Buzz's LO8 article (Omaha 8 or Better Blind Defense 101)

[xSCWx]

God damn, Buzz. We need to get you on the payroll here at 2+2.

[jlocdog]

Buzz,

As per your point of "not completing from the SB hands that you wouldn't limp from UTG" (paraphrased), I wonder if this may be too strict a guideline (pretending that no other circumstances or variables alter this), since our UTG range will be drastically tighter given the amount of traffic we will have to navigate through. And this does not necessarily take into account that we will be OOP for the rest of the hand, but rather that we will have to avoid so many hands that may raise us (thus our tightness). And because of this (combined with us subsequently being OOP for the rest of the hand), I think our UTG range is quite small for a full ring game. I would agree with you more if you had said our SB completing range should be compared to our MP range or thereabouts however...

As always though your article was superb and you continue to impress. Thank you for all you offer.

[RobNottsUk]

Originally Posted by Buzz

I feel that I badly botched this thread.

And it's at least partly because of the way I wrote the sentence in the article that led to this.

If I had just included the word "usually" and written, "Don’t usually even complete unless you have an excellent starting hand." then the sentence would express my opinion. Rightly or wrongly, that's my opinion. But that opinion is based on typical fixed-limit full-game play, as I encounter it, in brick and mortar casinos.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think it's usually worth while, in a typical fixed-limit Omaha-8 full-table casino game, to complete from the small blind just because you seem to be getting juicy odds. I think those odds are very deceptive and a lure, especially for loose players. I regularly watch opponents completing from the small blind and then getting in big trouble with hands they shouldn't have played to begin with.

"botched" is far too hard, the discussion is interesting and shows how views change depending on assumptions.

Completing SB makes most sense in a loose-passive pre-flop game, with loose-aggressive tendencies post-flop with many loose-passive players donating extra equity in highly multi-way situations. That type of table makes implied odds important, so calling on a somewhat weaker hand that can become very profitable on good flops, even if the pot will be split.

That said, the problem in Omaha is building hands with reverse implied odds, using the excuse of pre-flop pot odds to play, as you have apparently sufficient pot equity.

The reality is, that the hand wins enough pots, but small ones, tending to lose in the large pots, so becoming -ve EV.

The SB position, can actually be a good one, if you have predictable opponents (perhaps maniac in early position, with just BB on random hand, between you & the likely bettor). The tougher spot is when caught in the middle, as it is easy to make incorrect folds, or have a hard decision whether to call or raise.

Buzz is absolutely right that "Pot Odds" are no justification, for routine thinking. They simply are not applicable to the problem.

[jaakkang]

A copy or a link to here @ O8 forums would be nice. Found it accidentally, because finished reading O8 section, and couldn´t leave the house (fire in the fireplace), so ended up here.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by jlocdog

Buzz,

As per your point of "not completing from the SB hands that you wouldn't limp from UTG" (paraphrased), I wonder if this may be too strict a guideline (pretending that no other circumstances or variables alter this), since our UTG range will be drastically tighter given the amount of traffic we will have to navigate through.

Hi jlocdog – I don’t think it’s too strict as a guideline, because guidelines are just that: guidelines.

Omaha-8 “guidelines” are not the same as natural laws.

For example, I can’t think of a situation where the first law of thermodynamics does not apply. However, in Omaha-8 what to do, including what to do from the small blind, will depend on actual game conditions and the behavior and expected behavior of your opponents.

And this does not necessarily take into account that we will be OOP for the rest of the hand, but rather that we will have to avoid so many hands that may raise us (thus our tightness). And because of this (combined with us subsequently being OOP for the rest of the hand), I think our UTG range is quite small for a full ring game. I would agree with you more if you had said our SB completing range should be compared to our MP range or thereabouts however...

That does not seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps it’s a better guideline. I’d guess it has some dependence on your opponents and how they play. Hard to quantify and limit this.

Originally Posted by RobNottsUk

Completing SB makes most sense in a loose-passive pre-flop game, with loose-aggressive tendencies post-flop with many loose-passive players donating extra equity in highly multi-way situations. That type of table makes implied odds important, so calling on a somewhat weaker hand that can become very profitable on good flops, even if the pot will be split.

Hi Rob - Agreed.

That said, the problem in Omaha is building hands with reverse implied odds, using the excuse of pre-flop pot odds to play, as you have apparently sufficient pot equity.

“Reverse implied odds” seems to mean different things to different people.
#1. It can mean odds to make your draw only to then lose to a better hand (basically getting stuck in the pot with a probable loser, but a hand that has enough of a chance to win that it’s imprudent to fold, like if you make a straight on the river but an opponent could have back-doored a flush).
#2. It can mean the odds you have that are the opposite of the implied odds an opponent has. (If your opponent has 3 to 2 odds, then you must have 2 to 3 odds).
#3. I’m taking you to mean you end up with a non-nut hand on the river, possibly facing a difficult decision.

