Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 9 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

MP1 posts a big blind (1 SB)

Pre Flop: (2.4 SB) Hero is BB with 3 8 6 T
3 folds, MP1 checks, 2 folds, BTN calls, SB calls, Hero checks

Flop: (4 SB) A 4 5 (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, BTN checks

Turn: (2 BB) K (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, BTN checks

River: (2 BB) J (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, BTN checks


Were did I should I bet here for value (or maybe semi bluffing)?
no reads but most likley all are very loose passive player

You have to at least bet the turn when it gets checked around. As played on the flop, I bet both turn and river.

The check on the flop is fine. I hate this spot/love this spot for you because, if you bet the flop, and someone just calls you, you won't know if they're calling with A's/A's up (which is definitely a very likely hand for someone to hold), or, the wheel. So, your low is either good vs. their hand, or you're toast and you'll need help. So, betting this the flop probably isn't going to tell you much, but OTOH, by betting, you may be able to win the pot right there because someone might figure that you already have the wheel.

My line is probably: Bet flop (see what happens) maybe check turn, but definitely bet the river especially if both rounds went by for a check. You may get someone to pay you off with a hand that they might not have felt confident enough to bet for themselves, and those are the calls that you're looking to collect from. Because this game (or at least this particualr hand anyway) seems so passive, you should expect them to bluff less on the river, so the way I see it, you're only chance to make some $ is to bet. Checking on all 3 rounds is just way too passive and if someone calls you and beats you, well I'm sure you'd be good for at least one side of the pot, so.

The river, for certain.

Hero is looking at six clubs with three opponents. Assuming the opponents have at least average starting hands, as simulated Hero is hugely ahead:
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...5&h4=50%25&h5=

From the action, it doesn't look like anyone has much for either high or low.

On the turn, as simulated, also against three opponents with at least average starting hands, Hero also has enough of an edge to bet.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...5&h4=50%25&h5=

I'd bet the flop, myself. Since the turn is not a good card for Hero, Hero must have more of an edge after the flop than after the turn.

The three opponents have twelve cards between them all and on the river Hero can see nine cards, including 6 clubs. The probability any of the three opponents has A, K, and/or Q on the river is about 0.636
(from 1-29*30*31/43/42/41). But then someone with one of those cards needs a second club (or two more, or three more clubs), and the probability of that is 4340/11480 = ~0.378

Then 0.636*0.378=~0.240. That's as quickly calculated.

Thus it's about three to one on the river that none of these three opponents has a higher club flush, assuming random cards for them all. I'll check that with a Wilson simulation. (The only way Hero can lose high here is to a higher club flush). In the Wilson simulation, against three random hands, Hero wins high 75523 times and loses high 24477 times.

So, yeah, looks like my calculation is close enough and probably correct.

At any rate, on the river, it seems Hero figures to win high about three times as often as he figures to lose. Hero might get raised if he bets, but will have to call because of the pot size and because the raise could easily be from a worse hand. But assuming no raises, Hero should get paid off by various lesser hands more often than he loses.

On the low end, as simulated, Hero loses to nut low 20387 times and loses to 2nd nut low 14877 times. Hero wins (and doesn't share) low 54532 times and ties for low 10204 times. Hopefully that all adds up to 100,000, the number of simulation runs specified on Wilson. That's about how almost any third nut low hand would fare against three opponents with random cards.

But it's not the same as Hero, starting out after an aceless, deuceless flop would fare against three of eight original opponents. That would be more like playing against the best two or three low starting hands of eight that saw the flop. But with an ace on the flop, the pre-flop nut low and second nut low starting hands were immediately counterfeited by the ace on the flop.

Against real opponents, who should be more inclined to play starting hands with aces rather than 2-3-Y-Z, 2-6-Y-Z, or 3-6-Y-Z starting hands, Hero should fare even better for low, and probably better for high as well.

