So I don't need an explanation of why it was dumb for me to have such a short-stack in a game like this. Runbad/Playbad got me there and a crazy number of hidden gems in their 3 down cards that shocked me for most of my chips. But this was the finale and confused the hell out of me. Can anyone explain or is this just donking around or people refusing to ever fold.

I'd do the hand history thing for advice but this section of the forum doesn't seem to have enough activity and I don't want to wait a month to get answers. So here is the outcome:



As you can see, on 6th street, my 4 board cards are showing 4 broadway clubs. Of course, I could be using this as a bluff, or betting hoping to catch a win on the river. But versus these guys that call with almost nothing at showdown probably half the time, that would be pretty stupid for me to do for all my chips. You'll notice, not only did I have the high hand winner with nut flush, I could river the queen of clubs (not shown on board) for royal and guaranteed win. You'll also notice that on 6th street, I have a scoop as both players have not caught a high or a low. Yet, the goddamn river gives one player a hidden (3 cards down) full house and the other a weak 8 high low hand (which I wasn't competing with).

Since the bets weren't significantly high (like normal limit) is the player to my left justified for his play on 6th figuring he likely needs to pair up again to beat my flush and can't hit low? I checked, he bet and I raised all in to which they both called. Then with 2.62 in side and 26.12 in main, there was one more bet of 2 and a call on the river. I was baffled that I had not at least chopped for half.

(Disclaimer: I prefer stud hi esp. with less players, but no games were going on, so played this where I usually take advantage of players just like this who have no winner of either going to river and will call a check/raise anyway)

I can't see the action, just the hands. But it looks to me like the other two guys started with good starting hands, and you started with an unplayable piece of trash. It's not at all surprising you got scooped and the other two chopped you up; that's what's supposed to happen most of the time.

Appreciate the response, but you couldn't be more wrong. I had the bring in, so was forced into the pot on 3rd and no one raised the extra 0.60 that would have gotten me out. Then on 4th, I have not a great hand, but a gutshot to the 9 for straight, when there was still nothing but checking. On 5th, when the action began, it started with me and I checked, despite having 2 cards for decent straight and broadway to go with a four flush.

Considering my opponents were merely showing 336r and j65ddx, not exactly expected monsters versus my draws. But, anyway, I still played pot control after that with my short stack. When I hit my hand on 6th, I KNOW I'm ahead of 56j9 and am going to be ahead of 336k unless he's rolled up with 33 for quads underneath or another hidden set that gives him a full house. The way the hand played, and the way this guy had been playing, it was very unlikely that he'd play such a strong hand so weakly. He had not only been betting out his made hands, but liked to bet and sometimes even raise when he has a big draw. So I'm pretty confident that I have not only the winning high hand (or at very worst 1 out to royal on river to beat a completely disguised pair/set/full house) but also it is impossible for EITHER of them to have a qualified low hand. So, to be honest, I wish my check/raise would have been re-raised so I could get more money in, but I was already all-in.

So in your estimation, A45ddx and 346ssx are "good starting hands" and 8jqccx is something that "deserves to be chopped up"?? Why? Because it's hi/lo? Because you certainly wouldn't be silly enough to suggest that these would be better hands than mine in a purely hi game?

Yes, in 7 stud hi lo, those two are good starting hands, and yours was not. Good starting hands are completely different in stud high than in high low.

And how were you the bring in? In stud hi lo 8 or better games, the low card brings it in.

Sorry if my initial response came across as rude, but it was the only thing that popped into my head from seeing the cards but not the action. And the action you gave given still makes no sense, so it is unlikely you will be able to get much good advice here.

I can't access the site ATM, which I will discuss if need be later on. So i can't find the actual action. Maybe I wasn't the bring-in, as you make a good point. Maybe I just decided to take a chance with $0.40 with a hand that maybe I thought could get lucky for the high and profit off of them fighting for the low. But I don't know.

I do know, however, that I basically didn't put any money in until I had a super strong high draw and then shoved when I was almost assured to have the high.

Although it's part of the reason why I prefer hi to hi/lo, I know I'm not the only one that knows the value of playing what appears to be the only high qualifier vs what could be 2 players starting with low cards. They have 4 streets to hit 2 more low cards that do NOT pair and that's IF they started with a clean 3 (which only 1 of the 2 did). They have to qualify for a low hand, and I don't have to qualify for my high hand, but it helps to have something better than q high. I've won a ton of hands at hi/lo either with them folding on the river, or calling off at showdown, having not qualified for low and paying the bet on end with pairs as low as 3 just in case my down 3 don't match my board.

