It's a good question. But I cannot tell you exactly how I would play without having more information than just the hand and the board.

No... Why would I feel I had "achieved" something?

I don't think I was getting at anything. You asked "Is this some kind of a level? If not, please elaborate..." And I politely answered and elaborated.

You and I evidently have different styles of play.

I agree.

Buzz

You, on the other hand, do not surprise me.

Buzz

I don't think Buzz is communicating what I think he thinks he's communicating. (How's that for a level?)

I think what Buzz is saying is that while it was "okay" to get in the money as a 55% preflop favorite, in 5-card Omaha hi-lo, after the flop, you are much more likely to get your money in as a *significant* favorite, rather than a slight one.

That is, should you give up a 55% edge preflop for the chance to have a 70%, 80%, or even 100% edge postflop?

In this hand in particular, the only reason I got it in was because A) I knew I had the preflop second nuts (the nuts being AA234ds) and B) Villain did something *very* rare for the table - he 3-bet pre to a point where I *could* get my entire stack in preflop. If we were deeper - to the point where a 4-bet wouldn't be pot-committing, I think I just flat call.

I haven't read further than your first paragraph. You got me laughing with that first sentence. And I think part of the reason is there's a lot of truth to it. I'll often write something in response and then get some kind of flack which leads me to believe I haven't expressed my thoughts well.

Who are you leveling? if it's me, it seems like a good level.

Not exactly, but I agree with that statement.

I was thinking specifically about later betting rounds on the same hand.

Don't get me wrong. I do favor pushing all-in pre-flop on some occasions... but it's more as a bullying tactic (when I think bullying will work) than as a wisely played tactic.

The situation changes in Omaha-8 when more possible cards are revealed on the common board. You can be ahead, then behind, then ahead again, then behind again. Or you can be ahead up to the river, and then behind (or behind up to the river, and then ahead). Or you can be ahead or behind all the way to the showdown. (I haven't listed all the possibilities, but I think you get the idea).

The reason the situation changes much more as the five card common board enfolds than in Texas hold 'em is two fold. First there's the high/low split aspect of Omaha-8. Then there's the four-cards-in-hand (rather than two-cards) aspect of Omaha-8... in other words you have more ways to connect with the board in Omaha-8 than in Texas hold 'em.

That, but more than just that. Do you want to be a favorite pre-flop and then an underdog post-flop? I think you get a pretty good idea of where you stand after you have seen the flop... a much better idea of where you stand than before you have seen the flop. And I think that's truer in Omaha-8 than in Texas hold 'em.

Interesting.

Buzz

I would like to point out that you have the hands wrong. The "bad guy" in that hand had A2QTT suited in clubs and spades.

I see this is your first post.

Welcome to the forum.

propokertools simulation
5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo
850,668 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AhAd2h3s4c	56.13%	304,655	438,973	12,725	175,589	258,591
Ac2c8h9sQs	43.87%	207,496	398,970	12,725	5,697	258,591

850,668 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AhAd2h3s4c	58.72%	297,526	492,458	13,632	185,040	282,912
Ac2cThTsQs	41.28%	208,785	344,578	13,632	0	282,912

Interesting. Although the hand with the pair of tens in inherently slightly better, the hand with the pair of tens does more poorly than the hand with the nine and the eight in these simulations. (I'm not sure I've got the suits quite right).

At any rate, thanks for the correction and welcome to the forum.

Buzz

Hey OP,

Please post stack sizes and preflop action leading to the shove. I assume that if you were able to 4bet aipf there must have been some callers in between.

In another thread he insisted that a profit of $5 was actually a loss , if you could have made $6 instead by another means. I still haven't recovered mentally from that argument..

Did I do that?

If Hero would have made a profit of $6 by following a different path, and if the risk was not greater following that different path, and if nothing would have been harmed by following that different path, then doesn't it seem Hero would have done better by following that different path?

I guess I have recovered, because offhand I can't recall that argument.

Just to be clear, I think a profit of $5 is a profit of $5, not a loss.

Buzz

Hmmm i think i know what buzz is saying, say we are playing hu 100bb and we get it all in pre we have an expectation in the hand of +10bb. I presume he is saying that by not 3/4/5betting preflop as these are only actions relevant in the situation he may be able to play the hand for +10bb> post flop making it the superior play.

It's so easy to overestimate your "post-flop edge". Thinking that you can have a +10bb edge post-flop is pretty lol unless villain is horribad.

