5/10 LO8 - kill is on, limits are now 10/20.

Hero wakes up with AQJ2 in CO - suited A2 clubs

UTG limps, MP limps, hero raises, , folds to killer in the BB, who calls as do UTG and MP. We're 4 ways to a flop.

J87c

All check to hero who bets, All call

Turn is a Q making a badugi on board.

BB checks, UTG bets- now I'll stop right here as to explain how everyone is at the table. My prior history with BB and MP are non existent. I know UTG will play a lot of hands from all positions and I had put him on a SD/2 pair + hand.

MP calls, hero has top two with nut low draw and says raisy daisy. BB folds as UTG instantly 3 bets leaving him about $5 left. (Ruh roh)

MP folds as hero sheepishly calls.

River is another 7.

UTG bets his last $5 as hero calls.

How's my line? I thought afterwards I could have just called as to draw those in with my low draw but my high needed a little protection. I don't know. It left me scratching my head afterwards.


Btw UTG showed up with AK9T for a flopped straight w redraw to a wrap.

Thanks.

Unless you know that UTG would never bet with a worse made hand or a draw a raise is fine or even required. Protecting your hand only matters if you're ahead and the river card makes you lose pot (or a share of it). If you let everyone in you hate every river card that is not Q, J or a 3.

UTG could also have any other 2 pair+low, all the AKTx hands and some silly delayed bluffs with A569.

Your speech while raising turn is enormous spew. Your other actions pale in comparison.

Seems fine to me.

I'm answering as I usually do, without first reading the other responses.

1st betting round: Fine.
2nd betting round: Fine. Hard to tell if anyone has flopped the straight or not.
3rd betting round: I don't think you have favorable odds to raise. I think a call is the correct play.
4th betting round: fine.

Buzz

I fail to see any spew here.

I'll show you the spew (in red). Hero's raise on the turn is the spew. Munga30 saw it too. Not completely clear to me whether or not forgotpass saw it... I think he did.

Buzz

There's a semi-bluff component in the raise that is fairly hard to quantify. Sometimes you have the best hand and your raise buys you outs that would make you lose a share of the pot otherwise. Since the pot is already fairly large (increasing the value of outs you buy) and you still have more than a handful of outs when you are beat it's likely the raise is reasonable. The fact that you have very few nut outs to scoop is also in favor of a more aggressive play.

The scenarios where you gain more from the raise than just calling are some variations of UTG betting A3Q7 (weaker made hand) and BB folding A45K (any hand with enough outs to call 1 bet but not enough to call 2 without closing the betting or something that opponent perceives as such). In the best case scenario (depends on the MPs hand) you now scoop with 9 additional outs (ace, 4 tens and 4 sixes).

Regarding the player in the MP you're kinda stuck with since you rarely get him to fold for 1 bet and when it's more than 1 bet for him to call it means someone 3-bet and your chance of having the best hand goes way down. The good news is that he's presence does make your raise lose slightly less (as action folded).

So weather the play is spew or not depends on how lightly UTG would bet, what range does the BB and MP have and how they each behave in the parts of the decision tree that effect this hand. There are several ranges and behaviors that make the raise correct such as there are several sets that make it incorrect. UTGs range and behavior have the biggest impact on the correct play.

Just glancing at the situation would go something like this... there is a reasonable amount of bets already in the pot, UTG could have reasonable hands that i can beat that he would play in this manner (A3Q7, AKJT) and people still play unreasonable hands (AWQx, AWKK, A487 or A369), my hand is such that it would gain more from increasing the chances to win what's in the middle than increasing the opposing money by 1 bet by letting the BB in cheaply (at times BB folds/calls/raises regardless of your actions obv.) and when i'm wrong i still have a reasonable amount of equity and i can sleep at night knowing i chose the one action that can almost never make me lose the pot that i can influence.

ps. when the opponent has less than a bet left on the turn you should just ship it in if there's no river card you would fold to, there's no better hand you could possibly bluff out of the pot, your opponent could have missed draws on the river that he could fold, you are not disclosing information worth all that much and let everyone sweat the river card while possibly increasing the emotional impact of the loss to your opponent (when it comes to tilt inducing it's not even close to the belt)

not spewy, normal hand

seems standard (i just put his last 5 in though).

I agree there's a semi-bluff component in any initiation of money into the pot that is hard to quantify.

I agree.

Please tell me what outs a raise on the turn buy for Hero.

Hero raised, got re-raised, lost $40 more than he should have lost in a 5/10 game, and knocked out two opponents who might have paid off on the river if Hero made his draw.

