
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
>
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
>
I don't know what you mean by weak play. I don't think you should give up the
hand, so I wouldn't call check/call weak play. I'd call it passive play.
Passive is appropriate because you don't really have much of a hand. There's a
lot of turns that can cost you the pot, a lot that can cost you half the pot,
and many cards that keep you ahead just add to the possible scare cards on the
river.
It's not that passive is more often appropriate in O/8 is that in O/8 what looks
on the surface like a good hand is really just a marginal draw.
The key difference between O/8 and HE is that it's much more common in O/8 to
have most of your hand value come from potential rather than current poker
ranking. In both forms it's best 5 out of 7 (or 9), not best 5 out of 5.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 12:50:26
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Kincaid wrote:
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
>
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
>
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
>
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
>
Check-fold here would be weak.
Check-call here would be passive.
Check and raise the almost inevitable late-position bet, to get people
in the middle to fold facing two bets, would be reasonable but tricky.
Betting can't be awful here. My style in O8 is to play fairly passively
(and leave for a HE or KC Lowball table ASAP) but I think I am gaining
equity with every bet that goes in now.
I don't think I am going to scoop this hand often and I may lose the
high half of the pot to one of the draws out there but I am going to
win more than my SHARE and every one of them has to put in a bet for
every one I put in. You don't have to be sure of winning a hand, or
even a favorite to win the hand, for it to be right to bet.
And "weak" does not mean the same thing as "passive."
Will in New Haven
--
"I have seen the David, seen the Mona Lisa too
And I have heard Doc Watson play Columbus Stockade Blues"
Guy Clark - "Dublin Blues
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 23:46:37
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Kincaid wrote:
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
Here's a hand that demonstrates fast-playing it going well
(although a few minutes ago I flopped top set Aces, played
it slow, and then lost to some rag straight). Because of my
position in that AAA hand I wouldnt have got the rag straights
to fold. I guess it is quite sensitive to how the board is.
PokerStars Game #7378662526: Omaha Hi/Lo Limit ($0.25/$0.50) -
2006/12/10 - 02:33:37 (ET)
Table 'Henrietta IV' 10-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: Old Wolf NZ ($10.65 in chips)
Seat 2: chaimput ($7 in chips)
Seat 3: garry5 ($11.95 in chips)
Seat 4: randywinner ($8.25 in chips)
Seat 5: sim2000 ($6.45 in chips)
Seat 6: wells 1n2 ($18.85 in chips)
Seat 8: testarossa50 ($8.75 in chips)
Seat 9: 41149512 ($21.10 in chips)
Seat 10: Michael 28 ($12.10 in chips)
Michael 28: posts small blind $0.10
Old Wolf NZ: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Old Wolf NZ [Qs Qd 5s 4c]
chaimput: folds
garry5: calls $0.25
randywinner: calls $0.25
sim2000: calls $0.25
wells 1n2: calls $0.25
testarossa50: folds
22play joins the table at seat #7
41149512 has timed out
41149512: folds
41149512 is sitting out
Michael 28: calls $0.15
Old Wolf NZ: checks
*** FLOP *** [6s 7c Qh]
Michael 28: checks
Old Wolf NZ: bets $0.25
garry5: raises $0.25 to $0.50
randywinner: calls $0.50
sim2000: calls $0.50
wells 1n2: calls $0.50
Michael 28: calls $0.50
Old Wolf NZ: raises $0.25 to $0.75
garry5: raises $0.25 to $1
Betting is capped
randywinner: calls $0.50
sim2000: calls $0.50
wells 1n2: calls $0.50
Michael 28: calls $0.50
Old Wolf NZ: calls $0.25
*** TURN *** [6s 7c Qh] [Th]
Michael 28: checks
Old Wolf NZ: bets $0.50
garry5: calls $0.50
randywinner: calls $0.50
sim2000: calls $0.50
wells 1n2: calls $0.50
Michael 28: folds
*** RIVER *** [6s 7c Qh Th] [2s]
Old Wolf NZ: bets $0.50
garry5: raises $0.50 to $1
randywinner: raises $0.50 to $1.50
sim2000: calls $1.50
wells 1n2: folds
Old Wolf NZ: raises $0.50 to $2
Betting is capped
garry5: calls $1
randywinner: calls $0.50
sim2000: calls $0.50
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Old Wolf NZ: shows [Qs Qd 5s 4c] (HI: three of a kind, Queens; LO:
7,6,5,4,2)
garry5: shows [3c As Kd Tc] (HI: a pair of Tens; LO: 7,6,3,2,A)
randywinner: shows [Ac 3d 8h Js] (HI: high card Ace; LO: 7,6,3,2,A)
sim2000: mucks hand
Old Wolf NZ collected $8.80 from pot
garry5 collected $4.40 from pot
randywinner collected $4.40 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $18
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 23:18:43
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 9 2006 11:44 AM, Kincaid wrote:
> I had a hand today that demonstrates how passive play is often correct in
Omaha
> 8. I'd like your thoughts on this type of play.
