In large multi-way pots that usually go to the river, is it profitable to complete in the small blind with ATC? If not, what is the cut off?

Also, is it good to call one raise in limit O8 in the big blind with ATC?

Hi Jailblazers - "ATC" is an unfamiliar acronym to me. What does "ATC" mean? (My dictionary says "air traffic control" or "air traffic controller" but I'm guessing that's not what you mean).

In general, in my humble opinion, you need a very strong hand to compete from the small blind. If there have been no raises, it may look as though you are getting great odds to compete, but that is very deceptive. (Indeed you are getting great odds to see one more card - but the betting doesn't end after the first betting round, unless you go "all-in").

If you do complete the small blind and continue, you have to act first on every subsequent betting round. Acting first is a disadvantage.

Buzz

I would assume 'Any Two Cards', which in turn makes me wonder whether this is a LHE question that's been misposted.

Thanks Bart. That makes perfect sense.

I guess we make it "AFC" for this forum.

Buzz

Oh yea, sorry about the confusion, I did mean any four cards, just got mixed up because ATC sounds so much more familiar to me.

Anyway, so even though we're getting about 16-1 sometimes to see a flop, it is still not good to complete without a hand you would normally play. I assume this goes for Limit holdem as well? But not NL because in certain circumstances you can stack someone after flopping a monster. Am I correct?

Just using logic how can this possibly be true? You think position is so huge that you need a "very strong hand" to play against some limpers for 1/2 price?

Or put another way you think if the SB got chucked out the window, limping for a small bet in that position with a not "very strong hand" has an EV of -1/2 a small bet or worse?

To the OP - In my opinion you need a reasonable hand to limp the SB, as in all limit games.

On the low side any 23, any 24, most 34's. On the high side any suited A or K, probably any three consecutive high cards, maybe 3 consecutive high cards with a gap and a flush draw.

Something like that.

I'd say even more so In O8, most of your most profitable hands will come from draws (which make the most, & lose the least in position). However, I'd find it hard to fold anything except dealt trips/quads if I'm actually getting 16-1 though (nice table selection).

KFC FTW!

Limping junk in the SB will cause you to lose more in the long run. Sure you might go on a heater where you are flopping well, but in the long run you will lose money playing those junk hands.

Micturition Man - If you consistently make over $300K per year playing this game, then you must know it a lot better than I do.

But to answer your question, yes I think you do need a "very strong hand" to play against some limpers for 1/2 price.

And I think that because the cost of that first half price bet is only a fraction of what it actually costs you to play a hand.

As StrikeR writes: Yikes. I'm sorry I phrased it that way. Maybe "very" is too much. It sort of feels like too much when you keep throwing it back at me with quotes.

I'm not sure where you're getting the e.v. of -1/2 small bet. A trash hand is a trash hand because it usually doesn't connect with the flop and when it does, you often lose more than you bargained for by coming in second place.

That's what I see.

Is limit Omaha-8 the same game where you claim to have made over $300K/year for the past four years? If so, you know a lot more about it than I do.

Buzz

How about this: I put up $10,000 with any well-known poster in the HSNL forum on either Stars or FTP to your $1,000.

If I can demonstrate via PokerTracker data that I have made, say $2M in the last four years*, you lose the bet and never again direct your feeble sarcasm against me. If not you win.

Don't ask a question if you are only willing to believe one answer.


* I realize this is not quite the same claim as having made $300k+ per year for the last four years, but I'm not sure I can dig up my PT databases from 3-4 years ago.

Micruration Man - Wouldn't you agree that would be a stupid bet for me to make? (Perhaps we can agree on something).

This is a poker forum, after all. There's no reason for me to believe or not believe your boast. In my lifetime, I have heard some boasts that are true and some that are not.

If you really made that much, especially playing limit-Omaha-8 - and especially playing loosely from the small blind in anything but a short-handed table, I'm impressed. At this point, as before, I'm thinking maybe you did and maybe you didn't. If you did, show me proof that you did and then I'll believe you. But I'm not going to bet on it.

There is no feeble sarcasm, or sarcasm of any kind, intended - just skepticism.
I'll ask any question I like, thank you. However, I'm not sure what the question is (to which you think I'm only willing to believe one answer). I wrote: Doesn't seem to me that you answered that question. It was an innocent question. I was thinking when I asked it that perhaps we were not on the same page.

I followed that with the non-sarcastic statement: There is nothing sarcastic there, feeble or otherwise.

If not that, I really have no idea what you think was sarcastic. You can hardly blame me for not taking what you write as gospel. Hopefully I have an open, questioning mind.

I honestly don't think you've given very good advice in this thread. I honestly think completing from the small blind is a leak in many player's games. I honestly think those seemingly great odds you get for that first portion of your money that is going into the pot are deceptive.

However, if you truly are able to consistently earn over $300K playing this game, limit-Omaha-8, then you obviously do know more about this game than I do. There is no sarcasm there, or at least none is intended. Not a twinge.

Since you have brought it up, we all probably would be interested in seeing proof of your boast. Until I see proof, I will remain skeptical. (Skeptical is somewhere in between believing and dis-believing).

That I am unwilling to bet you a thousand bucks does not make your boast any more credible.

There are lots of things in this wondrous, amazing world that seem incredible to me, yet are true.

Buzz

Put up or shut up.

No deal.

My gut feeling is that completing the SB with weakish (more speculative) holdings can indeed be +EV especially in loose games with great implied odds. And even more so if your postflop play is sound. I have, however, no stats to back this opinion.

