Steve Badger recently posted a new article with that title:
http://www.stevebadger.com/poker/omaha/secret/

His secret isn't anything new—at the risk of oversimplifying, he says to play two-way hands with an Ace in them, preferably in position against a single opponent—but he makes a very convincing argument. And I've always appreciated his no-nonsense writing style.

When I first started studying the game, I found Badger's original two articles on Omaha ("Introduction" and "Myths") enormously helpful—and a better primer than the first few books I came across:
http://www.stevebadger.com/poker/omaha/strategy/
http://www.stevebadger.com/poker/omaha/myths/

I've never understood why Badger isn't mentioned more in this forum when someone like Hutchison comes up a lot.

Really good stuff. Thanks for posting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love that article on myths. I have paid many BB to learn a couple of those the hard way.

Example:
I defend the BB heads up pretty liberally, due to immediate odds to see the flop, and this is profitable in my database.
BUT...
Add a single more player to make a multiway pot and "poof" that equity is gone, due to the unbetability of the marginal hand out of position.
So, if its going to be multiway pot, i usually need an ace and a wheel card to flat from the BB.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only aspect of the 'myths' page that I don't completely agree with is raising with the low only. I can see it as a rarity, but not as a routine strategy. The 5 card mentality is common sense in my eyes. I think the biggest reason why Hutchinson's point systems is more widely spoken about is because it is very specific and you just plug in the cards to get the answers. Whereas Badger's philosophy is one that is based on thinking and logic, both are far more effort than just putting in your cards into a formula.

I'm not sure position is as important in O8 as other games. First, you could always quickly check when first to act and take it back. Second, the stronger the draws you have on the flop, the more/bigger bets you are calling.

Great post and thanks for the links!

Not the worst article but has some flaws imo. Math usage was a bit selective and over-focused on premium a-wheel equity in multiway pots. Blinds were not mentioned. QQ23 was undervalued. Nor is tt23 muckable garbage. Its muckable situationally but its not garbage and there are spots where not playing it is the same as lighting money on fire.

Edit: myths article has much less substance

I tried to keep Steve from publishing this for the past twenty years, but he felt bad after Buzz died before he showed it to him because Buzz always asked Steve, "What's your Omaha secret?"

The examples speak for themselves. The aceless hands like TT23 simply play poorly against decent five-card hands, mostly because of the betability. Like it said in the article, for 23TT to realize its full simulation value it would have to call on boards like 35K8Q.

aye aye

I don't know. I'm not saying that those articles are worthless, but they are clearly for someone who is just starting out o8.

U feelin alright amok? That's the most diplomatic post u have ever made...


Was gonna say unpatronsing but doesn't seem to be a word.

Yeh sorry. Those articles ****ing suck.

more like it!

Interesting backstory. Are you saying Steve wrote the article 20 years ago, or just that he articulating the ideas in it to you?

I've always found Steve's writing about poker to be clear-headed, insightful, and provocative. He doesn't give you easy answers, but he helps you to think about things the right way. He is the ultimate realist.

Has he given up playing completely or just tournaments? Either way, I wish him well and am glad to see he's tweaking his site at the new domain.

It's situational, I think. If there are four or five players in at the river, I'm happily raising with the nut low. Even in a three-way pot, if my reads are that one of my opponents has the nut high and one has a non-nut hand of some kind, I'm raising with the nut low. And heads-up, if I have the nut low and just about any pair for high, I'm raising most opponents on the off-chance that I'm winning three-quarters.

I agree with Badger that people are way too worried about getting quartered and losing one or two chips. I've been criticized for raising with the nut low in a four-way pot where there are two nut lows and two nut highs and we all get our money back. Sometimes it's pretty clear I'm getting quartered, and I just call with the nut low. But when it's not clear, I'm willing to risk two chips to win four (or sometimes 24 or 40 if my raise allows me to win three-quarters of the pot instead of just one-quarter).

Also, I don't want my river raises to automatically mean just one thing; I want to be a little harder to read. And I don't mind tilting those players who get pissed off when my raise costs them $3 in a $6/$12 game (that's a good outcome for me). Finally, if my raising with the nut low makes my opponents think I'm a crazy gambler or a lucky fool, that's a good thing too.

