http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...-better-17.php

Question 1. How many chapters are there to go of the Frank Jerome om8 articles?

Q2. Is that quote above some meaningless air? What is the mathematical definition of 'usually nobody'. 'Usually', what is that? 50%? 60%? It seems to say that there is an 80% chance that some other player has got quads in a 10h game. But that usually nobody has it? What?

None. I'm finished writing the series.

I didn't think so when I wrote it. I still don't think so.

I haven't ever looked in a mathematical dictionary. To me, "usually" means "more often than not." To me "nobody" means "not even one person."

I think the percentage would depend on luck and the particular players involved in the game.

There are 16,432 uniquely different Omaha or Omaha-8 starting hands. I believe some Omaha-8 starting hands are better than others.

Do these better Omaha-8 starting hands contain some ranks of cards less than others... eights less than aces, for example?

If your answer to the above paragraph is yes, then what are some of the implications? How might this be applied in a practical way?

Are strong Omaha-8 players less likely to be playing trash or mediocre hands than the better starting hands?

In the article discussing flop types where all three flop cards are of the same rank (the last article in the series), I attempted to address this issue.

Thanks for your interest.

Buzz
Frank Jerome

Thanks for your articles. That sentence I quoted just seemed to stick out to me. I still am not too clear at exactly what you are trying to say with it. I suppose that if you take 3handed 4handed etc then the percentages might be more exact. Somehow I find the articles difficult to read (because each is a piece of a puzzle) and would love to have them in some sort of a book.

You're welcome. I appreciate your interest.

I had trouble writing that section, putting my thoughts in the right order. I revised it several times and still didn't feel I got it quite right.

I don't understand how we think or how information is stored in our brains. I don't believe we think in words. But rather it's like having both of the star wars robots R2-D2 and C-3PO in our brains. The R2-D2 part of our brains does the actual thinking, but mostly not using words... and then the C-3PO part of our brains translates R2-D2s thoughts into a language that can be understood by others.

Sometimes when I write I gain insight into what I think myself. In other words, sometimes by writing I learn what I think. I hope that doesn't sound too screwy to you.

I'll try to make it clearer.

I believe strong Omaha-8 players tend to play strong starting hands more often than weak starting hands. I can't prove that is so and there's no mathematical basis for it. But it makes logical sense to me.

Don't misunderstand. I believe it's more important to play your opponents than your own cards in any poker game. And I believe strong Omaha-8 players do that (play their opponents more than their own cards).

But that's not to say strong players pay no attention to their own cards.

Of course they do pay attention to their own cards.

If you'll agree A3A2 is a better starting hand than 2222, then I think you have to agree that some starting hands are better than others.

Just as Texas hold 'em starting hands can be ranked, Omaha-8 starting hands can also be ranked. But ranking 16,432 uniquely different starting hands is more complicated than ranking 169 uniquely different starting hands. Ten handed rankings are somewhat different from heads-up rankings.

I used a list generated by ProPokerTools that provided objective rankings for Omaha-8 starting hands. I chose rankings for heads-up, six-handed, nine-handed, and ten-handed tables. First I chose the top ten per cent of Omaha-8 starting hands and then I chose the top twenty five per cent of Omaha-8 starting hands. And I counted the number of times each rank of cards (aces, kings, queens,....fours, threes, twos) appeared in the top ten per cent and then the top twenty five per cent. And I tabulated those for readers to compare.

Did some ranks appear more often than other in the top 10% and then in the top 25%? Of course.

In finishing up the series of flop types, the only flop type that had not been previously discussed was flops where all the cards of the flop were the same rank. Three cards of the same rank doesn't happen often... just 0.24% of the time... 52/22100... about one flop in every 425. And when it happens, if you're exercising good starting hand selection, you don't usually have the fourth card of that rank (unless it's an ace).

And then you have to wonder if one of your opponents has flopped quads.

How would an opponent play flopped quads? The answer depends on the particular opponent and the interactions at the table. Generally you'd expect an opponent to slow play flopped quads, but some opponents, knowing that's what you'd expect, might play them fast to deceive you. (Poker is a game of deception).

My thinking is, except for certain ranks, mainly aces, probably nobody exercising good starting hand selection will "usually" have flopped quads when the flop is all one rank. But you can look at the objectively tabulated ranks in the article and see for yourself.

And then you have to "play poker."

They're very math oriented, and that admittedly makes for tough reading. One has to be very interested in the game of Omaha-8 to read them.

Thanks. I think there's no market for a book.

Buzz
Frank Jerome

If the flop is not 3 Aces and you don't have the 4th card then betting out is in the long term a winning play/profitable?

Depends. I like a high pair here, preferably aces... maybe kings if you don't think anyone started with aces. In any event, you have to "play poker."

Buzz

Why not publish as an ebook? Since the articles are already written and IIRC you get the rights back in 3 month, wouldn't this basically be found money? I'd think the market would be at least as big as Greenstein's Badugi Chapter.

Interesting idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

Buzz

Thanks for the article and ideas. Its very interesting, and I really think you should publish this ebook, its a great one.

I think it would be a good idea to have all your articles available as a collection. I've been saving them as they come out (don't know if that's legal or not); when I come across something unusual in a game, I can go back and look for ideas for a solution or just check my work.

I agree with the others, Buzz. You've spent so much time detailing these articles and I'd hate for them to be lost after the 90 day creative commons license expires. If you could just throw them all into a giant pdf, I'd be fine with that. It doesn't have to be fancy.