>
> I had KKxx (no low) in the BB and saw the flop with 3 others.
>
> Kh 3d 5d
>
> I've flopped top set out of position. This is huge in holdem, but in Omaha8
> it's a pretty weak hand. I checked and called with the intention of folding
the
> river if I didn't improve (or if trips was the nuts on the end).
>
> This type of play is contrary to conventional winning poker, but there is
very
> little value in betting here (IMHO)
>
> What say you? Similar situations where a weak or passive line is better?
You got a lot of good advice in this thread.
I'm at least seeing the river, and being aggressive on the flop. I slow
right down on the turn if a 4 or non-board-pairing diamond hits, but I'm
not folding it unless a raise war gets started (the whole drawing to half
the pot thing).
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:39:42
From: kevin cline
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
You check and call because you don't want to get raised and end up
paying two bets heads-up as a 60-40 dog, or worse. if the stacks are
deep, I would check and call at PLO8 too.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:13:23
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 10 2006 3:39 PM, kevin cline wrote:
> You check and call because you don't want to get raised and end up
> paying two bets heads-up as a 60-40 dog, or worse. if the stacks are
> deep, I would check and call at PLO8 too.
I'm pretty happy with 40% equity in a 3 way pot. Dunno about you.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:43:48
From: kevin cline
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Omaha Chris wrote:
> kevin cline wrote:
> > OTOH, suppose you bet and get reraised, and are now heads-up against a
> > wheel wrap with the same 40% equity in the pot. You have now decreased
> > your EV by 2/5 of a small bet.
>
> That's assuming there's a wheel wrap, and assuming that he will raise to
> isolate.
>
> Let's say you're the guy with A24x, or A2 anything, and you're
> immediately to the left of the KK guy who bets. Would YOU want to try to
> get the pot heads up?
With A2 and some sort of mediocre draw to win high I would definitely
raise. The board was Ks 5d 3d. With a hand like Ac 2d 7s 8d I would
definitely raise to try to force out better flush draws, or to gain
equity from any other A2 with a worse high draw.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:01:20
From: kevin cline
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Omaha Chris wrote:
> >> I'm pretty happy with 40% equity in a 3 way pot. Dunno about you.
> >
> > Me too. That's why I check. I would be happy to bet and get three
> > callers, but not so happy to bet and have it go raise-fold-fold back to
> > me.
>
>
> Nobody seems to be considering the possibility that it will be checked
> around, which is a disaster,
A disaster? Suppose you bet and get two callers, and you have 40%
equity in the pot. You have now increased your EV by 1/5 of a small
bet.
OTOH, suppose you bet and get reraised, and are now heads-up against a
wheel wrap with the same 40% equity in the pot. You have now decreased
your EV by 2/5 of a small bet.
Or are you imaging that the other three might all fold? I expect that
to happen about as often as I get AA23ds.
The real disaster would be to bet the hand at PLO, and get reraised for
the rest of your stack as a 60-40 dog.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:13:45
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
kevin cline wrote:
> OTOH, suppose you bet and get reraised, and are now heads-up against a
> wheel wrap with the same 40% equity in the pot. You have now decreased
> your EV by 2/5 of a small bet.
