! I think you are going to have to explain that one!

Yeah. It's definitely worth considering what optimal play would be here, but you can't extrapolate from, "Good aggressive opponents would b/3b their strong hands" to "These opponents would be unlikely to check their strong hands."

it's amazing the contortions you guys will go through to avoid solid correct play.

This is the correct play. Folding is also the correct play.

Stopping the action to ask a question to which you already know the answer is the incorrect play. You pretty much pinned a 'Kick Me' sign on your back just by asking the question. You sent over your hand.

There's a lot of inactive time in live o8 games. Use it to play out 'what if' scenarios and try not to be surprised by events.

jmo

I agree with this. Fold pf if you think this flop is not worth c betting and possibly worth c/f 2 back to you. After failing to c bet our hand is completely underrepped and it becomes far more likely we will have to call 2 bets back to us when we dont really want to. If you just cbet it is much less likely you will have to call 2 back to you and if you do the pot is at least that much bigger and you have better info on people's hands. The pot is monster and the only way we are in miserable shape is if we are against 63,66, 33 AND A2, and even in this absolute worst case we still have a chance at half the pot. Why wouldn't people be raising their trip 6s? I would.

The original read was "aggressive and gamble-happy". We haven't been told that they won't bet/3bet.

Its also worth pointing out that we don't have to be good at showdown all the time. When a large number of players are matching the number of chips we are putting into the middle each round we don't have to be good that often, really, to break even.

First of all, hopefully the fact that there's such disagreement on my first flop action suggests that it's marginal either way.

I request that someone please give a clear explanation of the argument to bet the flop. So far I'm just seeing what looks like condescension or something other than convincing arguments:

... or at least what you believe to be solid and correct. I can be convinced, but I don't see your reasoning.

You seem to think this is the sort of flop I'm daydreaming about when I raise this hand preflop, but it isn't. I had a hand that could hit the flop strongly multiple ways, but instead I've got a marginal draw in both directions that can never make the nuts in one direction. If it's two back to me, I'm plausibly drawing at three outs to half, and at best drawing to three outs for one half and all kinds of tainted outs to the other half. These are wild players but they're not raising without trips or maybe a big two-way draw.


If I bet, get XRed, and call, I'm putting in two bets. If I check, get it bet and raised behind me, and call two cold, I'm putting in two bets. If it's a bad bet in the first place, in this instance I fail to see how initiating the bad bet is any better than calling it. (I guess my aggression makes a capped round a little less likely.) By checking at least I get the warning that I'm drawing thin before pricing myself in.

My hand has value but it's contingent upon not being against both a 6 and an A2:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

62,078 trials (Randomized)

board: 663

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AcKdQc4d	12.90%	2,774	7,166	28	5,043	3,189
A2	26.24%	1,265	2,243	343	24,710	10,113
6:50%	37.16%	10,327	33,637	1,780	433	1,802
40%	8.39%	1,493	5,270	603	717	5,438
60%	7.92%	1,602	5,862	738	615	2,817
80%	7.39%	1,647	5,831	667	450	1,858

Let's recap.

• Some said I should bet because the checks strongly suggest that the first 4 players to act don't have anything.
• Others said you can't assume that because gambly players might check/raise
• You said that GOOD gambly players would more likely donk/3bet
• I said it doesn't matter how good gambly players play because I'm playing against these players, not GTO postflop players.
• Now you've correctly said that there's no indication that they'll NEVER 3bet. That's true, and a non sequitur. Nobody's basing an argument on the notion that they NEVER bet out a strong hand, just that SOMETIMES they'll have a strong hand and not lead with it. Even if they bet half the time and XR half the time with their strong hands, I still can't infer that everyone's weak here for purposes of placing my own bet.

EXACTLY! That's why, after the weird way this went down, I felt better about calling with the intuition that it would get capped light. I hated putting more money in, but felt I was getting value from the two players behind me who clearly didn't have enough to 3bet without provocation.

see my simulation in post #13:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=13

1) does everyone agree hero is a pot equity favorite when the action is on him to check or bet?

2) if not, then there's something very wrong with the simulation. what is it, then?

3) if you agree, why not c-bet the flop?

it's not like our flop bet is only called by A2's and trips+. in spite of the fact that the board is paired, it's still fairly wet. loose players will call with str8/flush draws and overpairs, trying to bink big overfulls. they'll also call with low gutters, trying to hit a perfect card to scoop (or at least make a nut low).

the pot is large and you have more than your share of equity. i don't understand the inclination not to bet. you may get calls from worse hands (they exist!). you may fold out the players behind, thus getting the button for the rest of the hand.

if it goes raise and 3bet behind you you'll have a much better idea of their ranges than if you check and it goes bet and raise behind you.

redhot is right on imo when he intimates (if i'm interpreting him correctly) that the reads on the opponents keep changing as needed to defend your thought process/line/whatever. that's not a fair way to do things.

the whole thread is a bit odd insofar as i assume you want good unbiased replies but you're unlikely to get them since your preamble hints that there will be ZOMGACTION! so of course a lot of the posts will come back as ZOMGCHECK! which is why i said don't be results oriented in my original post.

related to this, i'm noticing (in lots of the advice in this thread and others in this forum) a general fear of variance and of losing pots. you're going to lose the same number of pots (because your bad opponents chase) regardless of if you push your edges or not. the difference is you won't win as much in the pots you win, because you failed to push those edges. so by trying to reduce your 'lossrate' you end up reducing your winrate.

