I know this has been asked a million times before, but can anybody recommend a good book on limit (preferably middle) Omaha/8.
I have Ray Zee and SS2 but both seem hopelessly outdated. Thanks.

u probably will find your answer here.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/44...thread-737104/

Can anyone recommend any good ones?

I think I am an ok HiLo player but would love to read a decent hilo book!

With a couple more "any good O8 books" posts, I am making this thread a sticky (at least temporarily) so as to help new posters to find it. I assume new posters aren't aware of the thread once it falls off the first page.

Top man cheers

Was wondering if any low-mid or even high stakes O8 players could fill me in about these 3 books I have.

I have

Ray zees hi-lo

Super System 2

Hwang PLO


I think Zees book is excellent but its kind of lacking in the preflop play section imo, I think that SS2 with baldwins section is a bit more "organized" and "guided" as oppposed to Zees book. At least to a begginer like me.

hwangs, I haven't red


I know poker isn't black and white, but I just started to play O8 ( limit) and fine preflop to be pretty difficult for me, doesn't seem I am playing right when I just wait for an A to be dealt to me in order to see a flop

In my opinion those are all excellent books that belong in any serious poker player's library.

Many of your opponents will have read at least one of them. In my opinion you have a better chance of being successful if you are at least as well read as your opponents.

If we're talking full game or six max, it may not seem right, but it's not far off for you to at least have an ace when you voluntarily play a hand. (That's not to say you should play every hand that contains an ace).

Aces are very, very powerful cards in O8.

If we're talking heads-up, then you can't wait for a hand with an ace.

Buzz

As a new player, its possibly a good guideline to not get involved preflop with hands that don't contain an Ace. Having said that some Aces like (A,6,9,10) all different suits are a bit ugly and can be thrown away to prevent you from getting into too much trouble. Ideally an Ace, a wheel card (2-5), a random and a Q+ are constituents of a decent starting hand. For instance the worst hand in that supposed range would be (A,5,Q,9). Even if you don't have any suits to go for, it's still not bad as a starting hand.

I have Super System which gives lots of useful basics for starting out across many different variant games, although its important to bear in mind that books won't teach you anthing that playing lots of hands can't teach you better. Also I find books can only ever carry your understanding of a game as far as becoming competent.

I have read all 3 books. All 3 books cover all the aspects of O8 but they emphasize different things. At first, I read SS2 and Ray Zee's book and I found them to be complementary. SS2 spends a bit more time on starting hands and the fundamentals, which is nice to read when starting out. Zee states that his book is for an advanced player and so skims over the basics just a bit and spends a bit more time on concepts that come up as you play.

When combined, I found SS2 and Zee's book to give me enough of a foundation to be comfortable sitting at an LO8 table and trying out the game and not feeling totally lost. Yet something was still lacking. I just didn't have a feel for the game. Part of that was lacking experience, but specifically, I just didn't know when to raise, either preflop or postflop. Then I recently read the LO8 section of the Hwang book and something clicked. Hwang gives a very nice explanation of when exactly to raise, both pre and post flop. He also has a nice section at the end which is a set of quiz questions where he plays through a set of hands giving you a 1) fold 2) call 3) raise option at each decision point and then gives grades (and an explanation) for what should be done at all of those decision points.

All 3 books provide good advice. All are valuable. If you've read any 2 of them, the third one will give you a few new situations to think through.

thats a good post daveopie.
i try not to spoon feed when i write something. i want people to have to think about it and come to their own conclusions and learn it their way.
i didnt put much on starting hands as it isnt a beginner book. raising hands pre flop run very close so i like to think you do your raising player based rather than hand based. there is a lot to think about what that means.

Hi Ray,

I've had your book for almost 10 years now. Mason Malmuth gave me a copy when we were on speaking terms. I just left Vegas after a two week vacation. The first week there I played NLHE tournaments only. Got nowhere. Poker, holdem specifically was no fun for me anymore. I decided to fool around and play 4-8 Omaha Hilo. I played 7 sessions at the Venetian. I lost once. I decided that at low limits Omaha was definitely beatable. I began reading your book this week. I can tell anyone here that your book is certainly relevant. I keep hearing here how books like yours get outdated. Nothing is further from the truth. The fact is that the Twoplustwo FAP series of books are all one needs to be a winner at low to mid limit poker. That was true years ago, today and in the future. Thanks for the book.

An old fan,

Vince Lepore

thanks vince, poker is tough and to win you have to know more than your opponents, think quicker and better, and control your emotions.

Ray,

I quit poker in 2008, not completely, but I do not play on a regular basis. When I played every day, I won at poker, because of the reasons you cite plus other reasons that I am sure you are aware of. I quit because poker was never fun for me. I played because I wanted to win at something and I found that I could win at poker. Omaha Hilo was always a game I would play when I wanted to gamble and have some fun. I must admit that I have found that without winning poker is not fun. Guys like you and Mason and David put how to win down in writing. I put your book down to write this reply.

Thanks.

I just finished reading the thread, and found many good books on there. However I'm unsure which one is the best that goes over BOTH variations of Omaha Hi Lo. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Jeff Hwang's first book (Pot Limit Omaha) has introductory chapters on both the fixed limit and pot limit split games. Plus it's a really good start for anyone moving from Hold'em to Omaha. I would start there personally.

Cheers, Andy

I just found Winning Omaha/8 Poker by Tenner and Krieger in a used book store. Excited to find a book I hadn't seen before, I snap-bought it. Terrible book, frankly.

It's not easy to explain why without quoting huge amounts of text. But then, that's the problem. There are huge amounts of text that essentially add up to nothing much. The book is 245 pages long, and I got virtually nothing out of it. Granted I'm no beginner, but even if I was, I would have a very hard time actually formulating a plan to play based on this fluffy stuff.

