Poker Stars $3/$6 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 4 players

Pre Flop: (1.333 SB) Hero is SB with 3 4 A 6
1 fold, BTN raises, Hero 3-bets, BB calls, BTN calls

Flop: (9 SB) 8 7 K (3 players)
Hero ?

BTN opens 60%, caps about 10%.
BB would cap AA[2-8] only and flat up to 36%.

Would you cbet this flop and why?

hero should check because this is a poor flop for his hand and he should not expect any fold equity (1 opponent may fold but this is still a poor outcome, especially since the remaining opponent may raise)

This is me applying my LHE strategy to LO8 which is often a bad idea, but still maybe an interesting point...

I find that when we donk check the flop, BB will often smell blood and bet with a weakish hand hoping to steal the pot from 2 hopefully weaker hands on later streets. Button will then often raise light, thinking that BB is fos. End result... we take 2 to the face and end up having to choose between a gross fold and a gross call.

This is a difficult board to hit hard, and both of our opponents can have some pretty marginal starting hands. I don't think checking necessarily saves us any bets since we look so weak and our opponents may smell blood. So I prefer to at least give ourselves a chance to win this hand without a showdown.

I prefer cbetting.

i cbet here without giving it a 2nd thought. yeah, bb's range has you in not-so-great shape, but i think you have some fold equity vs btn's range. even if not on the flop, assuming bb calls (obviously better if he folds), any low turn will let you continue betting your 2-way hand where if you get raised by bb, it could force out a lot of the btn's better high hands and let you get to showdown hu. here's some equities on some of the weaker low turns for your hand:board: 87k3

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	41.46%	50,954	119,763	17,127	324,448	90,761
36%	31.17%	24,541	217,133	15,130	113,572	72,679
60%	27.37%	12,494	240,556	13,243	61,332	40,989

board: 87k6

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	39.43%	31,597	75,369	20,540	340,095	96,302
36%	31.10%	21,118	223,882	21,264	101,906	75,046
60%	29.47%	11,717	269,452	21,839	52,953	42,047

keep in mind, that bb's range is also decapitated (at least scalped), so equity sims using 36% are too pessimistic. not sure how to run these kind of equities. and forgot to mention, i cold call with this hand pre.

^The BTN opens 60% of the time, which is more than good enough for me to three-bet this hand. And knowing that, a cbet is a must.

Three-handed vs button and BB in a nine-bet pot, I don't look at this flop and think, "I have only four nut outs to half the pot so therefore it's a poor flop." I think, "I have substantial equity to the second nuts one way, a gutshot to the second nuts the other way, and am in a pot where there's no reason to think anyone has any particular nut draw, let alone both A2 and 96." Generally my approach in a shorthanded spot like this is to treat my A3 here like A2 until someone else acts like they have A2, then reevaluate. I certainly don't think I'm checking A246 here.

Is my thinking leaky?

In PPT it's not hard--just link the two endpoints with a hyphen and remember to include a percent for both of them, like so. (Button's range is also decapitated.)

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 87K3

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	44.41%	57,297	118,812	16,366	358,537	95,908
6%-36%	29.15%	18,222	216,839	15,080	90,180	71,574
6%-60%	26.44%	9,466	242,303	12,933	50,039	38,212

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 87K6

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	42.57%	35,369	70,475	21,386	381,847	97,129
6%-36%	29.18%	17,106	226,663	23,686	76,600	71,536
6%-60%	28.25%	9,172	269,227	23,490	39,989	37,424

BTW, you can copy/paste the nice table by clicking on the 2+2 link; not sure if you saw that.

I think part of what's going on here is that two pair or trips and the 2nd nut low will sometimes scoop three handed, so pairing isn't as bad as it would be in a multiway pot. Interesting that you chose hearts for "bad cards", although I was surprised changing the 6 to 6 didn't hurt us much. On the other hand, catching the 3 on the turn is a great card for us, bringing us to almost half the equity.


Limit Omaha hands are so close in value in shorthanded pots that I tend to think of any dead money as a coup. Why would you prefer the BB to stay in? Just for implied odds?

I favor cbetting this flop.

It is impossible for me to know what range of hands your opponents are actually playing here. I arbitrarily chose 36% and 50%.

At any rate, before this flop, as simulated, Hero is ahead of this field :

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ah3h4c6d	34.83%	105,734	153,506	17,014	181,838	56,488
36%	33.32%	129,096	212,241	16,216	38,573	38,763
50%	31.84%	124,456	210,138	15,455	31,361	28,922

But after this flop, as simulated, Hero is no longer ahead.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: K87

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ah3h4c6d	30.06%	40,223	86,011	15,434	231,053	70,214
36%	35.51%	106,433	241,101	15,767	55,807	49,777
50%	34.43%	104,809	249,267	16,522	39,822	35,034

The difference is probably mainly due to Hero’s initial nut heart flush draw. The main feature of Hero’s starting hand is the pre-flop nut heart flush draw. But as you can see, Hero misses this draw.

