This is part of a basic style theory I'm working on for tight, passive, full ring *FIXED LIMIT* O8 games of the .50/1 and 1/2 online variety. Tell me what you think.

Unlike loose games, which are more about sitting back and waiting, you're obviously not going to make money in these games by nitting along and waiting for a big scoop. Not enough money goes into these pots for big scoops. And you're sure not looking to split, which is a barely better than breakeven proposition most of the time.

The question in all poker games is "where is the money at this table?"

My feeling is that beating these games has to do with playing more hands than you "should", smartly picking spots, trying to induce bad folds, and basically trying to win lots of small pots rather than occasional big ones. You have to nickel-and-dime them.

These types of situations are very (uh) situational, but an opportunity that arises EVERY round is late position.

Tell me what you think of these basic ideas, and my rationale:

1. You should almost always play from the last two positions when all other players have folded to you, regardless of your cards.
2. You should LIMP, and not raise, unless you have a premium hand.

Reasoning for the first part (playing position on principle):

The nature of Omaha is that, with only two or three hands in play, it's very rare preflop for one hand to be dominating the other(s). So the cutoff/button should be played on principle. All other things (the hands) being equal (or close to equal), you will have position on the blind player(s), and the psychological advantage of that player knowing that you CHOSE to play your hand (thus, he will not put you on random cards). A coinflip with position is at least a little better than just a coinflip.

Reasoning for the second part (not raising):

- Most O8 players know that starting hands run close, thus the big blind almost never folds. We all know that raising purely as a blind-stealing maneuver rarely works in O8 cash games.

- The fact that he/they didn't have to invest another bet to see the flop has the effect of making the blind(s) more willing to give up on the flop if he/they flop weak, whereas they're more likely to resist if they have more invested. So in effect, you're stealing the blinds AFTER the flop.

- Since you didn't raise preflop, they aren't as likely to expect an automatic continuation bet. Therefore, if they do hit the flop hard, they are more likely to bet right out than to try to stick it in you and go for a checkraise.

- A continuation bet following a preflop limp is more likely to look like a legitimate bet than a continuation bet following a preflop raise. It's disguised aggression. Hence, less of the "you don't have ****, you're just trying to push me out" or "I'm stubborn and you raised me" calldowns that we all despise.

So there it is.

Am I overcooking my thinking? Does this seem realistic in practice?

in a tight passive game i'm raising every button and cutoff if i have a reasonable hand.. make the blinds play raised pots out of position

that part is right

that part is wrong

Also, this applies to pretty much all the low levels up through 15/30. Above that, there is a much different style of play and this wouldn't work so much do to the vast amounts of aggression, there is much less likely a chance that they will make a bad fold. Someday it might be nice to have a discussion about the AF at 30/60 and 75/150, but that is for another thread.

I disagree with the part about not raising from late position--for more reasons than are probably even possible to list here. I get what you're trying to say and everything, but I think you'd cost yourself a lot of value by limping instead of raising.

Hi Chris. Keep in mind that I don't play in .50/1 and 1/2 online games. Even so, some of what you write doesn't sound quite right to me.
? Interesting way to look at it. Kind of like a predator looking for prey. Yet if you sit down at a table with a group of opponents, most of whom are better poker players that you, it's a good question to ask yourself. It's like the old adage, "If you sit down at a poker game and can't spot the fish, it's you." ? ? Terrible. Terrible. ? ? There's some truth in that, but it's very situation and opponent dependent. There's some truth in that, but it's very situation and opponent dependent. ? The "therefore" logic doesn't follow. Overcooking.

Buzz

well since i know a lot about winning in exactly these tight games (/brag) i can def say that failing to raise preflop almost every time you play a hand is a pretty big mistake. exclusively true on pokerstars. full tilt is way looser and generally has a different texture to it. on pokerstars i raised from all positions except the blinds. works like a charm. also make 3 betting a big habit. if you want to play a hand and its raised in front of you, 3 bet to get it headsup in position.

Thanks guys.

A problem I have with poker (and this really is a genuine problem for me), is that I sit and think about the game and come up with strategies that don't actually have a solid backing in reality, but I will rationalize them so that they SOUND like they make sense, then I get attached to my pet theories, cling to them, get frustrated when they don't work, etc.

To put that more simply, I do too much thinking and not enough playing.

Some help me out here: I am just learning the split pot games but, just because the equity runs closer than hold'em, the fact that your equity is favored towards either a high or low in both negates this. Making a lot of %40 EQ hands money loosers.

TO clairify:

A2xx vs XXXX

Hand Pot equity Scoops Wins Hi Ties Hi Wins Lo Ties Lo
A2** 56.89% 244,539 292,829 8,921 241,714 15,886
**** 43.11% 163,867 298,250 8,921 60,533 15,886


In this example your equity here may be 43% but your equity for the low half is only 20%.

Plus in low stakes your going to run in to many hands where you are jamming with two pair the blind and he keeps calling thinking that you are trying to run over him with garbage only to find out that he accidentally took the low half with an 75 low.

I still believe that in the long run tight is right in any loose low limit game. It is booring but........win money or play for action?