It looks like they both started with 3 low cards (not just one of them). And they were both sets of low cards which can make straights, which makes them stronger. And both had two of a single suit, also a benefit.

In stud hilow, most of the best starting hands are those which can make a low, but can also can back into a high hand, which is what the guy with the full house did. Your starting hand can only realisitically make a high, and it isn't even strong in that direction, as you didn't start with a pair. Basically they each had two ways to win, where you only had one way to win. And that's not a situation you want to be in.

Chillrobs correct, your hand is 100% unplayable/complete garbage. your Stud8 starting hand selection needs improvement. only YOU played the hand incorrectly here...

Eh, I'm agreeing with you somewhat but I think you're taking it too far. Assuming he is right about me not being the bring-in because I wasn't low (which I would assume but can't verify because my account is blocked) the two of you are likely correct in that I shouldn't have clicked to call the $0.03 open. Fair enough. But my 4th street looks like a money card to me against two people who are apparently seeking the low. I KNOW I KNOW that LT +EV plays are lows that can scoop. I may be stupid, but I'm not a moron, I'm well aware of this. I think it is easy to say, seeing the outcome, that I was way off on my play here. But in Stud8 I'm seeking 2 potential "wins" from a multi-way pot. What he (surprised by me since it was all hidden and rivered) did to me and scoop is PRIME. But 2nd best moneymaker is getting the winner of one half of the pot to keep pumping up the pot with you versus the 3rd guy who is getting none. This is made even more profitable when it is unclear which of the two is getting the other half, so everyone keeps maxing out.

OBVIOUSLY there are more ways to make money in this game, even when less than 8/9 at your table. But winning without showdown because they're afraid of your up cards or doing the same because they're hitting the wrong side of 8 that they're after is totally fine. But you need a lot more of those to earn the same amount of money since, by definition, the pots are smaller when you take them down.

So I stick by my "horrible" play and was 2 unlucky river cards away from a scoop.

not trying to be a di.ck here..but your stud8 thinking, in this hand anyway, is max flawed. Theres nothing to look at you were 100% NOT the bring in...how can you not know this, yet think you can logically explain away this hand is beyond me...however, your thinking would be correct if your "scary board" was Ac2c3c4c...but, when a player is shooting for low...your board is not scary...and NOBODY is folding trip 3s on 6th to s possible Royal/flush at ANY limit...never mind at $1-$2.

You can continue to keep playing these sorta hands and see how it works out for ya...but, the outlook is grim at best.

best of luck

4th street did improve your equity.

3rd street:

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
$L$L \ 5d	37.22%	122,644	188,152	276	187,091	921
$L$L \ 6s	37.77%	124,148	191,312	277	183,839	919
qd8cjc	25.00%	71,398	220,237	45	9,004	82

4th street:

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
$L$L \ 5d6h	34.00%	82,819	145,645	816	227,623	3,103
$L$L \ 6s3s	36.28%	90,674	151,899	815	246,310	3,103
qd8cjctc	29.73%	55,098	301,638	5	0	0

so, on 3rd street...do we really wanna being playin 3 way pots where are equity is only 25%? and 29.73% on 4th? im not very good at translating these equity charts

No, you don't want to play a hand with that low equity. And especially when it is a igh-only hand, which makes it easier to read and makes your implied odds worse.

kinda thought 25/29% in a 3 way pot is rather crappy...but, im not a math guy

Who cares about 3rd and 4th street?

I already admitted that I made a mistake to enter the pot in the first place (on 3rd) clearly not the bring in, don't know why I called the $0.40. Perhaps it was a misclick or just a terrible mistake. 4th street improved, but there was no betting, so it was pointless. I called a single bet on 5th, where I'm feeling pretty confident about the high. Called another single bet on 6th. I forget what betting was on 7th, but after I hit the flush I felt pretty good about it, especially with the redraw to the royal.

Feel free to say no one ever folds 3 of a kind vs what appears to better for high, but two things: 1) The randomizer before showing hands means he could have just as easily had two pair as opposed to 3 of a kind. 2) I lost a bunch of money yesterday starting with QQQ and QQQ88 on 5th that didn't improve to a guy that apparently started with 44x and was going for the low (7 high) which he missed but backed into runner runner quad 4s to take it all down. Kind of hard IMO to think a full house is no good when board shows no pairs.

Who cares about the results, or if your opponents played their hands the way they should have?

The only benefit to posting in this forum is to improve your own play. The way you could have improved your play (and the results, in this case) would have been to fold on 3rd street. None of the other discussion is relevant. What other specific advice do you want? Hints on how to avoid being drawn out on?

