PokerStars 0.25/0.50 Omaha/8 (9 handed) Poker Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with A, 2, A, 2.
UTG calls, 1 fold, Hero calls, 1 fold, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (7 SB) 6, 6, 6 (7 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button folds, SB folds, BB folds, UTG folds.

Turn: (4.50 BB) T (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero calls.

River: (6.50 BB) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

if someone has a 6 im toast, if not im good. do you take this hand to sd?

Tough call as it was played, but you possibly could have avoided this by raising pre-flop. This is a very high quality hand that definitly should have been raised pre-flop. If it was raised, it would be much harder to put your opponent on a 6, but its still obviously possible. But against 24 other cards and based on the way he played it, it's hard not to put him on the 6 here. Just my opinion.

With 6 opponents seeing the flop, someone will hold 24 out of the 45 cards you can't see, so your odds of winning are are 24:21. If there is a bet on each round, it will cost you 5 small bets, but there are already 7 small bets in the pot. You also have a backdoor low draw, which adds something. I think you have the odds to call, but I wouldn't bet the flop. If a rock comes out and bets, you might fold, but I would call to the showdown against a maniac.

I'd bet the flop and fold a non low turn.

Flop bet is a no brainer, it's nearly 50/50 that no one has a 6 and it's worth trying to pick up the 7BB pot.

Once you're bet into on the turn, you either have to call to the river or fold. Calling to the river ensures you pay off 2BB every time someone has a 6, which I think is quite likely for someone that would call the flop and then bet into you on the turn. You're risking 2BB to win 5.5BB, so he'd need to not have a 6 ~30% of the time (including suckouts). I don't like it.

Of course if the turn is a low then you have an easy call.

Hi Olrik - Hero is stuck at least calling the hand down to the showdown.

That's because if somebody bets and Hero has the winning hand, there will be at least 8 small bets in the pot at the showdown and it will only cost Hero 5 small bets to see the showdown.

Assuming at least one more bet goes into the pot, Hero will thus win at least 8 small bets 21 times out of 45.
+8*21/45=+168/45
Assuming Hero puts at least one bet into the pot each round, in a fixed-limit game, Hero will lose a total of 5 more small bets. And Hero should fully expect to lose 24 times out of 45.
-5*24/45=-120/45

Thus by calling the hand down to the showdown, Hero wins more than he loses. (Hero wins a minimum of +168/45 and only loses a maximum of -120/45).

Therefore Hero has to be in the hand to the showdown. In other words, Hero is stuck in the hand.

Some might argue, "What if somebody bets who would never bluff here?" My reply is simply, "This is poker. Your mother who loves you might bet here to try to steal the pot."

Therefore, steel yourself to be in this pot until the showdown. Steel yourself to fatalistically take the pressure.

You are not folding this hand. It would be terrible poker to fold this hand. If Jesus Christ Himself bet, confided in you that He held the missing six, told you to trust in Him, and you had never, ever ever seen Him bluff, it would be terrible poker to fold this hand.

If we're absolutely straight on that point, now the question becomes, "How can you maximize your profit?" And the answer (perhaps as always) is, "It depends on your opponents."

Hero has three players yet to act behind him. If Hero thinks one of them very well might bet if Hero checks, then Hero can check and hope somebody without the six takes the bait and bets. If so, and assuming Hero simply calls, quite possibly Villain will also bet the turn and then also bet the river in an attempt to convince Hero that Villain has the missing six. And in that case, Hero can expect to still lose 21 times out of 45, amounting to a total (in units of small bets) of
-5*24/45=-120/45. But Hero can also expect to win a whopping
+(7+5)*21/45=+252/45.

Or, if Hero thinks nobody will bet, then Hero can still check, and then can still check the turn. And then Hero can bet the river and an opponent with some lower pair might not believe Hero and Hero will win an extra big bet. Hero might very well get raised on the river if he plays the hand this way, and in that case Hero would have to call (remember we're not folding this hand) and in that case Hero would still lose 21 times out of 45, but for a total of only 4 more small bets, instead of 5. Hero would lose
-4*24/45=-96/45. But Hero can also expect to win
+(7+4)*21/45=+231/45.

If Hero bets on the second betting round and gets called, Hero has to wonder if Villain has the missing six. And then Hero has to check on the third and fourth betting rounds. Villain may bet both of these rounds, or may bet either one of them. Let's say Villain just trickily checks the hand on the third betting round and then bets the fourth betting round after Hero checks again. Remember that Hero may not fold this hand. (There's one exception. If Hero peeks in Villain's hand and clearly sees for himself the six in Villain's hand, then Hero may fold).

But let's say that Hero bets on the second betting round, Villain who checked ahead of Hero calls, and then Villain checks the third and fourth betting rounds, hoping that Hero bets again. In that case, exactly one more small bet goes into the pot.
Hero would lose
-1*24/45=-24/45. But as opposed to just checking it down all the way to the river, Hero would expect to win
+(+1)*21/45=+21/45.