Choice #3 is my reason for not feeling great about the seemingly great pot odds you get for completing from the small blind. If you look at the whole amount it costs you to see the showdown, compared to the amount that you are likely to collect when you win, what might seem 13 to 1 whole pot odds before the flop can become roughly 1 to 2 half pot odds by the time you reach the showdown.

But the article was about big blind defense. It was a tactical writing error for me to even mention small blind defense, even though I did it merely in passing (more or less hoping to put things in better perspective).

The reality is, that the hand wins enough pots, but small ones, tending to lose in the large pots, so becoming -ve EV.

I think it becomes –EV too, at least partly because of that reason.

The SB position, can actually be a good one, if you have predictable opponents (perhaps maniac in early position, with just BB on random hand, between you & the likely bettor). The tougher spot is when caught in the middle, as it is easy to make incorrect folds, or have a hard decision whether to call or raise.

Very good point. I agree. And following that reasoning, so long as the small blind poster stays in the hand, UTG is generally caught somewhere in the middle. (Of course if both blinds fold after the flop, UTG has that “right of first bluff” position). But, yes, I agree that being in the middle is often (maybe usually) worse than being first to act.

"Pot Odds" are no justification, for routine thinking. They simply are not applicable to the problem.

I agree.

Buzz

[LUCIUS VARENUS]

I agree with Buzz. I believe its correct to play very tight from the blinds due to the positional disadvantage and also I like to remember that the posted blind no longer belongs to me, it belongs to the pot, so it shouldn't factor into my decision whether to play the hand.

That said, practically I rarely ever play this optimally and complete the small blind or call a single raise with a wider range than I would open with in most positions except late position. However I'm less inclined to play for 1.5 small bets when there is a raise than 1 small bet so I call less raises from the small blind than the big blind. I almost never call a 3 bet, I 4 bet or fold. Truthfully I like to gamble a bit from the blinds. Hands with three wheel cards and a suited high card, four random low cards, a decent pair and two low cards and any four big cards including those containing nines are all part of my range in the blinds. But I would rarely play many of these hands from other positions.

If I could resist this gambling I could probably improve my winrate. Every Omaha 8 player's highest losses come from the blinds and we should do everything we can to reduce this. I think that comes from playing the minimum amount of hands from these two positions. If you play online and use Poker Tracker, open up the Position Stats. It shows you the difference without a blind. Since I started playing $1/$2 again in February, I won over $400 at full ring in the first two weeks. But had I not had to post blinds, I would've won over $2000. Considering the gamble I have when playing from the blinds I think this shows you the perils of playing too many hands from there. While I only play the low limits, if I had more cash I would play and win at higher levels because I'm a fairly strong player, Omaha 8 is my best game. So my severely reduced winnings from the blind positions are not to do with me only being a low limit player or a player that plays worse than higher stakes players - I play very well. So it could well apply to anyone.

Some visual examples of hands I would play although I do not consider it optimal:

245K, QT9K, 3578, 2569, 456Q, QQ25, A6QT, A7KK, J632

Notice though that they are not completely junk hands - they all have some potential and can win a lot of half pots and scoop some. I still fold hands such as three big cards and a dangler, trips, or 4 garbage middle cards.

[Buzz]

Hi Lucius - Yikes. Seems like your post belongs in the Omaha-8 forum since it goes pretty far beyond the scope of the Blind Defense 101 article.

It's my own damned fault. I should have titled the article Big Blind Defense 101. (I titled it as I did it because unless there are extraordinary circumstances, I do not think it's generally worth while to defend the small blind. I thought I could dispense with small blind defense in a word:

• (Don't).

So much for that (mostly correct, I believe) idea.

At any rate, one of the hands you have posted is quite nice, two others rank within the top quarter and two others rank within the top third.

Here they are arranged in order, best to worst:

A7KK, (playable from all positions - a very strong starting hand, better than roughly 96% of starting hands)

A6QT, (top quarter hand)
456Q, (top quarter hand)

245K, (top third hand)
2569, (top third hand)

QQ25, (top two fifths hand)

3578, (poor)
J632, (poor)
QT9K, (poor)

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[LUCIUS VARENUS]

I didn't know AKK7ds was that good. Its very difficult to play and win with when there are two low cards. I suppose the main potential is on 2 card high boards with flush draws and you have the A7 for emergency low, plus a pair of kings and that AK broadway draw. I can't see it faring well multiway.

[Buzz]

Bump.

Threads older than February 1 are to be automatically archived next month in preparation for an upgrade. I'm bumping all 2+2 threads cited in our two stickies that are not already archived so that they will not be lost to us.

This includes all the wells.

Buzz