I strongly disagree. Put simply, Hero does not have favorable odds to raise, risking a re-raise and the possibility of knocking out those other two opponents.

It's the concept of initiating fresh money into the pot in Omaha-8 that seems to be misunderstood (in my opinion) by you and some others.

Hero does have some fold equity when he raises. But opposing "fold equity" here, is the principle of fresh money odds.

In order to have favorable "fresh money" odds here (favorable odds to initiate fresh money into the pot), I think Hero needs three opponents to call any fresh money.

In other words, in order to have favorable fresh money odds, Hero needs to have nobody fold this betting round after he raises.

It will probably be fine if the original better meekly calls Hero's third round raise... but if the original better re-raises, then opponents faced with a double big bet and the threat of a four-bet from Hero may well fold... and that is exactly what happened here.

Why did the UTG bet this turn in the first place (after having check/called on the previous betting round)? There are a number of reasons why UTG might have bet this turn, including
• the possibility UTG slow played a flopped straight for one round.
• the possibility UTG slow played a flopped set for one round.
• the possibility UTG made a set of queens on the turn.

Any of those give UTG a better hand than Hero.

Our Hero seems oblivious of these distinct possibilities. Underestimating your opponent is a classic mistake. (Sorry, to seem harsh, EndoBird).

I have to think about that. Perhaps that is true if everything else is unknown... but here an alarm bell should sound for Hero when UTG suddenly comes out swinging on the third betting round after meekly check/calling on the second betting round.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Ding dong, ding dong.

The board is QJ87 rainbow. Hero holds AQJ2. It's true that if nobody already has a straight or a set and if Hero's raise knocks out an opponent who would otherwise have made a straight on the river, then Hero does better by raising.

But I think it's a stretch to call cards that would have made a knocked out opponent a straight the river "outs."

And you seem oblivious to the distinct possibility UTG (or another opponent) has already made a straight or a set.

This is not Texas hold 'em.

Agreed if UTG merely calls the raise. But if UTG makes it three bets (and there's still the threat of Hero making it four bets), then a fold from MP becomes much more reasonable.

I'll agree there's some value in having MP fold, if MP would otherwise end up with a winning hand on the river and if UTG does not already have a straight or a set. But the problem is, if MP folds, then Hero is not getting favorable fresh money odds. In order to raise here, Hero would have to know neither BB nor MP would fold to either a single big bet or a double big bet.

Exactly!

I don't understand. (I'm reading "he's presence" as "his presence" but I still don't understand.

I disagree. The distinct possibility UTG slow played for one round a flopped straight or set, or made a set on the turn along with the possibility the raise would knock out an opponent, thus giving Hero unfavorable fresh money odds makes the play a spew.

Whether the play is spew or not does not depend on how lightly UTG would bet.

I think Hero's turn raise is a spew. It's true that Hero could win this hand, profiting from the raise. But Hero would basically be beating the odds to do so.

Casino owners pay for the operation of their facilities, pay their employees, and still generally make a healthy profit. And the way they do that is simply by having the odds on their side.

It is possible to play Omaha-8 poker and have the odds on your side. And Hero should do that here. The odds in this case are called "fresh money odds."

The amount in the pot already has nothing to do with fresh money odds. Fresh money odds are dependent on how many opponents will call any bets initiated by Hero's introduction of fresh money (a bet, raise, or re-raise) into the pot.

I agree UTG could have a reasonable or an unreasonable hand here. You have omitted hands that would make a straight or set. That oversight is, in my humble opinion, a serious deficiency.

It's true that Hero might gain by raising. It's not necessarily true Hero would gain by raising.

It's true that you can **** up your poker play, get lucky, beat the odds and win.

I don't know what you think is a "reasonable" amount of equity. I haven't simulated it, so that I don't know how much equity Hero has if UTG does indeed already have a straight or a set, both of which are distinct possibilities here. But I'm pretty sure Hero's behind if UTG does have a straight or a set.

What? Hero blows forty bucks here by raising!

Hero was destined to lose the pot anyhow, so that his raise did not cause him to lose the pot... but he blew away forty bucks in a five/ten/kill game! Fifty bucks is the buy-in for a five/ten/kill game in some casinos. Hero lost almost a buy-in because of his blunder! Advising him that he played fine is, in my opinion, very poor advice.

Have you considered the possibility your opponent might make a mistake by not going "all-in" on the river?

Buzz

Buzz

I think your assement of this hand is very harsh.



Let's start with the fact that villain voluntarily invested more than 30% of his stack pre-flop with no low draw. This is a pretty dangerous play, and I would expect a lot (the majority?) of good players to fold this hand outright.