Before the flop, as simulated, Hero, lacking sufficient high card strength in his starting hand was behind for high, but ahead overall.

After the flop, as simulated, Hero picks up some value in low, but not as much as missing the hearts costs him for high.

But all is not lost! Hero, misses hearts and still lacks sufficient high card strength, but Hero does pick up the second nut low draw with counterfeit protection. Hero figures to win low about three times in eight if everyone goes to showdown. (And, Hero still figures to win or tie high about a sixth of the time).

And Hero’s out of position.

Overall, it’s not enough to show a profit if Hero plays passively.

But there are nine small bets already in the pot. If only one bet goes into the pot on the second, third, and fourth betting rounds, and both opponents stay to see the showdown, Hero will be getting 7 to 5 implied half pot odds.

I'm figuring very crudely that Hero wins half the pot half the time. And if so, Hero loses 5 small bets half the time, but wins 7 small bets (and also gets his investment back) the other half of the time.

Thus it looks to me as though Hero will show a profit here if the betting henceforth is kept down (in other words, if there are no raises). Hard to say what these goons will do, but I think the best way to hold the betting to a minimum is for Hero to bet this flop.

(And although I truly doubt either opponent will fold here, a possible bonus may be that both opponents will miraculously fold if Hero bets... or perhaps a more realistic bonus is one opponent will fold).

So even though Hero has missed with this flop, because of the money already in the pot, I think Hero should bet here, hoping to hold the betting here to one bet.

What if an opponent raises? Then my plan will be an abysmal failure... and then we “play poker”.

And whatever happens, we stay in the hand and re-evaluate after the turn.

Buzz

[edit] I did not see that AKQJ10 had posted when I posted the above. My response was to BadSeed, the Saint Petersburg based poster. [/edit]

i think you misunderstood everything i said. i didn't match all of the suits perfectly, so i kept them irrelevant by making them rainbow. and any lo cards are good for us, but the weakest are the ones that don't make straights+2nl, but instead pair+2nl. and i want the bb to fold not call, because his range is beating us.

Cbet and be in the drivers seat. By checking, we put ourselves in a tough spot. I'd rather be the one betting with this hand rather than calling. We'll have a chance to find out where we're at on the latter streets.

This is why I shouldn't post in stream of consciousness, haha.

I started out with one valid thought:

• There's no such thing as a "blank"/irrelevant suit. and generally increase the value of our hand; the pointy suits decrease the value.

So I wasn't accusing you of anything, just asserting that a is better than putting a BDFD that we don't have on board. However, when I ran the numbers, I got a surprise:

• A turn in one of the pointy suits isn't as bad as I thought. I take this to be because there's still a very good chance that neither opponent has two of that suit.

I agree. All I was saying was, the pair cards aren't as bad as I had thought. Upon reflection, that may be because two pair will often win shorthanded.

Perhaps it was unclear I was talking about our decision to three-bet or cold-call two bets pre (as were you, no?). Since BB's range before she acts at all is pretty close to any four random cards, we must be talking about different things now.

oh, yes. pre i want him in with 100%. but post i want him out because his range looks so strong compared to ours after cold calling.

yes..

while its true that our low draw still might still be best, we have to remember that we are getting CRUSHED by A2 and other A3 hands

for that reason playing it the same way you would play an A2 hand is a big mistake

i'm not a big fan of 3 betting this hand preflop to begin with, but i'm skeptical that cbetting creates value against strong opponents - if we are talking about balancing its a different conversation but i think a short-handed spot like this is mostly technical

that being said, even in the context of balanced strategies i feel like raising this hand from the sb is generally a (large) mistake

Thanks for the comment. Is not the definition of Monsters Under the Bed Syndrome (MUBS) playing as though our opponents have only the strongest part of their range? Against 11%-60% and 5%-36% I think you're cherry-picking the strongest parts of their ranges to worry about how we perform against 2A but not 4A, 32, four high cards, etc.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 87K

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	34.58%	60,834	100,777	14,726	267,899	63,354
11%-60%	32.16%	99,604	250,934	15,039	20,285	19,993
5%-36%	33.26%	96,816	226,317	14,684	52,778	48,817

Implied odds are somewhat against us as with any non-nut hands in Omaha, but I still think this is too strong to play timidly. Even in the event we bet and get raised by A2K, a hand that is crushing us (we have 22% HU) knocking out the third player, that's got to be great for us if the third player has any decent equity. But it can't happen if we play passively.