Thus Hero has favorable odds to call all the way to the river, but does not actually have favorable odds to bet himself!

But don't leap to conclusions.

Although Hero does not have favorable odds to bet himself, on the river it is probably wise for Hero to bet (even with unfavorable odds). And for two reasons. <ul type="square">(1) Nobody holding a six is likely to check on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th betting rounds and an opponent without the six (but with a pair) may pay off Hero - and if not, Hero doesn't have to show his hand.
(2) No hand is an island. If Hero expects to get paid off on the river when he bets the nuts on the river, then Hero has to bet some non-nut hands on the river. Hero is going to lose 3/45 more often than he wins here, but by betting here, he may collect 45/45 on the next hand he bets with the nuts on the river.[/list]Finally, if you're fairly certain no opponent has a six but a calling station will call you down to the showdown but will not bet himself, it makes sense to bet this hand all the way to the showdown, even with unfavorable odds against the whole field.

I would generally check this hand until the river, and then I would bet the river. I think that's probably a safe bet in my games because not many seated behind me with a six in my games would check both the second and third betting rounds, and even fewer seated ahead of me would check the second, third, and fourth betting rounds. However, someone without a six might call me, especially if I waited until the fourth betting round.

In the previous paragraph I wrote "generally." Sometimes I would bet the second betting round just to see what would happen. And then I'd play from there, depending on what did happen. I could only lose a maximum of
-6*24/45=-144/45. But I would expect to win a minimum of
+(+8)*21/45=+168/45.

The key to playing this hand/flop is staying for the showdown and neither panicking because of fear nor greed.

(Whew, that was longer than I thought it would be).

Buzz

One addendum, and I think it deserves a separate post...

I reasoned for a fixed-limit game.

The reasoning for a pot-limit game would be different. If Hero doesn't bet on the second betting round, an opponent behind him may bet. And then Hero won't know if Villain has a six or not.

Hero has to find out right away if Villain holds a six.

Phil is a pot limit player. Directly betting on the second betting round in a pot limit game makes much more sense than checking because Hero has to judge as soon as possible if he is beat or not.

The difference is an opponent with a six can bet the pot on each betting round. Instead of losing a maximum of just 5 small bets by staying for the showdown, Hero could lose 63 big blinds!

It makes good sense to bet on the second betting round, hoping to win the pot outright or get information. Then if an opponent calls, it becomes a cat and mouse game.

My problem with pot limit is that it would not clear to me, if holding the pair of aces, whether I was the cat or the mouse!

Buzz

Edit: This is where short stack strategy might come into play. There are 7 big blinds in the pot. Hero expects to win 21/45 and lose 24/45.

Let's see... how about
7*21/45 + X*21/45 = X*24/45
7*21 = 3X
49 = X.

If my algebraic formulation is correct, if Hero goes all-in for 49 big blinds, and if Villain calls, then Hero figures to break even.

Thus if Hero expects Villain to call with or without the case six, Hero can go all-in for less than 49 big blinds and expect to show a profit. If Hero only has seven big blinds, it would seem an easy push. With up to 48 big blinds, it would seem an easy push.

I don't know... this is my first venture into trying to figure out how to play a short stack in a pot limit game. I could easily be missing something. Someone who knows better than I do should correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks in advance and I won't even reply.

Buzz

Nice analysis as always Buzz, but this definitely needs some love:

"You are not folding this hand. It would be terrible poker to fold this hand. If Jesus Christ Himself bet, confided in you that He held the missing six, told you to trust in Him, and you had never, ever ever seen Him bluff, it would be terrible poker to fold this hand. "

so true. signature material!!

especially on a 666 flop

I am very karmatic in that way as well.

May anyone who honestly folds this flop please PM me and we can play some heads up... i have sooo many bills that need paying

One other point on the flop is that you could be outdrawn by someone holding an overpair, so it may be a bad idea to give a free card.

One of my favorite 2P2 quotes of all time, and gladly many have already re-posted this seminal reading. Also not lost on the wise one the 666 flop making this the most ironically germane reference possible in this situation.

In LO8 I can't imagine letting this go. I think the +EV meta-implications of going to SD with this hand far outweigh the monetary losses in this scenario.

Hi Brian – Very good point.

Hero doesn’t want to give an opponent a free roll to beat him.

At least one opponent out of the six who were dealt cards and saw the flop will have one pair higher than sixes almost all of the time. Hero is (obviously) a favorite against such a hand. If an opponent has a hand with all four cards higher than a six, a hand such as KKQJ, then Villain will make quads or end up with a better full house roughly 81 times out of 820. Villain with such a hand, when Hero also has AA22, will still lose to quad sixes roughly two times out of five, and ends up winning roughly 4.6%, as simulated.

