No reads on villains. Obviously when villain 4-bets I'm thinking this is bad, but is the 3-bet before that awful?

Full Tilt Limit Omaha, $4.00 BB (8 handed) - Full-Tilt Hand Converter from HandHistoryConverter.com

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q, A, K, 9
UTG calls, Hero calls, MP1 calls, 1 fold, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB checks

Flop: (7 SB) K, Q, 9 (7 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets, 3 folds, SB calls, 1 fold, UTG calls

Turn: (5 BB) A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG calls, Hero calls

River: (8 BB) Q (3 players)
SB bets, UTG raises, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, UTG caps, Hero calls

Total pot: $68 (17 BB) | Rake: $3

I think, in order for that to be awful, you would have to know that 1) villian had the last 2 Ks or As in the deck and b) he would limp them UTG.

How can you know that, against 2 unknowns? and with your bet on the turn, repping a str8, if SB is betting a better one, UTG thinks his KQ is da nutz, that would be a more likely explanation than UTG had KK or AA. Twice as likely to be KQ than AA or KK, if I did the math right.

Myself, I tend not to raise heavy action in front of me without #1, but I don't do this for a living, so take that for what it's worth.

Regards

Gar

3-bet's a money loser. even more so in a full-ring.

No. My guess is SB probably makes a Broadway (ace high straight) on the turn, and then aggressively bets it for value on the river even though the board has paired. Another possibility is SB is simply bluffing. Either way, when UTG raises and you continue, whether or not you re-raise, you probably lose SB.

So it's just a matter of you or UTG. Looks like UTG has a full house, but how good is it? (rhetorical)

There are always six possible full houses when the board pairs. In this case they are (listed in order of best down to worst):
AAAQQ,
KKKQQ,
AAQQQ,
KKQQQ,
QQQ99, and
QQ999.

Yours is third from the top. Crudely, considering all the cards you can see, here are the relative number of ways Villain could have any of these:

AAAQQ, 1 way (Villain needs both of the missing aces),
KKKQQ, 1 way (Villain needs both of the missing kings),
AAQQQ, 2 ways (Villain needs one of two missing aces and the case queen),
KKQQQ, 2 ways (Villain needs one of two missing kings and the case queen),
QQQ99, 2 ways (Villain needs one of two missing nines and the case queen), and
QQ999 1 way (Villain needs both of the missing nines).

Before Villain caps, he could have any of these (or none of them). It's seven to two that if he has a full house it's not better than Hero's full house.

It's only after Villain caps that you get the sickening feeling he's got one of the top two. (But of course you have to call in case he doesn't).

Buzz

If Villain is the type who would only raise with the nuts, assuming he has AAYZ, he also needs the case queen (AAQZ) to know he has the nuts. Three exact cards is a very unlikely hand.

I think that this is a split pot between you and UTG. The SB has broadway given how he played his hand. I would think that if UTG had kings up or a set he would have bet the flop. At this limit who knows, but his call on the flop and raise on the river leads me to believe he has AQJx or AQTx. I would flat call on the river to keep the SB in.

Nevermind what I said. I didn't pay attention to the 3 folds. In this case UTG can have a much wider range of hands and Buzz's analysis is solid.

this is 8-handed so IMO UTG does not have a wide range. gonna limp AA a lot, some AQww, some AKKw. problem with the full-house combos in buzz's post is that it's equally weighted. it should be weighted towards the top-end of AAww, KKAw, KKww when it's full ring. not Q9xx or 99xx or KQxx.

and wackjob just learned a good lesson, "what am i going to do if i get raised?" ask that before putting in a raise or a bet.

I "sort of" agree.

Note that you're comparing xx with ww. That's not an equal comparison. (I prefer AAYZ, KKYZ, etc.)

I don't think you should list AAKw with the rest of your comparisons since it only has one unknown card. That make it much less likely to be dealt than the others.

Seems to me KQ should be included as a favorable two-card combination.

KQ is not as favored as AA or KK but it naturally occurs in starting hands more often than AA and KK taken together.

I do agree Q9 and 99 as two card combos are less likely to be favored by UTG than AA, KK, AQ, or KQ.

On the other hand there was no pre-flop raise, which might make AA or KK less likely, depending on the individual opponent involved.

But, yeah, it was a crude approximation. Some of the YZs for
AQYZ and KQYZ could be AA, AX, KK, or KX.

Etc.

In other words I didn't do the combining and subtracting that should be done to make the comparison more rigorous. But I think the approximation method I used gives us a reasonably good approximation and one that we can easily use under game conditions in a casino.

At any rate, I'd agree the three bet is opponent dependent. Against some loosey-goosey-overly-aggressive opponents it's probably excellent but against a nit it's probably ill advised.

But Wackjob wrote, "No reads on villains." And in that case I like the three bet. (Although I presume it didn't work out well for Wackjob this time).

Good point.

Pertinent in any situation.

Buzz

I just meant that he had a much wider range than he would have if only 1 person was behind him. I overlooked the fact that 3 people folded on the flop. If they weren't in then UTG would almost certainly bet a set or 2 pair in this situation. Hence I derived that AQJx or AQTx are the only hands that make sense. However, since there were more people in the pot than I orginally saw (as I said I did not originally notice the 3 folds) UTG could have checked with 2 pair or a set on the flop. Hence, he doesn't need to have AQTx or AQJx in this situation. I do believe as Buzz stated that now re-raising the river is the more optimal play.

Well played. Fact is, in most games, the river 3 bet is gonna be a good play, but once you get 4 bet, you're gonna be beat a lot. But you gotta take a risk and hope they call the 3rd bet.

My personal line is an automatic call.

You want to effectively get TWO more bets and only spend TWO more bets.

By calling, you get the 1 bet from the raiser and maybe one from SB who can call one bet more with a straight or a crying call with two pair/trips, underfull but not two more bets from SB.

By raising, there's a very slight chance you get two more bets out of SB, so you can only count on the raiser calling with a worse full house. The cons of this play is that you will definitely get 4-bet by better hands and maybe even a chop.

And if he has the exact same hand which is the most likely combo, you will be losing half a bet by raising.


Limit Omaha Hi/Lo is much less about what you have and more about what your opponents ranges are and how to put yourself in the best situation accordingly.