That's assuming there's a wheel wrap, and assuming that he will raise to
isolate.
Let's say you're the guy with A24x, or A2 anything, and you're
immediately to the left of the KK guy who bets. Would YOU want to try to
get the pot heads up?
> The real disaster would be to bet the hand at PLO, and get reraised for
> the rest of your stack as a 60-40 dog.
This isn't a pot limit hand. That's one of the reasons why doing the
obvious thing and betting it really isn't the serious error some of the
people in this thread are making out to be.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:33:05
From: kevin cline
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 10 2006 3:39 PM, kevin cline wrote:
>
> > You check and call because you don't want to get raised and end up
> > paying two bets heads-up as a 60-40 dog, or worse. if the stacks are
> > deep, I would check and call at PLO8 too.
>
> I'm pretty happy with 40% equity in a 3 way pot. Dunno about you.
Me too. That's why I check. I would be happy to bet and get three
callers, but not so happy to bet and have it go raise-fold-fold back to
me.
And at PLO I check the flop because I really really don't want it to go
pot-fold-fold.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:14:52
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
>> I'm pretty happy with 40% equity in a 3 way pot. Dunno about you.
>
> Me too. That's why I check. I would be happy to bet and get three
> callers, but not so happy to bet and have it go raise-fold-fold back to
> me.
Nobody seems to be considering the possibility that it will be checked
around, which is a disaster, and one of the main reasons to bet (besides
the fact that you have the damn nuts). Plus, check-around is a lot
more likely to happen than the exact situation of bet, raise, fold, fold.
People are overthinking and what-ifing and fancy-pantsing this hand too
much. There's just no way that, in general, checking this flop is correct.
I'm not saying there aren't any reasons to check, but the reasons to bet
outweigh them.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 11 2006 5:14 PM, Omaha Chris wrote:
>
>
> Nobody seems to be considering the possibility that it will be checked
> around, which is a disaster, and one of the main reasons to bet (besides
> the fact that you have the damn nuts).
Where do you get this silly idea that you have the nuts? You don't even know
what hand you have. A hand is "pick 2 from the 4 in your hand and pick 3 from
the 5 on the board".
Until there are 5 on the board you don't have a hand yet.
It's upsurd to talk about having the nuts when you're not even a sure thing to
drag any chips at all.
Do you know what "the nuts" means?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:12:37
From: Omaha Chris
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
> Until there are 5 on the board you don't have a hand yet.
That is a very poor way to think about the game. This "Omaha is a river
game" type of thinking is what leads to weak, break-even playing.
> It's upsurd to talk about having the nuts when you're not even a sure thing to
> drag any chips at all.
This hand is the favorite to win against any single opponent (for high),
against any possible draw, including A246 (unless you REALLY put the
monsters under the bed and give him diamonds to boot). I don't think
there's anything bizarre in thinking about the fact that you have the
best possible hand.
As for "sure thing", maybe I just get shittier cards than most people,
but I don't get Thanksgiving dinner laid out for me on the flop every
time, which apparently many of the players in this thread have the
luxury of waiting for.
Sure there's lots of potential trouble coming for this hand, but you
must get value out of it.
> Do you know what "the nuts" means?
The nuts is the best possible hand, given the board.
On a K35 board, KK in the hole is the nuts. It won't necessarily REMAIN
the nuts, but it's the nuts right now.
The term is not limited to "the best possible hand once all the cards
are out", and you know that it isn't always used that way, or even most
of the time. The current nuts is not a totally useless concept.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 11 2006 9:12 PM, Omaha Chris wrote:
> > Do you know what "the nuts" means?
>
> The nuts is the best possible hand, given the board.
>
> On a K35 board, KK in the hole is the nuts. It won't necessarily REMAIN
> the nuts, but it's the nuts right now.
So it doesn't matter whether it's likely to win or not? To you it can be the
nuts and have no chance to win at all, just based on a concept of poker hand
ranking that has nothing to do with getting the money?
