my cards

A2510 (all different suites)

my position UTG+4

utg +3 limps for 5c
I call for 5c

utg+6 calls 5c
cut off calls 5c

dealer raises to 10c

blinds fold and everyone else calls

flop is 5s 8h 10d

Everone checks to the dealer who bets 5c, utg+3 calls and i checkraise to 10c. everyone calls and the dealer reraises to 15c, utg+3 calls and i raise to 15c, everyone calls and this continues until max bet of 20c is made.

turn is a J and I bet 10c everyone calls and dealer reraises to 20c. everyone calls.

River is a k and UTG+3 bets out for 20c. I fold and everyone else folds except dealer who calls.

utg +3 has AQ65 for a straight and the dealer has A978 for a lower straight.

Did i play the hand right? I reraised on the flop with 2 pair and a nut low draw, what would you have done?

T not 10

Well played,maybe you could lead out on flop so when dealer raises some players will have to take 2 bets in the face so its harder for them to continue.

The flop cap(max bet) is standard,you got a scooping hand and ppl in 5c/10c are calling with random crap so make them pay to hit their gutshot.

Unfortunately its hard to protect your hand in limit games so a hand that flopped gold will turn to trash by the river(as happened here).Fold,tag the Button as a fishtard and move on..

good hand tell river. just like it is said "Gold to trash " that's limit for you

I'm probably checking the turn and hoping to call one bet. You're going to need to improve to win the high once the jack hits. Betting out is normally going to lead to a raise by a straight on that board. Fold river, obviously.

yeh I could have just check called 1 bet on the turn because there were multiple players in the hand and a potential straight but my thinking was that I have a lot of outs to win half the pot and the whole pot. I have an A2 so any 3467 gives me the nut low to split the pot which would give me a profit and any 10 or 5 to give me a full house which would scoop the whole pot.

that is 20 cards to improve my hand to a definite winner.

Sure, but with that many people in, there's a good chance you'd be getting quartered, which means your equity is even money on the turn at best. Also, the 5 and T don't always win it for you. You need to think in terms of equity. I don't think betting the turn is terrible, but it's probably neutral to negative EV.

I like betting the flop hoping to 3bet. Turn I might check/call instead of betting. Hands like this is why LO8 players are always complaining.

Assuming a 10-handed table, wouldn't UTG+6 and cut-off be the same player?

I have much for the players in your game.

As far as the hand goes: some players would've lead the flop and may have continued to bet it until someone played back at them, but either way is fine/standard. If it was HU on the river I'd be inclined to pay it off unless I was certain that this player never bluffed, but in a multiway pot, usually when someone new fires out and especially from UTG? it's likely going to be w/the nut or the second nut straight.

Are you serious? Both are equally valid, and pretty sure no one is confused by what card 10d is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands

Your hand is playable, but lacks high card strength.

OK.

OK.

OK. Good (for you) that it's a rainbow with no cards higher than a ten.

You have the nut low draw, but with no counterfeit protection. You have two pairs. There are lot of ways you can win and a lot of ways you can lose, but it crudely simplifies to you want a trey, four, six, or seven for low and/or a five or ten for high. You have 16 low outs and 4 high outs, a total of twenty outs.

Barring an exposed card, there are always 45 unseen cards after the flop. 45-20=25 bricks.

The odds after this flop are 25 to 20 you won't see a favorable card on the turn and about 300 to 690 you won't see a favorable card on either the turn or the river. Those simplify to 5 to 4 against you on the turn and 3 to 7 against you on the turn or river combined. (Thus you're actually favored, by 7 to 3, to catch one of your 20 outs on either the turn or river).

But 16 of your 20 outs are for low only. And with this action, there's a fair chance one or two of your opponents also has a nut low draw.

And if you miss, the turn and river cards will probably be such that your two pairs, tens over fives, are foldable on the river. Thus if you miss, only the 2nd and 3rd betting rounds will cost you anything (because you'll fold to a bet on the river).

Four of you have seen this flop? If you bet and all three of them call, you're getting three to one full pot fresh money odds, but only one to one half pot fresh money odds. If you bet and only two of them call, you're getting two to one full pot fresh money odds but only one to two half pot fresh money odds.

Whether to bet or not seems a toss-up to me. (Anything you do except fold is fine - bet, check/raise, check/call - any of these is fine - I don't think it matters).

OK.

You must mean you raise to 20 cents. OK.

OK.

That's a miss for you, and a bad miss because now someone else might have a higher two pairs.