In Starting Hand Selection, they suggest playing "any hand totalling 40 points or more as long as it doesn't contain 3 of a kind and the lowest ranking card is ten or above. Aces count as 11 points."

How is it even possible to have a hand where the lowest ranking card is ten that doesn't total >=40 points? What difference does it even make that aces count as 11? Is it because "this card goes to eleven!"?? That's an example of the sort of unnecessary obfuscation in this book. They should simply say "play any hand containing all broadway cards (without trips)", or "play any hand containing cards ten or above, unless it contains 3 of a kind)".

In one place, they use the term "nut flush". A few sentences later, they say "nut flush (the best possible flush)". Then awhile after that, they say "the best possible flush". Not only are those uses out of order as far as introducing a new term to the reader, but their general awkwardness with poker terminology starts to really grate on you as you read the book.

"Though it may not be easy, you'll have to do the math and think before you act. Your authors are far more comfortable drawing to the nut flush than they are chasing a full house, because you'll always know whether you have the best possible hand when you make the nut flush. But if you make a full house, it's frequently vulnerable to a bigger one. Here's one of our cardinal rules of Omaha/8: In addition to Omaha/8 being a game of scoops, not splits, it's also a game of flushes, and not a game of straights, or for that matter, full houses."

It's hard to know where to start with how nonsensical that advice is. First, they've annoyingly gone back to the term "best possible hand" rather than "nuts". And they include some more weak sauce ("think before you act").

But assuming you get past that, it's just plain nonsensical advice. It's true - if you make the nut flush, you'll always know if it's the best possible hand (if the board is paired, it's not. If a straight flush is possible, it's not.) But the same is true with the full house. You always know if you have the nuts with your full house. But then, you always know if you have the nuts no matter what your hand rank is, so what's the point of all this? Since you always know if you have the nuts when you hit your draw, how exactly does that help you distinguish between drawing to different hand ranks?

The paragraph ends with "So feel free to draw to the nut flush but please take our advice and refrain from drawing to second, third or lesser flushes in this situation." OK, so they finish with a meaningful (and I'm not saying correct or incorrect) statement. But that is hardly a summation of the preceding paragraph. Whatever they were trying to say came out so muddled and incorrect, it's really not worth reading.

After saying that O/8 is "not a game of straights", later in the chapter they go on to explain that if 2 low cards flop, you can draw to a straight as long as your outs don't include low cards. If 1 low card flops and you have the nut straight draw, bet if first to act and call if someone bets. If you have a wrap, you should bet if first to act and raise if someone else bets. So much for this not being a game of straights! And again, no mention of limit vs. pot limit betting here.

The book is sprinkled with pointless, space-filling tautologies, distracting little tangents, or factually incorrect gems that make you slow down to think about:

- "before you get too fired up about how strong flush draws are, remember this: ... a smaller flush can be beaten by a larger one."

- "depending on your holdings, three low cards can be a cause for jubilation or just silent recognition that it's time to throw your hand away." Space-waster, but it gets worse: "[if you don't have a low], you'll be fighting for half the pot if you stay." Did they mention that in multi-way hands, the situation where you win the nut high and opponents are putting in money with chopping lows or second best highs is one of the most profitable in O/8? No, maybe they didn't realize that.

- "If you were to rate players on a scale of 1 to 10, the average score at a Holdem table would probably exceed that of an Omaha game." Why do we need a 1-10 scale there if he's not using it? It's funny, because I use this idiom as an actual joke sometimes, as in "On a scale of 1 to10, this burger is really good."

- "with no low cards flopping, it's always possible that someone might have made a straight." Obviously false - AK9.

-"Only straights and, rarely, full houses can [split the high half of the pot]." Really? One pair, two pair, trips can't split now?? (That statement was made in the context of flushes - they're trying to say 2 flushes won't split the high.)

I should also say they never distinguish between Limit and Pot Limit strategy. They state up front that the game is played in both styles, but they never provide any alternate strategy for hand selection or post flop play based on the betting structure.

Contrast this with Hwang's excellent treatment of the 2 forms in his first book. Isn't it ironic that a book allegedly on PLO (high only) contains tons more useful advice on both Limit Omaha/8 and PLO/8 than this book? Hwang is highly recommended. Tenner/Krieger - sorry guys. No.

It's merely a consequence of the Limit chapter coming first. If the PL chapter had come first, it would have been the longer one.

Just because there are big differences between the games doesn't mean he should spend time rehashing all the general hi/lo information. The PL chapter spends times explaining the differences, not repeating the parts that are the same.

books-publications/o8-book-advice-1453134/

I'm looking to pick up PL08 as a game, coming from a NL holdem (100k+ hands) background. I have a basic grasp of the game, especially the low end of things as I've played some amount of Razz.

I have some time over the holidays and was looking to pick up an eBook that I could work through while a pack of feral relatives defile my house and everything that I hold dear.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a good starting book?

Plo8 poker expanded edition by Dan Deppen

The book looks worthwhile but Adobe DRM eBooks doesn't work with the Kindle app on my phone. Not sure what app I would use on my Android device to read it.

Ray, the above comments are true, you did write the best book. I'm coming back to limit O8 after basically giving up on NLHE and I'm going to re-read your book three times.

It looks like the consensus is to read:
1. SS2
2. Hwang
3. Zee

While these books are good, I find content on short-handed o8 to be lacking. I don't know if there's any good articles on this? I think it's fairly easy to play in pots with lots of people (draw to the nuts), but it's an entirely different game when 2-4 players are seeing the flop vs. 5-6. Nut peddling won't work.

yeah, as far as shorthanded play goes, there is no book. but zee's book is still def #1.

Which book or series or articles contain the basic fundamentals of hi low omaha?