You're most welcome!

Regarding position, heads up is a lot more tricky, but multiways the first to act has difficulty, since the skill in FL is to get that one extra bet out of your hand that a lesser player would miss, and that is not easy oop since the obvious c/r stuff is played correctly by a majority of players.
Being first to act three ways on the river even heads up might boil down to the correct bluff of a scare card to get to showdown by betting but not getting raised, for instance.

I read these articles as "mid stakes 5-9 handed" blueprint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would make a lot of sense

We have been discussing this strategy at length for 15-20 years, but he never actually wrote the article (with the pro poker tools links) until a year or so ago.
I agree that he is the ultimate realist.

He has no desire to sit and play tournaments anymore. Occasionally, I can get him to sit in a live-action game at some local small club if I want him to observe my game. He made so much money as a PokerStars shareholder that he has no desire to sit and grind. He has always told me that "poker for money is work, not fun."

As for the other comments (not from you), the math hasn't changed in 20 years. AJ35 scooped 46% more than TT32 then and now too.

QQ32 scoops 13% more then AJ75. (rainbow hands as was your example).

'cherry picking' hands and drawing axiomatic conclusions is problematic.

However what I object to more is the "46% more then" and then in my alternative "13% more then".

AJ53rb v. TT32rb
AJ53 scoops ~39.9% of showdowns, whereas TT32 scoops ~27.2% of showdowns, and ~32.9% of showdowns result in the pot being split. ~12.7% is the difference in showdowns that are scooped.
AJ53 scoops ~12.7% 'more often then' TT32 scoops.
it requires that you divide that 12.7% by the 27.2% to arrive at the ~46.7% 'more then' value. but this 'more then' value isn't useful and frankly just appears like an inflated and misleading value.
in my opinion the 'more often then' is the useful value, the 'more then' is not.


AJ75rb v. QQ32rb
QQ32 scoops ~35.1% of showdowns, whereas AJ75 scoops ~31.05% of showdowns and ~33.85% of showdowns result in the pot being split. ~4.05% is the difference in showdowns that are scooped. QQ32 scoops ~4.05% 'more often then' AJ75 scoops. it is only when you divide that 4.05% by the 31.05% that you come by the 13% 'more then' value.


criticism aside, I appreciate that Steve Badger wrote and posted his essays. I found and read them when i first found the game and I found ideas that were useful and stimulating.

This, totally agree and with the rest of the post too.

Any o8 material is good though, since anything is better than the nearly nothing we have now. I'm glad he's finally writing some about the game, but he's just a bit too late with some of his stuff.

It's pretty easy to judge and be a critic, instead why don't you try creating something for o8?

Why though? I am already giving advice here for free.

Mostly one-liners though, and only here on this subforum...which is barely alive these days and probably won't get read except by other old regs like us.

I meant try writing a large amount of solid content that provides a decent foundation for someone a bit newer to o8, and then host it yourself and promote it yourself. The guy is doing us a nice favor and somehow he still gets crapped on lol

Not amok's fault that no one can bother to read a subforum. He consistently posts thoughtful responses to almost every pl hand question posted - you cant think that is less useful to newbies than cherry-picked hand examples from someone who hasnt played a tourney in 9 years or whatever? My thanks to amok and moni and ng and Nick and the few others that post helpful responses for free here on a consistent basis.

And totally prefer ng's 'more often than' analysis to Steve's 'more than' as an example.

Thank you, greybeard. Your appreciation matters to me.

Lotus, I am not criticizing the idea of Badger (or anyone else) writing something about the game. I am criticizing the content. I do not understand why the content should be immune to criticism just because "he is doing us a nice favor".

I read through quite a few of the other articles he had on there, and a lot of it isn't even all that bad really...especially considering how dated some of it likely is. It's pretty clear he put a lot of time and effort into the whole thing and it's fairly well-written, why try to cherry-pick bits and pieces of it just to call him out on the whole thing being bad?

I bet I could even find a few things in there that are useful to even you, especially some of the parts about tournament strategy lol

Like I said in my first comment, I don't think those articles are worthless. For me, they are nowhere near "good" either. It's a matter of opinion so it seems pointless to argue about it.

I have no idea what you think I cherry-picked.

lotus your logic is way off at times