If you are just looking to tell a sob story, BBV is that way
<-------------

It's not a sob story, although may seem that way because I lost. If you're like me (and assume most of you are) you've played tons and tons of hands. Are any of you going to honestly say you're never made a poor decision to start a hand before, for whatever reason? It loses the point to say the decision is to fold on 3rd and the rest doesn't matter. The only time an initial bad decision affects "good" future play is the old adage "don't throw good money away after bad," which I don't think applies here. Most of the time here, based on how small the bets, when they came and my board vs theirs I'm almost always going to think I stand a good chance at half the pot. Obviously I didn't feel super confident in it, otherwise, I'd be raising here to build the pot if I'm good for half with 3 in. If I was being "results oriented" I would simply focus on the fact that I already pointed out that BOTH hands needed the river to beat me.

So what exactly are you focusing on then? Do you have a question? Looking for advice your play after 3rd street?

It's tough to say, since we can't see the action or the pot size, but if it was not raised on 3rd and not bet on 4th, you probably should have folded on 5th street.

On 6th street, you should have bet yourself instead of going for a check-raise with your last partial bet. It would be easy enough to get that in on 7th street anyway, so there was no benefit to the tricky play.

ding ding ding...if not looking for advice on how he cldve played this hand better, and adamantly defending his play...the ONLY other thing he can possibly trying for...is a sympathy post...poor poor me....and that just doesnt hold water here lolol...cant start a hand on 6th street...all hands start with the 1st 3 cards in stud8

It's really important to have the hand history here. The up cards the other four players folded are vital to understanding the play of the hand.

Also, stud-8 is a trap for players who bring stud-high thinking to the table, and has always been intended to function thus.

"Who cares about 3rd and 4th street?"

Anyone who wants to get better at Stud 8. It's an extremely difficult game to master and these two streets are probably half the battle.

Actually 4/7th of the battle when combined, to be specific, which is considered by most master math experts as more than half.

But in my not so humble opinion, bad regs in stud 8 think 3 low on 4th is fantastic to continue and possibly even bet/call. It's the same improper thinking behind AQo-AKs in NLHE and calling all of THAT off on the turn vs what is clearly at least a pair (giving you up to 25% to win, for the mathletes out there).

I'm going to quote myself and add to my comment because reading it made me realize average members won't even see my point. If you have 3 low cards on 4th, you need 67% (2/3 - tough math) of the remaining cards coming your way to not only be 8 or less (which can be 50/50 on each, but less in this example) but ALSO not pair the lows you already have, unless you think maybe that pair of 3s is gonna scoop it for you. The play is idiotic, plain and simple. Betting this on 4th would be bad enough (they did not) but missing on 5th and still continuing is LITERALLY playing for runner runner. Go play Crazy Pineapple, Chinese, or something else just as stupid if you're going to be an idiot and somehow find the win.

3 low and a brick is not a good hand on 4th street. However, neither of your opponents had that. One had 4 low, and one had 3 low + pair. Both of those hands are better than 4 unpaired high cards.

Regardless, you're never going to get better by just focusing on how badly your opponents play. Most opponents play badly, and that's good for us. They also sometimes still get lucky and win, which is also good for us (in the long run), because if they never won, they mostly would quit poker.

All you can do is focus on your own play, and how to improve it.

Totally agree with all that except that 3 low+pair being good. I think continuing with it gets you in more trouble than good. Even above average players will overvalue that hand in this spot.

So then 5th street? Luckbox takes the lead with hidden trips and the other now has 4 low and no draws. That's where the action actually began. Here I have 4 to nut flush and a gutshot. Odds are against P1 having 1 (or even 2) 3s hidden. So he's got a shot to to overtake me.

But 6th street? It should be over, I feel both should fold. I've got 4 to a royal flush on board. Considering my action, I at least have a nut flush or am bluffing? His "full house draw" would be moot if I've got royal. The other player "bricked" his low draw again.

Eh, whatever.

3 low plus pair isn't a great hand, but it's better than yours was on 4th, and as you said, it wasn't bet anyway. Trips on 5th (with backdoor low draw) certainly is a good hand.

You should have folded on 3rd and again on 5th. Maybe low hand should have folded 6th, it was a small pot. And maybe your board looked scary, but you had never bet it, so guy with trips is going to bet again, I might have as well. and of course they can't fold to a partial all-in raise.

But again, it doesn't help you any to focus on their mistakes, so why even mention them?

Except for, Yay! I'm playing against people who make mistakes!