Good thinking, champ.
>
> The term is not limited to "the best possible hand once all the cards
> are out", and you know that it isn't always used that way, or even most
> of the time. The current nuts is not a totally useless concept.
Yes, it is totally useless.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:45:56
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> "tillius" <tillman.stevens@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165931425.816842.35080@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > Brilliant info from Gary Carson here.. QUICK - go buy his book!
> >
> > What a marooon!!!!
>
> Maroon? No, that's someone else... and his book isn't as
> good as Carson's ;-) Putting too much money into the pot
> on the flop with the nuts in O8 having no additional redraws
> is often recipe for disaster.
>
> Mark
I don't think betting this hand _at limit_ O8 is "a recipe for
disaster." It might be wrong but it is one flop bet, at _limit_ Even if
it does go raise, fold, fold, that is not a disaster. It is far from
optimum but not a disaster.
Carson's point is well-taken but he is acting like someone peed in his
soup. I don't think anyone here said anything quite as stupid as Carson
is making out.
Will in New Haven
--
> --
> www.myspace.com/diputsur
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:08 pm, Gary Carson <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> On Dec 11 2006 5:14 PM, Omaha Chris wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Nobody seems to be considering the possibility that it will be checked
> >> > around, which is a disaster, and one of the main reasons to bet (besides
> >> > the fact that you have the damn nuts).Where do you get this silly idea
> >> > that you have the nuts? You don't even know
> >> what hand you have. A hand is "pick 2 from the 4 in your hand and pick 3
> >> from
> >> the 5 on the board".
> >>
> >> Until there are 5 on the board you don't have a hand yet.
> >>
> >> It's upsurd to talk about having the nuts when you're not even a sure thing
> >> to
> >> drag any chips at all.
> >>
> >> Do you know what "the nuts" means?
> >>
> >> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________
> >> Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
> >
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:32:33
From: Mark B \(Diputsur\)
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:1165941956.210192.250850@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
>> "tillius" <tillman.stevens@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165931425.816842.35080@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> > Brilliant info from Gary Carson here.. QUICK - go buy his book!
>> >
>> > What a marooon!!!!
>>
>> Maroon? No, that's someone else... and his book isn't as
>> good as Carson's ;-) Putting too much money into the pot
>> on the flop with the nuts in O8 having no additional redraws
>> is often recipe for disaster.
>>
>> Mark
>
> I don't think betting this hand _at limit_ O8 is "a recipe for
> disaster." It might be wrong but it is one flop bet, at _limit_ Even if
> it does go raise, fold, fold, that is not a disaster. It is far from
> optimum but not a disaster.
Missed the fact that it was a limit game... I usually played PLO8.
There you can (and often will) get hurt.
Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 12 2006 9:45 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> Carson's point is well-taken but he is acting like someone peed in his
> soup. >
> Will in New Haven
More like he was surprised they did not charge him extra for it :)
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 21:42:35
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Weak play correct in Omaha H/L? (discuss)
|
On Dec 12 2006 10:45 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > "tillius" wrote in message
> > news:1165931425.816842.35080@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > > Brilliant info from Gary Carson here.. QUICK - go buy his book!
> > >
> > > What a marooon!!!!
> >
> > Maroon? No, that's someone else... and his book isn't as
> > good as Carson's ;-) Putting too much money into the pot
> > on the flop with the nuts in O8 having no additional redraws
> > is often recipe for disaster.
> >
> > Mark
>
> I don't think betting this hand _at limit_ O8 is "a recipe for
> disaster." It might be wrong but it is one flop bet, at _limit_ Even if
> it does go raise, fold, fold, that is not a disaster. It is far from
> optimum but not a disaster.
I think the only thing that would be a disaster would be to bet then fold to a
raise. That would be a disaster.
>
> Carson's point is well-taken but he is acting like someone peed in his
> soup. I don't think anyone here said anything quite as stupid as Carson
> is making out.
Apparantly I said something that stupid. Or so somebody thinks.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
