My original thought for barreling this turn is my equity cant be that bad, I shoudnt be c/r too often & w/some FE seems kind of good. Looking back I might be barreling to often in LO8.



From my LHE-experience I barrel to much in this game I think.

Is this a spot just to shut down & take a freecard?
What should go through my decision-making before barrelling/checking behind turns on paired boards?

if you check this monster draw, you probably check too much.
AQ high just might be good at the moment, but doesn't have enough showdown value to check turn to induce.
you have the lead and you have position. use it. bet!

A lot of hands peel this flop, his c/c shouldn't freeze you here. If the board came down T776 I'd be much more inclined to check the turn.

If BB is more or less incompetent, then Hero may be playing optimally.

However, if BB is competent, I think there's too much betting by Hero.

Will your opponents, including BB, think you probably have AA** or A2** for your raise? (I think whether they do or not depends a lot on how you have played up to this point - but it also depends on how they think).

Opponents who don't think at all have no clue about Hero's hand.

Opponents who tend to rush to conclusions, who think a little bit, but not deeply, may be convinced Hero has at least one decent two card combination, probably AA** or A2**, for the pre-flop raise. (The trouble is, against players of this type, that's about what Hero does have in this case).

Does BB routinely defend his big blind when you have raised pre-flop and everybody else has folded? Or does he need better than trash to defend?

When seeing the flop heads-up, does BB routinely check/call when Hero has raised on the previous betting round?

Heads-up seeing this flop, I think the key card is a seven. Can Hero sell having a seven if he bets this flop? Would you believe an opponent who raised before the flop had a seven after this flop?

(I wouldn't either).

If Villain also has no seven, and if, rightly or wrongly, Villain puts Hero on just one decent two-card combination for Hero's pre-flop raise, and with two sevens unseen, then from Villain's perspective there are 43 unknown cards, enough to make 21.5 two-card groupings. Since only two of those 21.5 two-card groupings can possibly have a seven, the odds must seem 19.5 to 2 (or 9.75 to 1) that Hero does not have a seven either.

At any rate, although a gullible opponent may believe the worst in the face of Hero's onslaught, a competent opponent probably doesn't buy it that Hero has a seven when Hero bets this flop.

How can Villain, if holding a seven, best stick it to Hero? Opinions differ. Some would raise the flop. Others slow play for one round. Still others mix up the two lines of play, sometimes immediately raising and other times slow playing for one round.

If Villain, himself, has a seven, by slow playing for one round, Villain risks low becoming possible or Hero making a straight on the turn. But by slow playing for one round, Villain hopes to seem unlikely to have a seven.

To an objective observer who sees neither Hero's nor Villain's cards, (after the first round action and the cards on this flop) it's more plausible that Villain has a seven than Hero.

In my humble opinion, this is too much against a competent opponent. I would have toned it down a notch earlier, probably pre-flop (because that line works best for me).

The call of the raise, playing for a low draw only, is correct. Hero has favorable odds to call the raise.

But if Hero could see a possible check/raise coming, then Hero should not have bet on this round in the first place. In other words, Hero doesn't have favorable odds to play this betting round for a double bet.

Seems right.

I think so too.

I don't know. If you're going to raise pre-flop and the make a continuation bet, yes. But maybe you do better if you tone it down a notch earlier. I like betting this flop so that the place I'd tone it down would either be here on the turn or pre-flop.

Depends on your opponent and past history. When I'm playing well, I'm a card reader, meaning that I'd try to ascertain whether or not Villain had one of the missing two sevens, the key cards, in my opinion, after this flop.

Buzz

Buzz,

having a range isn't the same as having a specific card or a specific two card combo.
when I open raise the CO in LHE with top 30% range or so, villian defends and puts me on an A, that's fine by me. My range will indeed have lots of aces, but also lots of pairs, broadway hands, suited kings, medium suited connectors, etc.

in LO8, villian may defend against my CO open and put me on AA or A2. indeed, my 30% range will have lots of those, but also lots of A3's, A4's, broadway hands, big pocket pairs+wheel cards, low suited cards without an ace, etc.

if I happen to have A2 when I raise and villian puts me on that, did I make a mistake by raising? of course not. very often I wouldn't have A2, and when I would, i'd still have two other cards with or without suits for villian to guess.

I (and most others) open raise their CO, and hardly ever limp. when we don't have a limping range, connecting raising with very big strength or something very specific is just foolish.

Also, betting and raising every time there's a pair on board from 6-T is very noticeable and not that difficult to adjust to.