Like I said, I know we're in serious RIO in that spot, but we're also fighting for a pot that's already nine bets. IO decreases in importance as the amount already in the pot grows.

Just for argument suppose we check, BB bets, button folds, I presume we all agree it would be crazy not to at least call so we call. Now the pot is 5.5 big bets. On what sort of runouts with at least one low card are we going to check/fold either the turn or river HU? I can't think of any.

(I ask this because I'm wondering whether it matters whether there's any situation where we're not pot-tied and would like to avoid pot-tying ourselves on the flop.)

the 'monsters under the bed concept' in poker relies on hero having a very strong hand to start with - it relies on the premise that hero obtains value from the majority of villains range, and that there are only a couple (or a couple types specific types in omaha) of hands that can possibly be ahead

hero does not connect with this flop very hard at all, and is not drawing to the nut low or high so it is not an appropiate comparison




if hero check calls this flop he should probably fold on any non-low turn card

This 3b is really bad. You have practically the very definition of a hand that doesn't really want to be HU. This hand especially loves to be against the weak low hands that BB will defend but fold to the 3!
That rant aside, I c-bet this every time. He should rarely have A2 and your range should contain a lot of AKWx hands.

I don't get why, in this particular situation of a potentially HU pot, we'd turn down the compelling possibility of having dead money from the BB. Thinking statically in terms of "volume hands" and "heads up hands", without adjusting for dead money possibilities, seems like flawed thinking.

Let's consider hot and cold equity (but BB acts normally, not changing ranges to reflect the all-in nature of hot and cold):

No three-bet(0.20 small bets net equity)

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	36.72%	114,514	154,146	14,269	213,996	41,498
60%	31.94%	124,761	212,514	13,513	32,890	26,291
75%	31.34%	123,480	213,492	12,289	27,901	21,016

(0.3672 * 6) - 2 = 0.20

Three-bet (0.45 SB net equity)

85% of time we get HU

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	51.49%	214,385	255,554	14,212	254,318	26,876
60%	48.51%	203,314	330,234	14,212	39,406	26,876

Net in this case:
(0.5149 * 7) - 3 bets put in = 0.60

15% of time BB wakes up with hand. For simplicity, let's assume he 4-bet caps all:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
ah3s4c6c	30.28%	81,746	136,254	17,811	147,615	66,941
60%	31.89%	125,876	219,535	15,464	22,021	22,675
15%	37.82%	143,290	219,242	17,112	66,226	59,497

Net in this case:

(.3028 x 12) - 4 = minus 0.37

Weighted average:

.85 * 0.60 - .15 * 0.37 = 0.45

So even with a very favorable assumption that BB doesn't have a cold call range, three-bet isolating enjoys an 0.45 to 0.20 advantage.

Now let's talk about IO

We need to net 0.25 small bets versus BB alone when we win (36.7% of the time), net of the times she wins and we have to pay her off (31.34% of the time).

I think this is unlikely because:

• Hands that pay us off are a somewhat small fraction of her range. Again, we can't just decide that she has 32 or 4A. Maybe she has KK74 or 2A or a better 3A.
• 37% versus 31% is not that great an advantage in absolute terms. Poker is a game of small edges but we need to net several small bets ON AVERAGE the times we win to turn a six percentage point advantage into the 0.25 SB advantage we need.
• If you look carefully, a 75% range scoops more often than we do, even though we have the equity advantage.

(Note that I'm ignoring the button's involvement because he's already in the hand regardless of what we do.)

So, in short, my weak intuition is that IO can't make up an 0.25 SB per hand preflop disadvantage by flat calling. I'd rather get the dead money in and chop it up with the button.

I'm open to fact-based arguments why I'm wrong, though.


Long-winded mostly useless calculations.

LOL, I don't expect anyone to actually read all that but it helped convince me that I'm right about three-bet isolating being better AINEC. Please ask questions if it's unclear.

@Broadway

putting in at least 2.5 bets to steal half a blind at most (since we never have much more than 50% equity) is more profitable than calling why?

we need to make it to the river to realize our equity but we have a hand that frequently will not be able to show down and being OOP makes it even harder to maximize our win-shares



if i had to choose between only 3betting this hands and only folding this hand pre-flop in the situation OP describes i would expect always folding to show greater profits

there are valid poker arguments for wanting to cbet here but for posters with that position, there should be more analysis of how good players will play their hands from the BB and BTN

for example

The first question this statement really begs for is...

1. How often do you expect to get raised?

my guess

Because we shouldn't think in static values where "half a blind at most" doesn't sound like very much. Instead, we compare the postflop value of having the third player in to the preflop value of having her out, which I tried to estimate above. Feel free to revise my assumptions, but I think elimination is more valuable.