Hero still wins often enough so that folding is not an option.

A Villain with two higher pairs is more of a threat. If Hero peeked in one opponent’s hand and saw KKQQ, with five other unknown opponents who could have a six, then Hero would do best to fold. But that will only happen somewhere in the neighborhood of 3%. The other 97%, almost all of it, Hero will be up against at least one opponent who has a hand with a pair.

Hero is greatly favored over such a hand, but you’re correct that Hero doesn’t want such a hand to get a free draw to continue. If Hero allows such a hand do stay in the pot until the showdown, Hero will miss out on winning the 7 small bets already in the pot approximately 10%. The other 90%, assuming somebody with such a hand will call on the river, Hero will win an extra 2 small bets from such a hand.
2*.90-7*.10 = 1.80-.70 = +1.10 small bets.

Allowing an opponent a free card or not is a dilemma. But there’s not much Hero can do about it. If Hero bets immediately, he probably loses his customer with one over-pair. Hero still loses to quad sixes approximately half of the time, and assuming he gets raised and then faces a bet on the third and fourth betting round, he ends up losing more than he wins by not betting on the second betting round.

It’s the loss of a paying customer combined with paying more to someone with a six that hurts Hero. It’s similar to (but not exactly the same as) pulling with some nut hands, not making it too expensive, even though there is a remote chance an opponent might draw out on you.

Buzz

My analysis is based on the fact that the price changes significantly once someone calls the flop and bets into you on the turn.

Perhaps the limit games you guys play are aggressive. That hasn't been my experience in the few low stakes limit games I've played.

I don't think it's fair to base your analysis on the preflop probability of 24/45 and then not adjust it for the action in the hand. Without doing that, you certainly can't claim that folding is mathematically wrong, since you've only done a portion of the math. If you assume that the 24/45 doesn't change, then of course you can't fold.

Yeah, I don't find that people bluff very often on trip boards at the lower limit games. Mostly just maniacs.

Hi Phil - Seems like there should be a way to tell whether an opponent has the missing six or not, and then play accordingly (meaning continue if nobody has the six and fold if somebody does).

But there isn't. Or at least I don't know of a way. Here's the problem:

It's overwhelmingly likely, when Hero is dealt AA22 and the flop is 666, that at least one of six other hands with which opponents see the flop will have a pair higher than sixes.

You can probably do the math better than I can. But if anybody doesn't believe me, just take a standard 52 card deck, remove three sixes + two aces + two deuces, shuffle the cards well and deal out six hands. See for yourself.

Shuffle up and deal again. And again. Do this about twenty times. It won't take you long to see for yourself. You'll find that overwhelmingly, at least one of those six four card hands will have a pair higher than sixes. (When you take those seven cards, 6-6-6-A-A-2-2, out of a deck it's amazing how likely other dealt hands are to have pairs)!

In a real game, whoever has a hand with a pair higher than sixes will hope nobody else has a hand with the missing six. If only a few people see the flop, maybe someone with a pair lower than sixes, or maybe someone with any hand at all, will try to steal the pot.

Anybody with the missing six may decide to slow play or may bet. That same person with a pair higher than sixes may decide to check or bet.

I'll agree that some opponents are more likely to bet when they have the six than not. And some opponents who slow play the quad sixes are more likely to bet a pair (without the six) than not.

A card-stupid Tricky Dicky is more likely not to have the hand he represents when he bets. But everyone holding a hand with a pair has made a full house. If Tricky Dicky is truly card-stupid, then he may think his full house is a good hand.

A card-stupid Honest Abe is more likely to bet a hand containing the six, but also may think a full house is good here and thus may bet with or without the six.

And card-smart players are damned hard to read. Poker is a game of deception, and some of your opponents are damned good at it - regular con-men. Some of my regular opponents could steal your eye teeth. I mean they're good at deception.

However, the only way you can be drawn into their plot is by trying to read them. By deciding to stick this hand/flop out to the showdown, you take away their skills at deception.

In a fixed limit game, the most somebody can bet is whatever the limit is each round. Pot limit is much different.

I have admittedly over-simplified. For example, what is Hero to do if there is a bet, a raise, and a re-raise before the action gets to Hero? (However, that wasn't the scenario presented by Olrik, the opening poster in this thread).

Buzz

Hi I_Dunno - In lower limit games I don't think it's a matter of an opponent bluffing as much as simply not understanding what constitutes a good hand and over-playing their cards.

This is common with a pair of aces or kings. Someone misses a card of the same rank on the flop but continues with an over-pair, thinking that might be a good holding. (It generally is in Texas hold 'em, but not in loose Omaha).

Buzz

Thanks for the explanation Buzz.

Scaryyyyyyyyyyyyy