Now we refigure the odds. You still have 16 outs for low, but now low will not be possible if you hit one of your high outs. If you hit one of your high outs (if the board pairs fives or tens) you will either scoop or lose to a higher full house. The former (scooping) is more likely.

I like to approximate. I figure your hand is worth about 10 scoop equivalent outs. That means the odds are roughly 34 to 10 against you. The equity advocates will no doubt be screaming about my idiocy at this, because if you run a simulation, your hand will have more than an equity of 0.23.

But anyhow, I'd pull in my horns here. I think there's enough money already in the pot for you to call a bet, or even a bet and a raise, but I don't think you have favorable fresh money odds to bet yourself. Anyhow, I'd check/call here.

I think that's a serious mistake.

OK.

OK.

No. Betting the turn was wrong, in my opinion.

Check raising the flop with 2 pair and a nut low draw was fine.

In my opinon, your play on the first, second, and fourth betting rounds was fine. But your play on the turn cost you an extra big bet.

(I have not yet read the other replies as I submit my reply).

Buzz

Like everyone previously has mentioned, everything seems fine apart from the Turn lead. Heads up, I'd happy be betting but in a multi-way pot, it's close to the nut worst card for you. You're now very likely behind for the high and drawing to the nut low, and in a multi-way pot it's likely that you're not the only player drawing to it.

Also, sounds like a very juicy game

the odds 3.4 to 1 against and the equity .23 might not be equivalent but in this situation they are tantamount to the same. both indicate you shouldn't bet and you shouldn't fold.

although i have no idea what range you used to arrive at the equity value, i suspect it represents the hand more favorably then your odds approximation does because you considered Aces as bricks in arriving at your odds approximation. Certainly some turn/river combos that include an A are very favorable for hero. I'm guessing the equity represents these.

I didn't use a range.
10/44=~0.23

Yes. Sometimes Hero will win with an ace on the board, but sometimes he'll lose. When the board consists of 5-8-T-A, there is no fifth card that will not either pair the board or enable a straight.

Agreed.

I don't think Hero should fold here. You phrased it very well with That's exactly what I think. You perhaps followed a different path in reaching that conclusion, but that's what I think too. I used, and tried to explain "fresh money odds."

I'm not good with the use of equities in Omaha-8. In my opinion, O8 is not like Texas hold 'em in this respect (and some others).

I don't think you and I will ever agree on this point. I don't think we can assign a range in Omaha-8. I play my opponents more than my cards. Rightly or wrongly, that is what I do and what I strongly advocate. That is what expert poker players I have played against and observed also seem to do when playing their A Omaha-8 game.

My opinion is you can never know for certain in this game (Omaha-8) what cards your opponent holds or what your opponent is thinking. My opinion is there is no way we can possibly know an opponent's betting range with surety (because it's variable and specific opponent dependent).

My understanding is you have to put an opponent on a certain range or percentage in order to simulate or estimate equities. But while playing the hand, that is generally impossible for me.

For example, in the opening post, we saw the flop was
5810
the dealer bets, utg+3 calls, Hero check/raises, and the betting for the first round ends up getting capped.

Turns out UTG+3 has AQ65 and the dealer has A978.
Can you put either one of them on those hands after the flop and the resultant action? (I cannot).

Can you tell me why UTG+3, the eventual winner of the hand, continues for a capped betting round with AQ65 after this flop? Can you tell me what UTG+3 was thinking? (In this instance my guess is UTG+3 simply felt like gambling).

Granted this is very low stakes and these are almost surely non-expert opponents, but we often have much the same thing at higher stakes.

And in addition, at higher stakes players play their opponents more than their own cards. The game is Omaha-8, but they still "play poker."

Anyhow, since I can't put these players (or any player except maybe some nits) reasonably close to ranges that include their actual hands, in this case AQ65 and A978, using ranges to assign corresponding equities after this flop (or in general after almost any flop, depending) doesn't work well for me.

The turn was a jack making the board 58TJ. That turn doesn't help Hero but might help an opponent. I wouldn't think Hero any longer has favorable odds to initiate fresh money into the pot. But I think because of the bloated size of the pot, Hero does have favorable odds to call.

Turns out UTG+3 has AQ65 for a backdoor Broadway straight and the dealer has A978 for a lower straight.

Can you put either one of them on those hands on the first or second betting rounds? (I cannot).

