What are the best starting hands in 5 card omaha? PLEASE ANSWER!

AQT732 double suited


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AAJJTds

Super connected hands that connect to flops in a really nutted way; hands that flop top set more often, nut flush draws and dominating straight draws / wraps.

DS AAxxx with really connected side cards like QJT for example are super premium because all of its components are nutted when they connect with boards.

Hands that contain any combination of low cards are usually going to be weak because your 2p/ trips and by extension full houses will be dominated, your straight draws will easily be dominated (drawing to non nut hands) and of course the low flush draws.

The AQT732 mentioned above is a weak hand and would be going in the muck.

AAJJTds is a good example of a strong hand with nut components.

There is a continuum between heads up and multiway way also effect by the position (all vs player stats ofc).

A potential example is getting more multiway and higher SPR straight orientated hands like QJT76 and actually OOP can be better than aces.

Aces are generally weaker in 5card than their 4card counterparts and straights are stronger (They are more likely the nuts fist pumps in 4 card than in 5 card).

I don't know what the best starting hand is for sure but I guess it would be an AAKK* or AAJT* combination like in 4 card. Maybe the rundowns are super strong though for some kind of exponential reason.

I am no where near perfect at 5card I just play the mtts on stars every now and then.

You can learn some things about the game by looking at equity calcs. Example:

ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results
5-card Omaha Hi, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 AA
PLAYER_2 QsJsTd9d8h
600000 trials (randomized)


All-in Equity

	Equity %	Wins Hi %	Ties Hi %	Wins Hi Count	Ties Hi Count
AA	53.3749%	52.9055%	0.9388%	317433	5633
QsJsTd9d8h	46.6251%	46.1557%	0.9388%	276934	5633

Omaha Hi, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 AA
PLAYER_2 QsJsTd9d
600000 trials (randomized)


All-in Equity

	Equity %	Wins Hi %	Ties Hi %	Wins Hi Count	Ties Hi Count
AA	58.3220%	58.1760%	0.2920%	349056	1752
QsJsTd9d	41.6780%	41.5320%	0.2920%	249192	1752

The suited value of those non-nut suits should go down in 5-card PLO, but the straights are probably better by more than enough to make up for that.

As far as the main question goes, the ultra-premium hands should be things like:

- AAKKx/AAQQx/AAJJx types ds to both aces, and preferably with the other card being very nearby.
- AAJT9/AAKQJ/AAQJT types, dsbA.

Interestingly, AAJT9 dsbA has 2% more equity vs. a random hand than AAKKQ with the same suits.

Some PPT five-card PLO rankings are at the bottom of this page. Would take the exact ordering with a big grain of salt, since it also doesn't say much about playability.

The person playing that hand, would also probably be going into the muck in an alley behind the casino, since they slippped a 6th card into their 5 card hand.

One reference point teaches very little and everybody knows basic reference points nowadays. The AAJT9 being better is representative of straights being stronger than pairs more so in 5 card than 4card. You conclude with the point about play-ability. The more cards and depth and position ou have the more important this is and it twists everything to such a massive degree that that is where the edge is to beat rake. I can only represent this graphically/geometrically. A simpler way maybe to try and see the deck concentrations in terms of their height, in 5 card the breadth becomes more prominent than height . Reg fish get stuck looking at their hand and applying singular reference points with a small edge

wat?

mt fish noob, thinking of thoughts from 3042 while we are still poasting like it's 2017.

graphs or it didn't happen mtfishnoob

looooool, he's back

I don't want to read. I don't want to disturb my mind

FFS

Please explain...

So there are many ways to visualize equity (or rank, power, strength etc). I call the reference points that most people use 'digital', they are fixed positions. I don't know what cognitive processes people use, I have been through many, they are generally split into linguistic form (interpreting a spot using narrative means 'I'm winning or 'im losing'), or number form, or both. When it comes to numbers I think every player would have a hard time actualyl defining what they are doing in their conscious. Different cognitive methods require different amounts of time, thought/IQ and conclude to differing values in terms of accuracy and your own actions.

AS for the example I mentioned of picturing the height, I think this is the easiest and simplest method. If you have AAJTds and you see a guy opening 75% and he is in CO and you are on BTN, you can imagine a 'bar chart' and clearly our bar is much higher than CO. The difference between them is the edge, we raise the edge of course here. The fixed point would be an axis of ten in value, and our bar is 7 whilst the other guys is 3. The actual bar is much higher though due to rank and positional weakness with money behind A sicko may known he is against premium aces at some point and see the escape holes which can reverse a gradient which is where the poker is. The gradient would be 20 ( strength - breakeven = 70-50) This is a simple dimension, in reality what occurs in a visual model is far more complex and through practice you don't even need the graphic because you just get different feelings relating to your perception of cost:reward and this is why you might get a bit excited with AA in NLHE vs 4 shoves or feel dread when you have KK and the nittiest of SBs ambushes with 450bb.

