Quote:
Not raising here is a catastrophic error of EV which you simply cannot pick back up, no matter how you outplay your opponents later.
Whoa! That's a very glib statement of your own opinion, Dave.

It may be his opinion, but it is also trivially straightforward to prove, especially when you factor in the increased equity from getting the blinds to fold pre-flop.

This is one of those few occasions when it doesn't really "depend". The only circumstances I can think of when it might be correct to do something other than raising here would be in a tournament with very specific pay-out and stack size constraints....and even then it is a real stretch.

i have to agree with the fact that its horrible to just call there. i mean if u don't want to build a pot there with that hand then when would u. it shouldn't depend on your image at the table or anything like that cuz the basic decision preflop for people to play hands is if they think they are of value,which will only grow the more and more the value is there for them to be in the hand due to increased pot odds. even if u miss that flop(barring a paired board) there is a very good chance of gaining a ton of backdoor outs and therefore will almost always give u good odds to peel a turn card as well(depending on how many potential raises come in on the flop). all in all my point i am making is that after the flop there are going to be a ton of things to consider but preflop on that hand in that particular situation its ludicrous to think a limp is feasible.

Hi Prodonkey - Evidently you misunderstood me. I was not arguing you should give up all your small edges in a limit poker game. To specifically answer your question, "Not much, if anything."

I think you'll be less successful if you only play the nuts.

I don't only play the nuts. Never have. And I don't advocate only playing the nuts. Never have.
Agreed.

None of what you have written proves or disproves the statement "All limit poker is a battle of small edges."

By the way, I would have no trouble with the statement "Limit poker is a battle of small edges."

See the difference?

Buzz

Thanks. Interesting. I have one of Barry's books but haven't read it yet. Exactly. Exactly.

Buzz

Not raising here cannot possibly be a metagame decision unless

1)you raise 0% of your hands in this spot or
2)you ONLY raise the top 1% and everyone at your table knows your game.

I hope I don't have to spell out why category 2 is bad. I guess in a forum about a limit game that is primarily played live by older players, I do have to talk about category 1; briefly, even taking equity entirely out of the equation, raising 0% here is indefensible because you get so many autochecks to you on so many flops and get the option for so many free cards. In a theoretical card game where every hand has exactly the same equity pre-flop, you should still be raising a lot of buttons. (edit: in fact, you should be autoraising every button, so pretend I said within 5%...but you get the point.)

The category 3 being talked about, EV of future hands, does not factor into this at all. Yes, people will think you are a loose passive, terrible player for not raising this hand and will play against you differently in the future. On the other hand, you probably *are* a terrible, loose passive player if you don't raise this hand, because playing this way for advertising is ridiculous when there are so many better spots to advertise in. To put it another way, people who overlimp AA on the button in HE (limit or NL) are universally terrible to begin with even if it's for advertising purposes because they don't 'get' advertising and they're likely passing up dozens of huge edges elsewhere in their game, too.


So, since metagame is not a factor, you need to think about this in very simple, equity based terms. Specifically, there are four limpers to hero; add the blinds and it should be a ~6 way pot in which your equity is somewhere around 33%. Not counting when somebody 3 bets (which is great for you and raises your EV even more), you expect to make between 1 and 2 SB with your decision to raise. As has been pointed out, this is roughly a half hour to an hour's worth of earnings.

In order not to raise, you have to justify how tarping these people, three or four of whom have got to have ridiculous dog poo-quality hands because you have all the important cards, is going to be worth more than 1 BB on later streets. Hint: it's not.

Interesting. I see myself as the Darwinist in this argument. We evidently have different points of view about this, Dave. We both evidently think our points of view are based on strong evidence. Was it a quote? You wrote "All limit poker is a battle of small edges."

I would not have quibbled with "Limit poker is a battle of small edges."

See the difference? I almost hate to ask because I don’t mean to offend with the question. But in my mind there is a huge difference between including the word “all” and not including the word “all.”

For example, on the bubble in a big tournament, going up against the big stack, it might be wiser to forego a small edge and instead almost certainly make it into the money.
By "the Stox book" do you mean Winning In Tough Hold 'Em Games? I have that book. It's in my lap right now. I just haven't read it yet. (I have read and studied a number of books authored or co-authored by the great David Sklansky). I don't know how exactly to define "success" in poker. One could argue that any win is a success. Or one could take the point of view that earning more than a certain hourly amount is success. Or one could take the point of view that having a good time and staying within one's poker budget is success. There are probably other points of view as well. I'm not certain that is always true. At least it doesn't seem to me that is always true. I do agree that just peddling the nuts is not the way to optimize one's profits. I do agree that just peddling the nuts is not the most satisfactory way to play the game. I follow. I already responded to Prodonkey.
Well... not everyone else on forums. For example I don't use "big bet poker" that way. Never have.