I think it depends on your opponents.

This flop is favorable for Hero in a simulation. That's because in a simulation, in order to compute e.v., players with losing hands are figured as seeing it through to the showdown and paying off. But in a real game, that may not happen.

However, if Hero could get all-in here and get his all-in matched by all six opponents, Hero probably shows a profit with this hand and this flop.

You're not giving your opponents much credit. Maybe they don't deserve much credit, but I like to keep my guard up anyhow. I think your opponents have to be stupid to continue after this flop without better hands than Hero. In order to continue, I'd want one of those better hands too.

What's a better hand? As a minimum for this particular game (seven of nine saw the flop for two bets) and this particular flop (6c3c6s), I think 6*** or A2** are both probably better. That's what I'd want to continue (either 6*** or A2**). Hero doesn't have either of those as a minimum. My default here is bye bye.

Why? Mainly because when six opponents see the flop and the flop has a pair of sixes, I expect at least one opponent to make a full house. A club flush doesn't beat a full house. It would be a different story if the flop were 6c3c5s. An opponent might have flopped a low straight, but a club flush beats a straight. (In addition Hero would have a made low, but forget about that for this discussion).

The idea is you don't want to be drawing for what probably will be a losing hand.

Just my opinion, but I think a fundamental principle for success in poker and life is, "Don't draw for losers."

Buzz

True, assuming your opponents stay in the pot when you push your edge.

However, some opponents will get out of your way when you push your edge. And then you win more pots.

Perhaps more commonly in Omaha-8, assuming you play your cards right, by pushing your edge you convert some half pot winners into scoopers. (It takes considerable skill to do that optimally).

That's one difference. Another is you won't lose as much in the pots you lose.

That's true. But you also do reduce your loss rate.

Ideally you want to only reduce your loss rate on your losers, not your winners. Therein lies much of the skill in poker.

There's another factor to consider. For some, actually probably most, there is more pain in losing than joy in winning.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

u guys luv to overcomplicate FLO8 hands like it's a super hard game or somthin

Complete nonsense. I try to be careful with the way I use words in forum posts. All you are doing is interpreting/changing/embellishing what I have typed in a way to try to make me look stupid. If you don't like what I have to say, fine - don't listen to it. Other readers - I suggest you go back and look at what I typed originally. If you have strong evidence to suggest I am wrong please bring it forward because I am posting here to try and improve my understanding of Lo8. I am not interested in the battle of egos.

Thanks for a good post. I'll have to mull this over a bit.

My inclination was based on a quick heuristic that I likely wasn't good in either direction. 24 cards, over half the deck, are out against me so I figure I'm against a 6 or 33. Even with loose players a hand this multiway makes A2 more likely than normal.

str8's simulation in#13 is pretty convincing so I'm glad this conversation led me back there. However, it's not perfect because of IO, as always. This includes IO (or maybe effective odds) on this round because I get XRed when way behind but not always when ahead. Also, to put fresh money in, I really need to know where I stand relative to the hands that call me. It's still a good bet if I get called 3 ways unless my calling ranges are really messed up:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

459,774 trials (Randomized)

board: 663

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AcKdQc4d	36.02%	68,858	121,455	3,614	150,785	45,674
5%-40%:6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42	20.60%	35,026	103,447	4,993	43,011	23,430
25%:6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42	19.97%	33,472	98,108	4,931	44,079	23,516
80%:6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42	23.41%	41,944	127,503	5,101	38,772	21,465

Agreed but I don't understand where the reads have changed. I did a sim above assuming A2 and 6 were both out there but that was talking about a hypothetical when I XR and face two bets back.

It's true that my read biases the analysis but I'm not sure how to present that particular read on BF and GF accurately. I probably should have mentioned that they both sometimes play moderately tight and disciplined, but that didn't seem to be the case this night.

Of course that's true, but I didn't check because I feared losing bets here. I checked because I actually thought it was greater EV than betting.

Your syntax is bad. The AND gets resolved before any of the OR.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

417,790 trials (Randomized)

board: 663

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AcKdQc4d	29.12%	45,956	101,403	4,990	77,253	63,700
5%-40% : (6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42)	23.08%	34,289	104,734	6,162	37,563	37,641
25% : (6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42)	26.40%	33,910	86,144	7,054	76,384	59,219
80% : (6,33,54,52,75,74,cc,77+,A2,A4,42)	21.39%	35,148	114,108	4,849	21,560	16,903