I go back and forth on how tight to play from the blinds, but i still think i'm playing too loose. Yesterday in a $15/30 live game, i was in the $10 SB with KTT9. There were a limper and a raiser, and i called the 1.33 SB. (5:1 pot odds! Speculative hand could flop big.) BB had shown no propensity to raise a lot preflop, but this time he 3bet, caller called, and the raiser 4bet capped. So i ended up calling again getting 7:1. Both decisions were probably bad.

High-only hands with a 9 are obviously flawed, but with marginal connectivity and a decent suit i tend to think of them as OK to play for a discount.

KTT9r i think i'm folding. (KT)99 probably folding. With (KJ)TT i have no problem calling the above action.

I'm going to move your post from the newb's thread to a thread of its own.

If you assume BB and the limper will just call, you're getting 5:1 full pot odds and 2:1 half pot odds plus implied pot odds if you fold when the flop is bad for you but your opponents continue when the flop is bad for them.

You have no low draw so that you want the final board to be for high only. Alas, when you hold four high cards yourself, there are more low cards than average possible for the board. It works out to low being possible about 69% when you hold four high cards yourself instead of the 60% average.

If not expecting a raise from BB I'd call too.

I hate it when you expect one thing but a different thing happens. Seems to happen a lot to me when I limp/complete from the small blind. I try not to show any outward distress, but internally I'm cringing.

**** (choose your favorite expletive).

You ended up getting 3.8 to 1 full pot and 1.4 to 1 half pot, less than the 5:1 and 2:1 you thought you'd be getting when you called the first raise.

I think high only hands with or without a nine are flawed, but I'll often play them. Some people like to raise with them, but I generally like to see the flop as cheaply as possible with them.

Me too. (And if that, then I'm obviously folding KT99r too).

I don't like any pairs below kings and I don't like the two rank gap between the king and ten, but I do like suited kings (despite the obvious danger of a suited ace). I'd be tempted to speculate with that one.

If
• (1) an opponent happens to have a pair of tens when
• (2) you have a pair of nines and when
• (3) there's both a ten and a nine on the board,
then his tens beat your nines.
Honestly, that seems to me just a hair of a difference. (How often is that going to happen?)

Otherwise I don't see any difference between a pair of tens and a pair of nines. They're both vulnerable to aces, kings, queens, and jacks. I think both a pair of tens and a pair of nines are poor in an Omaha-8 starting hand.

For straights, at first the one rank gap between the king and jack may look better than the two rank gap between the king and the ten, but on closer inspection, KJ needs AQT or QT9 make a straight while KT needs AQJ or QJ9 to make a straight. What's the difference?

And JT doesn't make any more straights than T9.

Meh.

(KJ)TT is a better starting hand than (KT)99, but not by very much, really only by a hair. Pretty hard for me to draw a line between them and say I'll play one but not the other.

[Edit]After reading AKQJ10's response (see below) and upon further reflection I think (KJ)TT is a better hand than (KT)99, and by more than a hair.
Buzz[/edit]

Buzz

That's fine. I tend to think of preflop questions as synonymous with beginner questions, but this is probably more detailed than a beginner question.

I figured assuming the BB comes along, it's 3 x 6 chips + my 2 chips in the pot = 20 i'm trying to win, and i have to call 4 more chips, so that's 5:1 facing the first raise. After it gets capped, 3 x 4 bets + my 2 bets = 14 i'm trying to win, and i have to call 2 more bets, so 7:1. Where's my math going wrong?

Incidentally, in Vegas with a 5-bet cap, i would have dumped it for two more (not closing the action, expecting to call 3 more bets).


I have to differ. (KJ)TT is a much better hand than (KT)99 for at least three reasons:

1. One of the 2+2 PLO books calls this concept focus: Omaha hands are much more valuable when all four ranks are close because hitting part of the hand automatically results in hitting other parts of the hand. E.g. 8766 is more focused than QQ72. The queens are a favorite heads up all-in, but 8766 generally a much better hand with money left to play, in part because making a set of sixes gives you one card toward a straight redraw, even though sixes are unlikely to flop top set, or because it can flop wraps, whereas QQ72 can't.
   
   This concept applies especially to the high hands in O8. KJTT is more focused because it spans 4 ranks, not 5. Therefore we can flop a lot stronger, and flop moderately strong a lot more often. AQx is a very strong flop, a Broadway wrap. Q9x is a strong flop, a wrap. QTx is a monster flop. T9x is a very strong flop. In all of these, the coordination of our hand gives us tight wraps with multiple outs to nut straights or big full houses.
   