Buzz

that's not equity, that i beleive is what you consider to be outs to improving on the turn divided by the number of unknown cards on the turn. hence .23 is then the percentage of the time the turn card is a scoop card. its not equity(the shortened expression of average pot equity)

you imply we repeatedly disagree and with regard to equity its likely because you don't seem to understand what equity is.

with regard to ranges i believe its also a result of misunderstanding. implicit whenever you are speculating about the outcome of a poker hand, and stating that you have 10 scoops for instance is speculating about the outcome, is speculating about what possible cards the other player(s) is(are) holding. providing(assigning) a range is making that speculation more explicit. providing a range is enumerating those possible cards.

you mostly seem dismissive of range soley due to concerns with accuracy. accept range to be an approximation, for which there are good and bad approximations, with good approximations being more precise then bad ones. And at least a range that badly approximates representing an opponent's possible holdings will accurately represent the combinatorics.

i understand equity and range as fundamental instruments necessary to establish expectation, and expectation as a necessary concept to formulate strategy and to analyze poker. its fine with me if you don't embrace these as fundamental. its fine with me if you take a different approach to analyzing poker. Its a problem when you post things that are clearly wrong. deriving .23 from 10/40 and calling it .23 equity is a problem.

I didn't say 0.23 was equity. I wrote For what it's worth, I'm sorry I wrote "The equity advocates will no doubt be screaming about my idiocy at this."

I think equity is the percentage of time a specific hand will end up winning against another specific hand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

For what it's worth, I use equities... but mostly for comparisons.

But I don't use equities to compare a known hand to an unknown hand. (I don't see how it's possible to do that accurately).

Perhaps it is.

I didn't do that this time for my approximation. Instead I thought about cards I'd like to see if I were playing Hero's hand, cards I thought would help Hero's hand. And I thought about cards I wouldn't like to see.

I just wanted to have a better idea whether Hero should raise or just call.

I realize Hero will lose with the seemingly helpful cards some of the time... and I realize Hero will win with the seemingly unhelpful cards some of the time. The positive effect and negative effect are not expected to exactly cancel each other, but for the purpose of estimating whether Hero should raise or just call, I thought it was close enough.

And after I knew what the turn card was, I revised my approximation, figuring Hero roughly had 4 outs for high, (and if Hero won high with one of those 4 outs on the river, that would be a scoop). I realize some of the time Hero will get the river card he wants and not scoop, but I also realize some of the time Hero will get a river card he doesn't want and will still win all or part of the pot.

For low, I figured Hero had 16 outs, but since, with this action, Hero should expect to get quartered and sixthed some of the time, I figured those 16 low outs were not worth half the pot, but were closer to being worth four tenths of the pot on the average. 16 times 4/10 is 6.4. I rounded that off to 6 and added it to the 4 to get the 10 I used.

I think I see what you're trying to do and I don't want to discourage you.

But what if I can not accurately assign a range?

I don't want you, or anyone, to misunderstand. I do try to put my opponents on cards whenever possible.

Seems like accurately assigning a range would probably be better than the method I used, if I were able to assign a range and then calculate equity while I'm sitting in a game.

But I'm not intellectually capable of doing all that.

Correct. I don't mean to offend you, but truthfully I'm unable, in general, to assign ranges while playing Omaha-8.

OK. That's a fair assessment. I'm not able to accurately assess ranges.

utg +3 had AQ65 and the dealer had A978. I can't see that pre-flop, on the first betting round, and I still can't see after this flop, on the second betting round.

I agree good approximations are better and more precise than bad ones.

I don't follow.

That sounds fine if you can do it. But, as explained, I have difficulty assessing range.

At any rate, rightly or wrongly, I used a different approach.

If I post something that I discover is wrong, then I'll make a correction. If somebody else discovers my mistake before I do, I'll usually acknowledge that person, perhaps make an apology, and also make the correction. (You must know I do that).

Please read what I wrote. I did not write and I did not mean to imply the way to find equity is divide the number of scoop equivalent outs by the total number of unknown cards. That would just be wrong.

I wrote Buzz

Raise pf, bet flop, check turn. Otherwise, nh.

equity is your ((expected)) share of each dollar of the pot when the outcome of all possible boards* are determined,summed and averaged.

when no ties or in split pot games no splits are possible, then equity and winning percentage are the same value, but still aren't synonymous(avg. pot equity is not winning percentage).

*sometimes all possible outcomes are too numerous and a sampling is used as a substitute, but the sample is typically large enough that it approximates for all, such that when the outcomes of the sample are determined, summed and averaged the value is a very close approximation to an 'exhaustive' determination.

you've directed a few other questions at me, and i apologize for not answering.
its clear its not worth my time.
good luck to you.

Thanks. I like your definition better than the one I gave.

I thought about that after I posted.

And to you.

Buzz