Leaving out the split-pot nature of the game for a second, 37% of the time we win the pot and maybe make a few bets from this player, or maybe not. 31% of the time, this third player wins a pot, and maybe makes a few bets from us, or maybe not. IMO that advantage a few percentage of the time doesn't translate into 0.25 SB expectation per hand. This would be complex to crank out but I'm willing to consider evidence arguments I'm wrong about the postflop IO of having one more player.

I don't think static reasoning where "half a blind" is treated in absolute terms is a valid way to approach this, without comparing it to the postflop expectation of leaving the third player in. How much do you estimate having a third player benefits us postflop?
How do you figure? I'm happily showing this down HU on any low board (except often a backdoor low), any three-club board, certain combo backdoor draws, and some other things. That's pretty good realization of equity compared to a lot of things we could be against, like QQ74.

I'd like to see an example of action where there's a non-backdoor low and you fold this.


But if we have trouble making it to showdown with equity HU, are we going to be happier with a second-nut low or small flush three-handed?

We're OOP three handed and OOP HU. I tend to think poor position three-handed is worse. Despite not having a protected pot, there is one more player to act behind us, the potential for raising wars, etc. Regardless, it's close to a wash. We don't suddenly get to play IP because an extra player entered the pot.

You want to argue that our IO are poor HU (against a 60% range!) but good three-handed. Why?

Based on pure intuition? I'll counter with the intuition that 3-betting this is at worst a minor error and folding this is ****ing insane.

By the way, most people wouldn't call losing 0.25 BB/hand "greater profits," but perhaps "minimizing losses." Technically it's sort of the same but a weird way to obscure how awful folding is.

But I've said my piece. If anyone has a fact-based argument why I'm wrong, I'm sincerely eager to hear it.

AKQJT i have tried to help you improve your knowledge of the L08 with my posts

for all your talk of a fact-based argument, you have showed little interest in any statistical arguments suggesting your conclusions about the best way to play this hand pre-flop or post-flop are wrong

analysis that focuses too heavily on pre-flop ranges and equities lends itself to large categorical errors postflop when we don't adjust our modeling (some of which requires very specialized tools to do well)

specifically, you seem almost blithely unaware of how easily it is for BB and BTN to punish overagressive betting patterns

you have also been extremely dismissive of the playability issues with this hand - this hand is a textbook 'pulling hand' and whatever equity fraction of the BB you think raising protects, hero can lose more money than that in a single betting round postflop

more to the point, we will have to risk more money than that fraction post-flop to protect our overall range (and we should risk money in such a manner post-flop whether we call or 3bet)



i will tell you that by far, the biggest misconception you have had in this thread is when you talked about playing a364 like it is A2xx

I would strongly suggest you use a tool like Odds oracle to examine the probability either opponent have A2 or A3 hands given all the information we know about them, including projected ranges. Once you look that over you may find yourself revisiting many of your assumptions about how profitable you should really expect this hand to be.

I like three-betting preflop if we think the BB is reasonably tight. Yes, this isn't great heads-up hand. But getting the hand heads-up not only gets dead money in the pot, but is reduces our positional disadvantage.

Moreover, the 3-bet -increases- the chance we will realize our equity and get to showdown. First, we are just generally going to be more showdown bound in a 3-bet pot. But more importantly, we have much more ability to control the pot size heads-up; this forecloses the possibility of getting whipsawed later in the hand. I think both the preflop equities and the postflop playability consideration lean toward the 3-betting.

I do think if the BB is really LAGgy you should just call.

I sincerely appreciate it.

Thanks for the feedback. I asked the question to get opinions, and I value them even when I push back. (Perhaps it looks like I'm unappreciative of the feedback, but I push back to better understand alternative arguments.)

I notice you left the hugely important qualification that no one else acts like they have A2 off. I added it back on.

My statement was a little hyperbolic, but not much. I hope your statement about folding versus 3! was very hyperbolic. If not, thank you for your input and I'll move on.

Good idea! Thanks for the suggestion. I've never learned to use OO but just DLed the trial. Looks useful.

We're against a 60% range and a 100% range. (BB is never folding any A2, but at the point where we're acting BB hasn't acted yet. BB might fold A3, but I will ignore this.)

• It's 15.27% that at least one player matches A2.
• It's 11.71% that at least one opponent (i.e., more than one player including us) matches A3.
• It's 2% that at least one player matches A23.

So, roughly speaking, 75% of the time, we're against neither A2 nor A3, and we're in the driver's seat for low. This confirms my intuition that we should not play as though we're scared of A2 or A3. Being up against those hands is somewhat costly, but not costly enough to forego the benefits of aggression in the other three-quarters of the cases.

I'm sure I'll get better at formulating queries.