Unfortunately can't convert hands for Bovada


Anyways in this spot I have 445x and the board is AK26Q


I have the second nut low WITH two 4s. Meaning the only hand that can beat me must have a 34 in it.

I figure in this spot mathematically I am good a high percent of the time. Anyways I try and steal the pot and push all in. Both players call. One has the 34.

Is it wrong to be playing these types of lows aggro? The ace and two were on the board which made me confident I had the best low.(along with having two fours)

Obviously I wouldn't do something like this if I had 45xx. However having 2/4 fours in the whole deck made me confident I had best low.

you leave out far too much information to be able to discuss the hand intelligently.

but as the crux of your post seems to be: 'how often is someone dealt a hand containing the cards 34, when you are holding 445*(where* is neither a 3 or a 4) and the board is AK26', i can tell you that if 8 other players are dealt cards that atleast 1 of them was dealt a hand with 34 more then a third of the time. if only 5 other players are dealt cards, its reduced to just 22% of the time that atleast 1 of them is dealt a hand with 34.

>result is arrived at by simulation.<

Yeah that is basically what I am asking.

So its around 35-40% of the time?

Doesn't have to include the board. Lets say I have 445Q. What are the chances someone else has 34?

What about 35?

Better if you include suits, even though suits don't matter for low. But in general, 445x looks like a crummy Omaha-8 starting hand for a full game or six max to me.

Isn't 35** the second nut low? Don't you have the third nut low? Don't both 34** and 35** beat you?

You are, against random hands. But it's doubtful that sensible opponents have random hands. How many players were dealt cards matters. The order in which the cards are delivered to the board matters. The action before the river matters. The propensity of these opponents to play 34** or 35** starting hands matters. I'll pretty much always want to see the flop with A34* or A35*, especially if the ace is suited to another card in the hand. I might play some 34** or 35** starting hands without an ace, but I think they're seriously flawed... however everybody doesn't think like me.

Bad luck. But when you trust to luck, sometimes it's bad.

One important aspect of aggressive play with these types of lows, in my opinion, is the tenacity of your opponents.

Strong Omaha-8 players tend to play aggressively, but maybe you want to ease off a bit in your aggressive play against tenacious opponents.

A second important aspect of aggressive play with these types of lows, in my opinion, is what types of starting hands your opponents tend to favor. In general some opponents tend to favor starting hands with wheel cards. Against these opponents, you want a nut low.

A third important aspect of aggressive play with these types of lows is your own table image. I want my opponents to think I play passively so that they will tend to give my aggressive moves more credibility. (But of course that probably doesn't matter when you're up against the nut low).

Need more information to give a better answer.

Everyone (including me) doesn't favor starting hands with 34** or 35**, but some players do. (There's no way around knowing your opponents).

445*, unless the * represents a suited ace, is not, honestly, a very good starting hand. I like small pairs when playing Texas hold 'em but I don't like small pairs in Omaha-8. Even 2445 or 3445 are not very good starting hands for a full or six max table.

The extra four in your hand does reduce the chance of an opponent having been dealt a four. Crudely, the extra four reduces the number of fours available from three to two. Crudely, that reduces the chance of running into 34** by approximately a third.

And, of course, your crafty opponents will do their best to deceive you.

As I implied above, you're approximately one third less likely to be up against a nut low.

Buzz

Without seeing how the hand played out, it is very difficult to assess your play and give you an honest answer about whether or not your decision was a wise one.

If I'm not the one driving the action, I find it difficult to justify "stealing" the pot, as a random shove for all my chips when I've just be calling along almost guarantees a call from someone else. You're basically shoving your stack in the middle looking for half the pot, hardly ever a smart decision. Granted, can't see what was in the pot, which could be substantial and worth it, but generally I don't try and steal for half a pot.

As pointed out, you have the 3rd nut low. Whether or not you knew that at the time, or it was just an after the fact typo, it is very tough for me to justify the act of shoving a low, if it is not in fact the nut low. Yes, you were going for "a steal" but generally you go for a steal when you know you are guaranteed at least a 1/2 the pot (1/4 if unlucky).

I guess basically I don't like the decision, especially in a tourney where you can't just rebuy and now have a nutty table image.

In regards to playing lows like this aggressively, I generally reserve that for ring game play. I prefer to play tourneys a bit more straight forward, at least until the bubble starts to show and then you can steal blinds and flops a bit more. Cash games on the other hand, I'll open buttons with 2445 if no one wants to raise and play some goofy hands in position that I really shouldn't be raising, just to widen my range. That being said, I still prefer to be the one driving the action with weak hands like 445x that really don't play well if you can't rep it for something else or hit the perfect flop.

No, you have the third nut low. If I thought someone might have the second nut low, then I like your line. Otherwise, it just seems too spewy to me.

In general blockers like this should be used to change a marginal decision, and it looks like you are changing a non-marginal decision. It's somewhat different if you have the nut flush blocker, as nobody else can have it ... but even then some will call anyway, and most will call depending on the other side cards.

Villains have to have something, and there are 2 4s left in the deck.

Sorry, wrote the hand wrong.(had 335x from bb)

Anyways the point I was trying to make was the profitability of betting the 2nd nut low when they are funky cards like 24, 25, 34,35 etc. Obviously a 2nd nut low like 24 would have more value than when you have a3 or a4 for the 2nd nut low.

I was thinking it was a good move since I had 335x and the only combo that can beat me is a 34. I thought it would be worth trying to steal the spot in this situation because it is unlikely someone has the 34 when I hold the 335x(30% of the time someone will be dealt a 34, even when I hold two threes). I can also be getting value from two high hands in that spot and take down most of it.

Sometimes I try and push in these situations against weak oppenents because I can potentially take down all of the low and they split the high part.

Anyways for the most part I don't think I will be making this type of move with a funky 2nd nut low, unless I have some reads.

Uh where did you get this figure from?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...ility-1448662/