Hi boggzilla. O.K. I'll try. It's hard for me to follow what you have written. I don't understand. Yes. If you keep track of how you fare with 40% equity hands as a group, over your lifetime your 40% equity hands are expected to be overall losers in heads-up play. Since you put 50% of the money in the pot yourself in heads-up play, when you only get back 40% of the money in the pot, you lose. I'm not sure what your simulation clarifies. For me, the bottom line here is A2** is a better hand than random because it had a higher pot equity than the random hand.

A3** is also a better hand than random, and by almost the same margin as A2** (56.83%)
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...**&h3=&h4=&h5=

A4** is also a better hand than random, and by almost the same margin as A2** (56.91%)
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...**&h3=&h4=&h5=

If you run 23** vs. ****, you'll see that 23** is a worse hand than random because it has a lower pot equity than a random hand. (49.85%)
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...**&h3=&h4=&h5=

If you put a third specific card with the 23**, 234* is even worse for heads-up play. You have to get to 23Q* to fare better than random cards in heads-up play.
I'm not sure what you're doing here. Looks like you have divided the A2** fraction of wins for low by two
241,714/600,000 = ~40%.
Then 40%/2 = 20%.
But I don't follow why you did that.

The pot equity of the A2** hand is ~57%, not ~43%.

When you win low and your heads-up opponent wins high, you split. Your pot equity is 50%, exactly what you have put into the pot.
When you scoop, your pot equity is 100%, double what you have put into the pot.
When your opponent scoops, your pot equity is 0%.
The pot equity given is a combination of scooping winning three quarters, winning half, and winning one quarter of the pot. (Winning one quarter of a heads-up pot would amount to a negative input to overall pot equity, as would getting scooped).
Huh? I suppose I might bet some two pair hands in some stages of heads-up play. To me, "jamming" means betting and raising at every opportunity. "Jamming" implies the blind is betting or raising and you're raising or re-raising. Is that what you mean?

If so, I don't see that happening to me very much. (Once in a while, maybe).
Tight is good. Too tight is boring and non-optimal. Winning money or losing it in a low limit poker game seems trivial to me in terms of affecting one's overall net worth.

Do I want to win when I play poker? Yes.
Do I want to win money when I play low-limit poker? Yes. But I'd rather have a good time.

When I used to play touch football, or softball, or basketball, or volleyball, or steal-the-flag, or tennis, or water polo, or whatever (but not golf), I tried to win. I don't know why. There was rarely money involved. (Golf, I just played to have fun whacking the ball and trying to improve my game. It was never clear to me why it mattered if I improved. But it was satisfying to connect well with the ball and hit a good shot.)

If I play cards one-on-one with a young child, I intentionally lose. But otherwise, when I play cards, I play to win. Doesn't matter if the game is hearts or poker. Doesn't matter much if it's for money or not.

I think some individuals get pleasure from daredevil, death defying risks. Some individuals get a thrill from taking a risk. I think some kleptomaniacs belong in that category. Russian roulette players either belong in the thrill seeking category, the suicidal category, or both.

And some poker players seem to get a thrill from taking a big risk in a poker game. I'm not an expert in why people do some of the things they do - that's just how it seems to me.

People do win slot machine jack pots. And when they do, they're always defying the odds. It's a bit different when you play poker, but sometimes people win when they defy the odds. Overall, I think, they don't.

Pounding away at an opponent (jamming) can be effective against some opponents but is less successful against other, perhaps more sensible, opponents. I think the technique works better in Texas hold 'em games than in Omaha-8 games. And I think the technique works better in pot-limit play than in fixed-limit play. And I think the technique works better in high-fixed-limit play than in low-fixed-limit play. Depends, I guess, on the individual involved.

Buzz

Buzz,

THanks for the reply. I think I am over-thinking the EQ calculation from Propokertools by factoring in that the equity value of a hand is for half the pot rather than total equity? As a result I my post is rather confusing.

I think the following simulation shows this?

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...**&h3=&h4=&h5=

AsKhQdJc
Wins 42% of what is in the pot over the long run. In High only games I have thought of it as it is the best the best hand 42% of the time , which correct but not a complete way to visualize it (until you multiply it by the pot).

A2**
Wins 58% of the pot over the long run. This includes the times where the pot is split between the high and low and scooping. Hence where the A2 overcomes the all big card hand gets chance to win both pots. The big hand can never win the low.


If I am still screwed up perhaps a quick lesson on O8 Equity application ...?

Hi Boggzilla - When you run a heads-up simulation without specifying flop or board cards, it's for heads-up or one-on-one, show-down or non-folding, play with random flop, turn, and river cards. A8** vs. AKQJ wins about the same amount (maybe more because it takes away one of the outs for AKQJ making a queen high straight).
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...**&h3=&h4=&h5=

I don't think AKQJ is a particularly good hand for heads-up play in Omaha-8 (because it cannot make a low). That doesn't mean someone cannot skillfully play the hand and show a profit with it.

You might get a better idea of the relative value of the two hands by running them both against successively better starting hands in a series of simulations. The ProPokerTools guy did that in an ingenious way. The result is at
http://www.propokertools.com/simulator/o8ordering.txt
I wouldn't say you're "screwed up." I don't think you are demonstrating understanding of simulations and what different simulations mean. (Maybe I'm wrong about that). There are different ways to apply pot equities as supplied by simulators.

Buzz