Bottom line is: why would I be more likely to have a 7 in my hand if I limped, rather than raised, when I don't limp, ever? If you limp top 30% and I raise top 30%, we basically have the same range, right? if villian decides you are more likely to have a 7 than I am, because you limped, well, he's the one making the mistake, not me!

it's really a waste of space to question open raising from late position and suggesting limping instead. raising every hand you're going to play is a strong balanced strategy. it gives you two ways to win, it's for value as you have a playable hand and the BB usually defends liberally, it gives you the lead, tends to buy you last position, and keeps you balanced.

the old outdated poker books would tell you to do little raising in O8 or none at all, figuring the flop would either make you or break you. this isn't a very scientific point of view, to say the least. it might even be good for a beginner, who struggles with playing a raised pot the times he flops marginally. that's when position comes to play, but also understanding board textures and how they relate to ranges opponents tend to play, planning ahead for the turn/river card, understanding how our range with relation to the board looks from our villian's perspective, etc.

all of the above can't be taught by many old time poker authors. thinking in terms of ranges wasn't very advanced at the time. also, many books were written for beginners to bring more new players to the game.

a beginner can't apply all the advanced strategies, and instead is protected by a "don't get into trouble" philosophy, which of course doesn't maximize profits.

being stuck in this outdated approach towards the game is rather unfortunate.
many very talented poker players who want to give O8 a go, grab an omaha book from the library, it'll often have a very appealing look: learn omaha in just one day; know all the profitable hands; beat the low limits straight away, etc.

you are not a beginner. you know the math, you think on your own, you are creative. but an least in a way, you haven't seen the light of poker in the new century.

at the very least, try not to raise the discussion of preflop raising. hero open-raised from late position with a good hand, as suggested by most poker training sites and current authorities of the game. good for him. let's move on.

hero turned the nut flush draw to go along with his flopped nut low draw with backup, something you seemed to miss... maybe if you weren't obssessed with sharing your opinion about preflop raising for the 1,000th time you would have noticed it... JK

Duh.

I can't tell if you're trying to help me or harass me. Do you really think I (or any of us) need your help understanding what range is?

That's nice. Is that how Sirocko (the opening poster and the person to whom I posted my response) plays too? If so, do you think him capable of responding to me himself?

Wonderful. Does any of that matter if Villain puts you on A2** or AA** and that is actually what you have?

Wonderful. Does it make any difference if Hero plays perfectly and gets outplayed as a result?

Play however you like.

On that point we agree.

Why are you telling me that? Did I suggest betting and raising every time there's a pair on board from 6-T in this thread? (I did not).

The foregoing sentence is not written clearly enough for me to understand what you are asking.
1. (If you don't ever limp, how could you be limping)?
2. (Which betting round are you talking about)?

If we both have the top 30%, I presume then we both have the same range (which is evidently the top 30%) however we play it. What is the point of your question?

I don't understand. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Thank you for your opinion.

And it inflates the size of the pot early.

Nor is the point of view you have presented, raising with every playable hand, very scientific.

I don't know what "old outdated poker books" you're talking about. You seem to think I'm defending the point of view presented in "old outdated poker books." I'm not.

To hopefully set you straight, I read Sirocko's opening post, thought about it for a while, had a couple of ideas I thought might be helpful, did some calculations, posted part of what I thought and attempted to answer Sirocko's questions.

He wrote, "Looking back I might be barreling to often in LO8." And I agree with him. But it was (and still is) hard for me to put my finger on exactly where.

Thank you.

I guess you mean you have a different approach and you think yours is the correct approach.

I like moving on. However, begging your pardon, I'll discuss any topic I feel might be beneficial to a poster's questions.

I didn't miss it, but decided to just look at things from the standpoint of drawing for low.

I did notice it. I mentioned it in an early draft, but then edited it out when decided to use what I thought was a better, more direct, approach.

I don't see my opinion about pre-flop raises in my response to Sirocko. I wonder if you know what my opinion is. On the basis of what you have written, I'd guess not.

I hope I'm not obsessed with sharing my opinions about preflop raising or anything else, although I have shared my general opinion about preflop raises in other posts in this forum.

Lastly, for what it's worth, various opinions of mine have evolved over the years.

Buzz

I'm glad somebody posted a hand like this because I am having real trouble in such a spot. I have come to think that when I get raised on a double paired board like this with my flush/flush draw (and without my own opportunity to fill up) I am then the vast majority of the time just competing for the low. My o8 games are much lower stakes than this so the play is no doubt less sophisticated. Still, I would play the same way as OP.

The easiest way too look at this is that if you don't barrel this hand, what are you bluffing with? Nothing....game theory wise its a layup 3 barrell.

That would depend on the flop cbet tendency. If you are cbetting on this board 100%, I see nothing wrong gto-wise in bet/folding the bottom of our range, the (appropriate number of) hands that have no chance of being good at show down.

I am not sure what you mean, but I assume you mean checking the turn back or something.


You can check, fold the bottom of your range yes. But you need to bluff some of them, this hand has way too many outs not to be in your bluffing range. It's a game theory disaster not to bluff this hand.

We still have outs if we check back. I was just making a game theory point - that we can still have a GTO strategy, by bluffing with hands at the bottom of our range rather than semibluffing with this.

FWIW I would bet the turn, and I am not a good o8 player as yet so I would suggest you treat my views on o8 hands with a certain amount of caution. I was just making a theoretical point based on my experience in other games.