Surely this is a question of implied odds, low stakes games with poor players make a special type of 'loose' play profitable. That is calling to catch relatively unlikely flops, turn cards etc, where the small amount to make up (flop bet or SB limp) allows you to 'draw' to a profitable situation next betting round, where pot oddsly correct play would cause a fold. Precisely because most players are rather passive callers, in a larger field who pay off, the implied odds for draw are much more attractive (conversely protection of 'best' hands, much more difficult).

In FLO8 (Fixed Limit), poor players don't punish those out of position as skilled players, some may even be so predictable, that counter-position becomes an advantage even (some of my most lucrative table situations have been through extremely predictable maniacal players). In other games, you may frequently get to see free turn cards, and when not just 1 bet where everyone calls round.

However, whilst it cannot be 100% true that you always need "a very strong hand to complete in the SB" (rather you need a hand with potential to make a v. strong hand), you cannot simply figure out the odds of catching this unlikely monster flop/turn, but you have to discount by the chances of making the hand, and then being outdrawn or the pot being split subsequently.

That's why medium str8's are poor, not only versus loose players, can you make the hand and split the Hi part of pot, get outdrawn by flushes, b'door full houses etc, but very very frequently half the pot will go Lo.

The kind of hands have in mind, are something like JJ24, JJ25 (most players raise with AAWx), where the scoop (or emergency Lo)potential comes from counterfeiting of 'legitimate' A2, A3, and making a set, make a trouble hand more attractive. Running cards which like to avoid flushy and Lo-ish boards, ought also become marginally profitable (if you play them well), and help adjust your table image from the AAWx, AAHH, A2Wx, A2HH, A3sWW, A3sWH, A3sWH Super-Rocky type.

OTOH, if the players in the pot are weak-tight, and the field small then the implied odds on profitable bluffs, argue for making up more frequently, with a wider ranger of hands still.

Hi Rob – In my humble opinion, completing from the small blind is generally more of a question of reverse implied pot odds than implied pot odds. In other words, the true odds you’re getting for completing from the small blind are not as good as they seem, rather than better than they seem.
I agree completely. I think you can successfully play more loosely in a loose game than in a rock garden. In order to take advantage of the too-loose play of your opponent, you have to actually be in the hand with him, rather than having folded before the flop.
Yes, that makes very good sense to me. And I think you can play more loosely from the small blind, or indeed any position, because of that.

Keep in mind that there is always a possibility the big blind will raise after you have completed in the small blind. And if that happens, those great odds you seemed to be getting are immediately shot to Hell.
I agree 100%.

Successful playing styles differ. I think it is somewhat true from all positions, including the small blind, that some excellent players are somewhat looser or tighter before the flop than others. My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that neither too tight nor too loose is optimal. There are tighter more successful players than me and also looser more successful players than me. Against some (most) groups of looser players, looser play is more optimal from any position, including the small blind. Against some (most) groups of tighter players, tighter play is more optimal from any position including the small blind.

I suppose it’s somewhat true that players who are looser on the first betting round are also looser on subsequent rounds, but I think different players play differently on different betting rounds. In other words, some are rather loose before the flop, but then tighten up immediately, some are rather loose on the first two betting rounds but then tighten up, etc. And some are rather tight before the flop but then are tenacious after the flop, with their tenacity varying somewhat on each different playing round.

I don’t mean that to sound extremely complicated. Poker, even Omaha-8, is a simple game. And yet everybody who plays does not play the same as everybody else, and in that sense poker is more complex than it first seems.

With respect to the small blind, I think more players improperly complete than the reverse. That is just my opinion based on my own observations and is a very general statement. I think some loose players almost automatically complete from the small blind because they think they’re getting great pot odds. Indeed, they would be getting great odds if the betting ended after the first betting round.

But the betting doesn’t end after the first betting round.

The first betting round is only sort of a down payment on the cost of playing a hand.

I agree completely. Yes. I’m not sure I understand that last sentence. (I’m interpreting it to mean that sometimes the turn is either free or just costs one small bet. If so, yes, I agree.)

But while first position does have some advantage in some situations, I think it’s more often easier to make correct decisions when you get to act after your opponent(s) act.

Position doesn’t seem as important in limit Omaha-8 as in some other games, but sometimes position does matter, at least to me, in Omaha-8.

At this point I’m very sorry I modified “strong” with “very.” “Very” was a mistake, an exaggeration.

And as I think about it more, “strong” isn’t exactly the word I want (but sort of is). There are lots of different situations.

That makes good sense to me. That’s really what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

As I think more about it, I’m probably more inclined, rightly or wrongly, to also play a hand from the small blind that is highly dependent on flopping one particular rank and missing another couple of ranks. Then if the particular rank I want to see appears on the flop (and the other ranks don’t appear), I’m in good shape. With some of those hands, I’d complete from the small blind, hoping for no raise from the big blind.

Seems complex to me also. There is a range of flops, rather than just one flop that fits favorably with any hand. And then a range of turns and rivers.

I think you can get an idea of what starting hands are better than others by using simulations. But it’s complicated because simulations involving different groups of player types yield different results. I think that’s true in a real game too.

There is a lot involved.

The rest of what you have written makes sense to me. At the same time, there are so many different principles involved that it’s mind-boggling to try to address them all in a single post.

Buzz

Yes, this is exactly the reason why computer 'pot equity' pre-flop simulations fail. Playing non-selectively loose, means you'll make 2nd & 3rd best hands and go too far with them, and get punished OOP heavily.

Nice that we dug the thread out of the mire, the topic was more interesting and deserving of reason, than how the thread turned out.

Some low stakes players, are very, very driven by bluffing a perceived tight player, and others call amazingly loosely (even 2 bets on flop with filth). So the predictability, probably means you can play profitably against their ranges, more often, yet also in the highly multi-way pots, get reasonable odds for 'miracle' cards.