10bb per hand is 1000bb/100 btw.

i didnt say i agree, just saying thats what i think he is saying.

AA234 is a very nice starting hand, a premium starting hand. I expect if I were dealt that hand a million times, I'd show a profit with it.

But I would not expect to show a profit with it every time.

Some times the five card board on the river would be such that AA234s would lose.

You can see three of the five cards that will be on the board after the flop. Just seeing those first three cards will often give you a reasonable estimation of what you can expect. You certainly have a better idea of what to expect after you've seen the flop than before you've seen the flop. And then you have an even better idea of what to expect after the turn.

Your opponents also have additional information after the flop and after the turn. Who can utilize this information better, you or your opponents?

It may turn out that your edge is increased after the flop. And in that case, if you took a chance before the flop and invested all you have, you're in great shape. If you're a 3 to 2 pre-flop favorite, let's say this happens about three times out of five. (It's not quite 3/5, because the turn and the river also become involved).

But it may also turn out that your edge is decreased after the flop to the extent that you become the underdog. When you're a 3 to 2 pre-flop favorite, let's say this only happens about two times out of five. (It's not quite 2/5, because the turn and the river also become involved).

Or it may turn out that your edge is increased after the turn. And in that case, if you took a chance before the flop and invested all you have, again, you're in great shape. If you're a 3 to 2 pre-flop favorite, let's say this happens about three times out of five.

But it may also turn out that your edge is decreased after the turn. When you're a 3 to 2 pre-flop favorite, let's say this only happens about two times out of five.

You're playing the game and your opponents are also playing the game. As more cards are seen, more information is available to everybody. As more action takes place, more information is available to everybody. Who can utilize this information better, you or your opponents?

I believe if your opponents can utilize this information as well as or better than you, then you might do well to get all your money in before the flop when you're pre-flop favorite, and I'll acknowledge that you clearly would almost surely be a pre-flop favorite if holding
AA234.

However, if you can utilize this addition post-flop and post-turn information better than your opponents, in my humble opinion, it makes sense to not get all your money in the pot before the flop, even though you're almost surely a pre-flop favorite.

A lot of posters seem to disagree with me. And that's fine. The idea of this forum is to discuss matters about which we disagree and try to reach the truth or at least come to a better understanding. But if you disagree with me, please don't "LOL" or "WHERE DO YOU PLAY POKER, CAN I PLAY TOO," or "Is this some kind of a level?"

Please give a logical counterargument if you disagree.

Thanks.

• And one last thing: I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of odds if you think you should "get it all in" when you have an edge before the action is completed. Split pots in Omaha-8 greatly complicate this, but without the split pot, when you have a 3 to 2 edge, on the average, you'll go broke if you plan to get it all in just twice.
  
  To avoid going broke, you need to win both times.
  The first time you're all-in, you survive 3/5 and bust out 2/5.
  The second time you're all-in, of the 3/5 you survived, you survive another
  3/5 and bust out another 2/5. Thus you're out a total of 64%. (You only survive 36%).
  Here's the math. It's not deep.
  2/5+(3/5)*(2/5)=0.64

Buzz

Your math is taking your equity as your survival % which isnt true, if your equity is 60% with this hand it does not mean you will go broke 40%. Its going to be more like 20% that you get scooped, so only about 1/3 the time will you go broke after 2 hands. Its going to take some pretty redic heavy ICM situations for this to not be the best $ev line.

When looking at cash games playing deeper going broke is irrelevant.

You're right. I thought I somewhere included something about the difficulty or confusion of split pots in using equities.

I don't know what per cent you'll get scooped. If you get scooped 20%, then after going all in twice, you go bust only 36%
1/5+4/5*1/5=0.36
And then after going all-in three times,
0.36+.64*1/5=0.488, you go bust roughly half (48.8%) of the time.
And then, after going all-in four times,
0.488+.512*1/5=0.5904, and you should expect to go bust roughly three times out of five.

Thus if you only get scooped 20%, you can expect to survive longer by going all-in every time you have an edge.

I don't know. For me survival is one of the keys to winning multi-table tournaments. I don't want to go all-in and take the risk of going bust until I get to the final table. Some individuals seem to do better by taking risks and ending up at the final table with the most chips. But that isn't, and never was, my style. Of course I prefer to have the chip lead at the final table, but for me that's second place to surviving.

Meh.

Maybe for you.

But I'm one of those people for whom the pain of losing is greater than the joy of winning.

I do, however, see your point.

Buzz