Top pair and the nut low draw with a backdoor draw to the nut flush is a very good flop for Hero. Pot is $75.

There are only a small category of hands we are afraid of getting a lot of money in against. Namely:

AA[2-5]
A[2-5]KK
A29T
A394
A49T
A59T
A[2-5][77, 88, jj]
9Txx (most likely from BB who should have the widest range, or from MP with other high connectors]


When we bet the flop and are not raised we should confidently eliminate the majority of these hands from villains' potential holdings.

A39T
A49T
A59T
A[3-5][77,88,JJ]
A[2-5]KK
AA[2-3] (maybe)
*A29T some room for balancing with this hand depending on position
should for practical purposes always trying to get more money into the pot



When UTG leads the turn his most likely holdings to me are

AA2 (rarely)
*A29T (infrequent because not leading the flop or c/ring is a questionable play)
AQ[2-5] (common) (includes many 2 pair hands)
AK[2-5] (common)
AJ[2-5] (infrequent)
A2TT, A3TT (infrequent)
A[3-6]QQ (infrequent)
A[2-5]8 (infrequent)
A[2-5]7 (infrequent)

At this point in the hand, our hand is fairly vulnerable. Though we are often ahead, we can easily lose the pot or part of the pot to rivered trips, straights, sets, and even higher 2 pair. With 2 players left to act, and high potential costs for letting them see the river for only one bet raising has clear merit.

Hero does lose to a highly speculative hand on the river, but his actions on every street were based on sound poker logic.

Perhaps. I didn't mean my assessment to be "harsh," but in my opinion Hero played this turn more like one should play a Texas hold 'em hand, where it's not nearly as likely an opponent may have flopped a straight and be slow playing it for one round... or an opponent may have a set... Omaha-8 is a poker game where an opponent who bets the turn like he has the goods actually often does have the goods.

UTG's turn bet after the check/call on this straight enabling flop deserves more respect than it got.

When you write "this hand," I assume you're talking about Villain's hand. We're not given the suitedness of AK9T. But even as a rainbow, I believe the hand rates in the top fifth of Omaha-high-only hands.

The most important thing is some people do play such hands in Omaha-8 and Hero cannot know UTG doesn't have such a hand.

It's a playable flop.

(But then the rainbow queen is a very poor turn for Hero).

I disagree.

My guess is you may be unfamiliar with an opponent slow playing a flopped fit for one round. I'm not.

I see. However, that is not what I would think (partly because I would not eliminate the possibility Villain is slow playing for one round).

You have a point. There can be merit in eliminating opponents who otherwise might "draw out" on Hero's two pairs, queens over jacks. However, in doing that Hero risks UTG already having a better hand an re-raising.

We're only quibbling about the third betting round. Considering that UTG check/called the flop and then directly bet the turn, I don't think it's sound poker logic for Hero to raise. I think it's a spew.

Meh.

Buzz

+1. There's no spew in how you bet the hand; the arguments for calling and raising the turn pretty evenly balance out in my mind.

But the speech is super-douchy.

And you should probably just go ahead and get the last $5 in on the turn if you're going to call any river.

We are also vulnerable to other low draws catching up or taking part of the pot, which I meant to post in greater detail about.

Aside from a few hands with A2, slowplaying made hands on this texture is extremely dangerous. Flopped straight & set or flopped straight with higher straight redraws do well to slowplay but again, are these really the most likely holdings from UTG in a kill pot? Also, even with a good A2 hand slowplaying is not without risk.



I do tend to agree with you that a raise is probably better in theory than in practice (playing live), but in this case I think it shouldn't be viewed as more than a minor mistake.

Hero doesn't have to show his hand on the river if he calls and loses.

I'll concede that if Hero's two pair holds up and if the river is an ace or a deuce, then the pot is more likely to be split with more opponents than with fewer opponents.

The problem is UTG is betting this turn as though he either has a straight or a set.

After a flop of J87, UTG is not as likely to be holding T9 or a set if playing Texas hold 'em, as UTG is to be holding T9** or a set if playing Omaha-8.

In fact, UTG is more than five times more likely to have been dealt T9**, JJ**, 88**, 77**, or QQ** in Omaha-8 as UTG is to have been dealt T9, JJ, 88, 77, or QQ in Texas hold 'em.

If you're used to playing a lot of Texas hold 'em, you may expect less from your Omaha or Omaha-8 opponents than they actually might have. In other words, opponent's hands generally fit better with flops in Omaha or Omaha-8 than in Texas hold 'em.