It expands into seeing the flop (which is actually the whole remaining deck), having our own and villain range as a dimensions, action on further streets/predictability and so forth - it is virtually infinitely complex and it seems to me that visual data is the only way for the brain to store and represent such complex algorithms and this is why people can remember pages of binary and do insane calculations.

It ultimately relates to minimax theorem, which solves all games. I hardly play 5 card but I guess I still have it mastered because it's the same game just a slightly different spread on it's axis and I can play horse mixed games pretty well because you just visualize **** instead of referring to fixed reference points and 'gto' solutions.

You may have to be slightly psychotic or autistic to understand this, virtually everyone is an eventual fish afterall. I don't know how to use linguistic models to represent graphical and geometric which has unknown or abstract values.

I get now the height reference, but without the context of the bar chart it didnt make much sense.

I can semi-grasp the edges of what you are talking about but by no way understand it or would be able to use it as a conscious method to process information. Visualising data in that non-linear way I think (no professional knowledge) is typical to say those with autism. Really ****ing interesting though, even if basically incomprehensible to most people (including me).

Or a incredible troll.

The problem with words. Height is synonymous with edge, advantage, vision, capacity, i.e when seen through a context of combat. I used to use the term 'weight' and it had the same problem. Weight is more the emotional platform to represent information and height is more visual.

What does 'sick' mean.

There is a troll entity, but it's not me it's the constructors of language and the ironic omnipotent puller of strings. If it wasn't for this troll I would likely be too selfish to speak.

are you ike haxton

First off it's hard to take you seriously when your beginning and ending sentences to the paragraph are basically just verbose condescension.

That aside, there's so much to respond to here, but I just wanted to pick up on something...

One reference point teaches very little

I think I agree with you on ^this statement (to the extent that I understand what you're saying), but...

in reality what occurs in a visual model is far more complex and through practice you don't even need the graphic because you just get different feelings relating to your perception of cost:reward and this is why you might get a bit excited with AA in NLHE vs 4 shoves or feel dread when you have KK and the nittiest of SBs ambushes with 450bb.

...Aren't those "feelings" you "just get" essentially an accumulation of knowledge from what you call "reference points"? The intuitive understanding of what spots are profitable/unprofitable that experienced/skilled players get when playing can be understood as a wealth of accumulated/learned knowledge of individually insignificant information, yeah? (Insignificant isn't exactly the right word but you get what I mean, discrete bits of knowledge relating to specific equities of specific hands vs. other specific hands on a specific board texture. This information alone doesn't do much for your poker game).

Honestly I hardly understand my own thoughts and the more back and forth there is the more skewed it gets.

those "feelings" you "just get"

understood as a wealth of accumulated/learned knowledge of individually insignificant information

This is more true when observing a spot that is solved and there is only one possible solution. Because we are looking at incomplete information - where the cards are , what behaviors will occur going forwards... Feelings will change as a spot is calculated. Feelings may even paint the spot. So it is part of the sum. Your question seems to delve into determinism/freewill. The rest of the sum is what you build on the past I guess, or what further light you can shed int he fog of war. And then that model is tested, light is shown by result, and becomes the past. My point here is that there is all this historical reference but then there is the observer of that and also the observer of the fog of war- ie the next street, current dynamic. Has there been change? Change is certainly felt. Feelings are probably comprised of absolute change.

Feelings are used as a measure apparatus and can make people think they are psychic. When it comes to feelings my head is really ****ed up to be honest in a grandiose sense. Like you know which box the 1 milly is in out of 3 random boxes. Knowing which combinations an opponent has and then trying to find the weight pivots within those combinations is also crazy. I try to entertain it though every now and then event though I know I am basically deluded.

So in short I do not use feelings in valuation of hands but I may use them in valuation of myself and my actions, and other peoples. Again, feelings is more akin to 'weight'. I have opted to always choose the easiest and lightest route in my decisions, basically folding when I'm moving uphill but still re raising when it feels easy and that will include snap bluffs and the like.

Feelings can also be the sense of inertia, and momentum (frequency of win cycles) a spot has can also be felt. You use your knowledge of your sense of inertia as a platform to store the variables in a game. (i suspect Dwan used to use this method alot but **** knows) I think that people are bias to use color as a method of valuing opponents. Our minds can use abstract concepts in a representative manner of real terms and values. There are people at poker tables who are trying to see peoples auras but they don't tell people because they know they are crazy.

My game is basically ****ed because I have learned too many methods of decision making that I can't decide which is best. My semantics all change also as soon as I make a mistake which can be from every few minutes to lasting months with a solid game. All I know is linguistic/narrative methods are no good. Too slow. Deciding between graphic and feeling is causing me insane dissonance.

I write stoned by the way, limits my expression to differing amounts and I make no sense in 95% of my ramblings- apologies. I might come back to this topic with fire brain i.e I haven't smoked or relieved my energies in a few days. Just for the contrast.

Double suited Aces with 3-card rundowns (AAKQJ...876)
Suited Ace with 4-card rundown
5-card rundowns.