This is true but only half the story. Putting Hero on AA or A2 isn't much use if they can't figure out or are not willing to fight back. I assume default online 10-20 players are going to be pretty good and are capable of XRing the turn here with draws, putting us in a tougher spot.

Bad live players here with KQJT or really any sort of draw might think, "I know he can't have anything here," and call to the river to try to catch a flush. They might crying call if they pair on the river, which is bad for us, but ive up when they miss everything. Their read is perfect but their ability to act on it is suspect.

The primer on ranges is good for lurking noobs. (You might want to save this somewhere and paste it in where appropriate.)

This cuts to the core issue of game-theory optimal (GTO) versus exploitative play. str8 is advocating something close to GTO. Buzz is advocating something closer to exploitative play. Buzz is correct that, if they put us on A2 but A2 is only part of our range, they might play more correctly in this hand. str8 is correct in that, if they're going to make the same mistake in assessing our range from now to the end of time, their mistakes will pay us back for any edge we might give up in this hand, where we have exactly what they think we have.

I think a lot about GTO but generally try to play exploitatively at the table. GTO is more valuable against good regulars*, but I get most of my win from bad players, only playing against the good ones when I have to.

Good summary of reasons to raise -- again, you might want to consider saving this and referring to it when the topic comes up again, as it will.

Your critiques of "old time poker authors" (e.g. Zee) and of Buzz are valid but consider also that they're usually writing about loose live games where pots are generally multiway. (I can't tell whether Buzz is advocating limping in this hand or if you're referring to the previous debate.) Winning blinds uncontested is not really a significant consideration in loose live games.

Raising for value in loose live games is still very good, IMO, but high variance, and only when it won't thin a field you don't want to thin. I believe very much in push/pull, although again you have to mix it up in tough games where everyone knows a limp UTG can't be AA or A2K.

Now for some range questions

1. Assume Hero opens 30%, cbets 95% on this board, only default online $10-20 reads on Villain. What range should Hero barrel this turn with? (What if there's no diamond draw here?)
2. Same question, but instead substitute a live $15-30 Villain in a game that's suddenly gotten tougher as the really bad players have left. Villain is competent enough to see Hero is raising a lot but not necessarily good at ranging.
3. Now, based on your answers above, putting ourselves in Villain's shoes, what's a good range for BB to be defending and then XRing the turn with? (Not what we think Villain is XRing here, but what she should be XRing.)

----
*Against good players you don't expect to see again, why aim for GTO? Instead, you're probably better off guessing at their level and aiming for the next level. You might guess wrong but you're not playing multiple sessions so systematically guessing wrong at their level can't be a big leak.

But seriously -- just focus on beating the bad players. Rack up if you can't figure out who that is.

Incidentally, OP, I take it you're a good LHE player at these stakes or higher, but I'm curious why you're starting out at live $5/10. Could be perfectly valid if you have the money and don't mind being -EV for a while, but remember it's now become a training budget rather than a bankroll.

Agreed.

That was in my consciousness when I was writing my original response to this thread. I tried to aim that original response at the exact type of game in which OP was actually playing. Not sure if I was successful or not... only OP might know.

I wanted to fit my response to the actual game in which OP found himself... what he might consider for that group of opponents.

Yes, but there's more... It occurred to me that if an opponent figured any two particular cards were in Hero's hand, then there were only two slots to fit other cards - as opposed to four slots into which to fit other cards.

There are six times as many ways to get the two particular cards needed for a hand holding in Omaha-8 when you have four cards in your hand as opposed to two.

I'm not sure if I'm making my thinking about slots into which to put cards clear. I haven't seen the idea expressed anywhere else, but maybe I haven't read enough.

Me too.

I don't think about that. I prefer good opponents. However, I do realize the way to make money at poker is by finding tables with opponents you can beat.

I didn't advocate anything. Sometimes I do advocate some action, and hopefully I make it clear when I do. I just mainly had an idea about only two slots as opposed to four that I suppose I presented somewhat fuzzily. And I wanted to also give direct answers for OP's questions.

The truth is I prefer to keep the pot initially small but I do raise before the flop when I have a reason to do so. The reason is almost always specific opponent dependent rather than card dependent.

I agree. Loose live games are usually full tables. You mostly dribble around but occasionally win a big pot. A couple of these big pot scoopers will make your session a financial success. That's more or less my experience. I agree with those who observe that play is better than it used to be.

Agreed.

Good advice for those who play to make money.

Buzz

I see what you are saying now. I think its a big bet idea that you want to preserve your outs and bluff with hands that have no outs. Like you don't bet a turned nut flush draw if you can get blown off it. In limit, because you never really make a bet that is large in comparison to the pot, the best bluffing candidate is always the hand with the least showdown value and most outs.

I'm not sure if you can still construct a decent range taking out your best semi-bluffs, but a better question is why would you want to when those bets are so profitable.