Hero should never be playing this (poor) starting hand from any position but the big blind in a full game, but catches a rather nice fit with the flop, and then gets a very nice card on the river. (This sort of opportunistic situation is the main reason, in my humble opinion, to try to establish a reputation for defending your big blind).

Exactly how best to play it rather depends on one's opponents, but Hero should definitely bet this river in this situation. And having gotten to the river with any other betting scenario, Hero should probably call a river bet.

Buzz

At least bet the river.

I would stab at the turn (if the limit were higher, but since it is so low I think we have minimal fold-equity if any) considering that flop was checked around.
the fact that it was checked around on the flop tells me that nobody has a wheel or a decent low, which means that hero's low may very well be best. The flush draw adds a bit of equity for hero. If anyone has that A high FD then they will be betting for sure.

I dont know as i necessarily agree with this line against all opponents at all times-- its true we're not likely to be up against a higher flush for the reasons stated, but from a sheer card odds perspective we are even less likely to be up against a lower flush (our opponent would need two or more of the 2c 3c 7c 9c _and_ none of the Ac Kc Qc). and its difficult to imagine much besides a lower flush calling us. A set calls us probably, but i just cant see any set but jacks getting to the river without betting.

I think we show a positive expectation on a river bet here. However, i think its a very small one. Its difficult to imagine we're doing any better than break even if we only get called in one place. If some or all of the other players in the hand are very loose (i imagine they are at .25/.5), i might toss in a bet hoping to get called by a variety of bad lows that hope youre betting high and AJ AK jjj type hands... but against opponents who play well its difficult to imagine a situation where i get called and scoop unless a worse flush that does not make a better low is out there. Even if youre never beat when you get called, I think 15 times out of 20 you bet and take the whole pot, and 4 times out of the remaining 5 you get looked up by the 64 and break even.

In a tighter game, especially one that is more aggressive, i think a more profitable line is checking to induce a bluff or thin value bet. If i knew one of the two players in position liked to bet either as a bluff to pick up small pots on the river when no one has shown strength and a scary card hits or with thin hi value, however, i would check with the intention of check raising here. Im willing to risk the possibility of it getting checked through because in situations where it does get chekced through i don't think my bet would have ever been called.

To my way of thinking, its much easier for a hand like QTxx, AJxx, or AKxx jjxx with no or a bad low to bet the river here for hi value and low bluff (figuring that they would have heard from a wheel or a FD by now)than it is for the same hand to call a bet. Given the size of the pot i dont call w any of those hands on the river, but i might bet any of them if i didnt have a low to maybe get rid of something ridic like 82xx or 72xx thats going to take half the pot if it gets checked through.

As a side note, i definitely do lead out on the flop in almost all cases, unless the game is very loose aggressive, in which case i check with the intention of raising.... I check call the turn in every case and play the river according ot the specifications above.

Good point. If Hero is up against a flush, it is more likely than not a higher flush. It's close to three to one that if an opponent has a flush, it's better than Hero's. An opponent could figure a bet from Hero as representing a low hand and call with two pairs or a set. There's also an ace high straight possible. (I agree with you that a set is not likely with this passive betting - but it's still a possibility, not out of the question at all).

With no betting on the second and third betting rounds, an opponent could make a straight, a set or two pairs on the river and decide to call, or even raise.
I guess small and large is relative. To me Hero's advantage in e.v. seems huge! I strongly disagree. There's another strong reason to bet this river: there's always the possibility that if Hero bets, a villain will fold a better low or a better flush. However if Hero doesn't bet, that's impossible.
Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.
That's where we differ. Especially after two rounds of checking, I think Hero's bet is going to get called more than you do.
I think this is highly opponent dependent.
Hero's opponents may not be as astute as you.

Buzz

At this level many people have no idea how to play. I recently started playing some limit O8 at low level and have been consistently amazed at how often I scoop with marginal hands. Bet that river and don't be surprised to be called by at least two players and still scoop.