   QJx for KT99 is not as strong a flop as AQx is for KJTT. If we make a straight with a K or T, it's not the nuts.
   
   J8x for KT99 is weaker than Q9x for KJTT.
   
   J9x for KT99 is weaker than QTx for KJTT.
   
   98x for KT99 is weaker than T9x for KJTT. Only the latter has a gutshot.
   
   Because of that tighter focus, KJTT is going to flop more big draws or sets plus draws that we're happy to jam for value.
   
   
   
2. In general, Omaha hands with top gaps make non-nut straights, but this problem is mitigated when the wraps are Broadway wraps. QT99 isn't really thrilled with a KJT board, but KJTT is thrilled with an AQJ board. (If there were a rank higher than ace, then KT wouldn't be the nuts.)
   
   
3. The split-pot nature of O8 diminishes the value of wrappy hands with nines because their straights often involve low cards. KJTT can make the nuts on 987 and still not put a low out. KT99 can make the nuts on 876, but that puts a low out.

I think that is correct.

We're looking at it differently. I'm counting the total of what you have to voluntarily put in the pot for the first betting round, the 4+6=10.
Your three opponents are all contributing 12 each and there's the 2 of your small blind. That's a total of 38 to your 10. I hope I wrote you ended up getting 3.8 to 1 because that's what I think your full pot odds were for the first betting round. (That's what you "ended up" getting).

I hope I used that language (ended up getting).

I have made the same awkward mistake of expecting one thing from an opponent but getting something different. When you make an odds mistake early, the rest of your bets can be correct (have favorable odds) and then at the end of it all, you wonder where you went wrong. In this case I think it's incorrectly estimating how BB would react to the raise of the player you raised in front of you. Once you make that first mistake, it's hard to rectify it.

You got me. It's a better hand, and not just a hair better. Thanks for the correction.

Of your reasons, I like this one the best.

Buzz

Oooh, sorry, i see your point. Yes, i ended up paying dearly to chase a very marginal hand. (At least it missed the flop.) That's why preflop errors kill you in limit games, in a way they don't kill you in big-bet games.

Theoretically, i should have discounted the small chance at a 3bet and the slightly smaller chance of a capped pot into my decision to call the 1.33 bets. We could make some numerical examples but basically, the point is i need a hand that's worth a little more than the odds. And that's not considering IO, which of course are bad OOP.

Exactly. Implied odds loom large!

It's the most tangible one for O8 players. But don't overlook the theory of Omaha hand construction. I owe a lot to Hwang's 1st PLO book for helping me grasp this, but it's important for all forms of Omaha. If you flop a wrap and someone else flops a dominating wrap, you might end up getting a lot of bets in bad. This is a less acute problem at a limit game (and with busted low draws probably padding the pot), but it's good to understand.

didn't read your dialog.
i see no reason to get involved from the SB with this hand when there's a raise in front of you.
it's the situation in which i play most tightly - from the SB, facing a raise.
according to my standards, this hand is much too weak, and the decision is not even close, fold.

I have no idea about postflop implications / implied odds, but I ran some ranges with assumptions about how often BB folds / calls / 3bets and how often the initial raiser 4bets after the BB 3bets... it seems like hot/cold you are approximately breakeven equity on all chips going into the pot preflop in every scenario.

since your name is efficacy i'll take that as gospel

but i'll add a bit of my own feel/experience: break even equity+oop = probly not worth calling a raise

Much of your theoretical equity comes from times when you flop fairly weak (can't value bet), or you have the best high hand on a low board, and you can't get to the river or your hand value changes drastically on the turn or river. This is not implied odds; it's reverse implied odds. Fold.

Yeah... in theory there must be a few hands I wouldn't play from the SB in 2-4 chip that I'd play in 2-3 chip. But I agree this isn't one -- just wanted to confirm that diagnosis with good O8 players. And in fact it's possibly not even worth the time to identify those extra hands I can play with the additional discount.

Only defend from SB (even in 2/3 structure) if limpers/raisers are weak/passive players. Note too that calling w marginal hands in the SB in general only makes sense if BB rarely 3 bets. In most low limit live games this is the case, but if the BB were a good aggressive villain, this is an easy fold from the SB.

From the BB, however, I believe I have enough of a postflop edge (in games I play that is ... I'm a notorious game selector) to call a raise w this sort of holding but you have to have solid reads on villains to play optimally OOP. Fold if PFRer is solid winning player.