Hero doesn't have a made low yet. And if he does make low, nobody will "catch" him because he'll have the nut low. He might get quartered for low, but there's not much he can do about that in fixed-limit Omaha-8... it goes with the territory.

I agree. I’m not saying UTG is playing this hand brilliantly. I am saying that in my experience it’s not unusual in casino cash games for an opponent to slow play a flopped made hand for one round. And that’s what this betting pattern looks like to me. (Evidently it doesn’t look like that to you, or others who disagree with me here).

I wouldn’t say that.

I’m saying UTG’s betting pattern here alerts me to the strong possibility UTG has a straight or a set.

I completely agree with you.

I don’t think I said that.

Hero blew forty bucks in a five/ten/kill game. Call it what you want to call it.

Buzz

Well this is what we got...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

40 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 8 7 Q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	30.00%	4	4	0	16	0
As Kd 9c Th	70.00%	20	36	0	0	0

...when i say we have reasonable equity even when we are beat THIS is what i mean. This scenario only costs 0,9 big bets.

We could have let sleeping dogs lie and avoid poking the bear...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: J 8 7 Q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	27.04%	62,399	62,399	1,082	165,096	68,353
As Kd 9c Th	59.51%	198,462	479,837	41,185	0	0
30%	6.72%	7,791	7,791	21,667	27,103	39,544
30%	6.73%	7,692	7,692	21,809	27,064	39,959

...now if these were the only sims i would show to you it would appear sheer madness to ever raise in hero's position when a mere call will result us breaking even or even slightly profiting, but if we think at times UTG would have something like this...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

799,308 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 8 7 Q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	70.49%	459,437	565,532	30,688	242,668	55,065
As Qd 3c 7h	9.45%	40,574	40,574	26,004	48,287	10,809
30%	20.06%	102,178	162,407	5,958	19,834	65,874

...the most common action would result in a scenario where we gain quite a bit from raising compared to just calling...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: J 8 7 Q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	56.64%	244,356	328,145	17,363	152,011	67,279
As Qd 3c 7h	8.70%	30,911	30,911	11,704	30,163	13,108
30%	17.34%	64,487	108,425	10,256	6,864	42,984
30%	17.32%	64,398	108,148	10,187	6,931	43,054

...when we gain slightly more than 1 big bet from calling, slightly more than 2 bets from raising and all this gives us a gain of 1 bet for raising compared to merely calling when we are ahead. If this is where you would leave the highly inaccurate analysis you could come up with a rough estimate that the hero would break even for the turn raise if UTG is betting a weaker made hand than top 2-pair half the time, but this is not where we stop since it appears that even before the action got to us on the turn someone had left money in the middle of the table. So for this demonstration we shall assign the BB an actual hand instead of the 30% placeholder and it will look something like this...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

358,464 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 8 7 Q

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	51.78%	140,757	187,345	7,006	115,966	20,818
As Qd 3c 7h	9.88%	20,453	20,453	5,305	24,823	4,389
30%	11.70%	13,408	44,291	9,486	5,112	25,207
Ah 4s Td 8c	26.63%	91,634	91,634	7,685	0	0

...here we make a modest call that will result in a pot of roughly 10 bets for a cost of 1 bet and this gives us a gain of 4 bets. The next part is where the magic happens, if by some form of trickery (it's really just raising) we could make the BB fold his stellar holding...

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

358,464 trials (Exhaustive)

board: J 8 7 Q

dead cards: A T 4 8

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac 2c Qs Jd	71.99%	212,810	259,398	7,738	115,966	20,818
As Qd 3c 7h	9.88%	20,453	20,453	5,305	24,823	4,389
30%	18.14%	39,942	70,825	2,533	5,112	25,207

...and suddenly it appears that our hand has grown in strength. It also appears that there is some correlation with assigning the mystery money in the middle of the table to the winner/s of the hand. The most common action pattern when we are ahead gives us a pot of 14 bets for a cost of 2 bets and this gives the raise a gain of roughly 8 bets. Since the call gave us a gain of 4 we can conclude that in this scenario the raise gives us 4 bets compared to a call.

If you take the 1st sim and compare it to the last you could claim that hero breaks even with the raise if UTG bets a weaker made hand than top 2-pair more than 20% of the time. But the last sim is only for representative purposes to give an idea how much you can gain from folds and i would never claim anything so optimistic.

I think the break even point for the raise to be good is somewhere between 33-50% and i would assume you could make the BB fold about 3-4 outs worth on average.

Hands that would be huge steals for us if the BB would be kind enough to fold are the A569, A456, A48T, A46T and so on. We never expect to get a fold with any hand with more than 4 nut outs or a stronger made hand.

I don't think the raise is trivial. I do think raising A2QQ in this spot is trivial and i think raising A23Q is just setting money on fire.

Standard to me, might as well put him all in though.

Maybe I've just missed this skimming over the thread, but the fact that UTG only has $5 behind is important to the range we put him on, and it seems like some people are interpreting his 3-bet in the same way they would interpret a 3-bet from a full size stack. I would put someone who is essentially putting themselves all-in with a turn 3-bet on a much wider range than someone who could face multiple future bets on this and the next street.

I think you did. It's a 5/10/kill cash game, not a tournament. The first two betting rounds are "small bet" rounds and the stakes double on the third and fourth betting rounds.

UTG starts the hand with $95 in front of him, perhaps 19 $5 chips.

I don't know why UTG only has $95 (19 chips) in front of him. Perhaps he lost the last hand and hasn't reloaded yet. Or perhaps he likes to play short stacked.

UTG calls for 4 chips on the first betting round,

UTG calls for 2 more chips on the second betting round (where he slow plays his flopped straight for one round). In slow playing for one round, he might have reasoned a raise on the second betting round might scare his opponents, making it more difficult for him to get action on the third and fourth betting rounds. Or perhaps he slow played in an attempt to disguise his
hand. Or perhaps he slow played because he knows flopped straights are notorious for not standing up and he wanted to see the turn before making his move.

UTG directly bets the turn for 4 chips (the stakes have doubled on the third betting round). At this point he has 9 chips left.

But then Hero raises! UTG probably can hardly believe his good fortune and immediately re-raises, managing to get almost all-in, and probably wishing he had reloaded before this hand.

Buzz

I'm just saying that if UTG has a marginal made hand on the turn, he is much more likely to raise if that raise basically gets him all-in and avoids having to make a tough decision on the river. If he has two pair and will likely have to get all-in to see showdown, he should prefer getting all-in on the turn when he is more likely to be ahead. If he has a full stack with the same hand, he probably doesn't want to reopen the betting.

Not remotely spew. You have a monster! Top two plus nut low often scoops, even big pots. Even if you know you're against T9 and you'll get called by someone behind you, with four scoop outs and a ton of low outs, you might have enough for your raise to be for value.

But because you might be ahead for high, knocking out people behind who might draw at silly things like trips or kings up or gutshots means a raise here is NOT optional in this large pot. Calling is atrocious.

The leak is that you didn't 4-bet. With only $5 more in action vs the strong hand, even though it's overwhelmingly likely you're behind, you simply must put in the fourth bet. You probably won't fold out anyone who already called two cold, but now you're reraising for pure value in the side pot.

Note the power of A2: you can pay aggressively largely because of the value of the NLD.

Bravo!

Any analysis that focuses on the outcome rather than the quality of our play is a very bad way to think about poker. It's important for us to model quality though processes in a forum frequented with beginners. Giving results-oriented analysis, even just in passing is really dangerous, because it teaches beginners to think about the game entirely wrong.

While there can be arguments for flat-calling the turn (although I persist in thinking it's atrocious), I see no reasonable case that OP "lost $40 more than he should have lost in a 5/10 game."

First, are we assuming that we fold to the river bet in a big pot on QJ877? If not, then the flawed result-oriented number should be $25, not $40. That's because, if we would have called a river bet, then we should compare $40 extra on turn + $5 on river to $20 on the river. 45 minus 20 is 25.

But analyzing a hand that way is hugely flawed. If the river is the Q does that make Hero's raise brilliant?

Key word: risks. Not knows. UTG having a better made hand is plausible, maybe even likely. It's not at all certain.

Disregarding the third player trapped in for a second, Hero has around 27% if he knows the bettor has a range of T9,QQ,JJ. Assuming the bettor will then 3-bet, his raise will have cost 2 big bets. He will get 0.27 * 4.00 or 1.08 BB of that back in pure equity. Even if he knows he's behind, 1.08 BB is a reasonable price compared to saving a large pot.

Adding the third player makes this cost even less. I made up some reasonable (?) ranges, assuming Hero is behind the bettor for high and got 25% equity three ways. That means Hero is putting in two "unnecessary" big bets and getting 1.5 back in expectation. RAISING AND GETTING RERAISED, KNOWING HE'S BEHIND, COSTS HERO HALF A BIG BET. Tiny tiny price to pay to save a big pot even part of the time.

But Hero doesn't even know he's behind!