But thanks for explaining.
Interesting. I'm interpreting "grossly overvalue" as meaning "excessively overvalue." O.K.? I don't know if I do that or not. It's certainly something for me to think about. Thank you. (I mean that sincerely, rather than sarcastically).

But there's more to it than just getting more value from other hands.
• First, I'd go nuts playing Omaha-8 like a nit. Well... that's an exaggeration. But it's not an exaggeration to say that I wouldn't enjoy the game as much. I think Steve Badger is the one who coined the phrase "like watching paint dry" and I think that phrase describes how I'd feel playing Omaha-8 like a nit. I'm absolutely certain I can make money playing Omaha-8 like a nit - but it would mostly be like watching paint dry. And it's not much money. I think I can do better by expanding the range of hands I play and that's also a more interesting way to play. I'd rather do something else than play Omaha-8 like a nit.
• Second, although -e.v. hands would be -e.v. if played to the showdown, as they are in a non-folding simulation, if played well, they don't actually get played all the way to the showdown, or even usually after the first betting round. If played well, the cost when they look like losers after the flop is relatively very small. And the pay-offs with hands your opponents don't expect you to have are generally larger than the pay-offs with great double-nut-making starting hands like AA23-double suited.
There is no disagreement about the massive +EV of AA23-double suited. None.

I'm not sure that the hands you chose are a better range. I think I can probably easily come up with a better range than you have chosen. I'm certain I can come up with a range where AA23-double suited is not even the best possible hand in the mix.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...4=ah2has3s&h5=
I’ll agree it’s a slanted simulation, but yours is too.
In the particular simulaton you chose, that’s true.

But I’ll agree AA23-double suited is a great hand to be dealt, the best possible hand to be dealt in Omaha-8.
I’m not advocating “playing tricky” – just considering how to profit most from this hand and other hands. I don’t think you necessarily do that by charging ahead like a horse wearing blinkers and blindly raising with any particular hand before the flop, regardless of the effect your raise may have on your opponents.

It’s honestly hard for me to understand how any objective thinker cannot see that point of view.
You don’t sound like you’re being objective about this, Dave.
I’m sorry I wrote that. I apologize. Poor choice of words on my part.
I’ll bet you are a good coach. I didn’t mean to belittle you.
I appreciate your posts here and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view. (I’m not being sarcastic).
I wonder if that is true. It’s something for me to think about. I used to play backgammon. I never thought about how to play successfully (whatever that means) as a matter of style. Backgammon was always just a matter of odds to me. An important difference between backgammon (or chess) and poker is you can see exactly where your opponent stands.

Buzz

Badger in an interview (following a tournament win): "I just played 22 hours of Omaha high-low. Seventeen of those hours were like watching paint dry, three were even duller, but two hours were like bungee jumping from a helicopter into a vat of flaming eels." He continued (smiling), "I wish I were good at something else."

Please show your proof.

To me it seems trivially straightforward to consider the effect your actions will have on your particular opponents, both on the current hand and on future hands.
You're not alone.

I must not have explained my point of view well enough for you.

Buzz

Hi adanthar. Great post. Thank you. Allow me to respond.

I think you mean:

• Not raising here cannot possibly be a metagame decision unless you never or rarely raise and when you do raise it’s with the top starting hands.

I agree never or rarely raising in this spot is poor. I agree only raising with the top starting hands is poor.

And I guess you’ll go on to explain why “not raising here cannot possibly be a metagame decision.”
I guess you’ll go on to explain why “EV of future hands, does not factor into this at all.”
1. How does “loose” figure into raising or not?

2. I believe it is probably true that some people will think you are a “passive, terrible player for not raising this hand and will play against you differently in the future”. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily true that all people will think this way. I agree there are better spots to advertise.

But if I did not raise, for some reason or other, with AA23-double suited, whatever my reason for not raising would be, it would not be for “advertising.”

Not raising with this hand does tend to better disguise not raising with various other hands. There is the possibility you have a suited ace-deuce, ace-ace, or various other fine combinations every time you limp. It can make bluffing and also betting the nuts to get paid off in some situations more workable. Surely you cannot intelligently argue playing all playable hands in a consistently similar fashion does not disguise various future hands better.

Having written the above, I do think you should mix your play up. I’m not advocating never raising before the flop. And I’m certainly not advocating never raising before the flop with great starting hands like the one in question – just that you don’t always play a particular hand in a particular way – just that you put some thought into how best to play a particular hand, and that you give consideration to how your opponents will react.

I continue to think that’s a reasonable point of view. And I continue to get a lot of flak from people who seem to want to read more into it than I mean for there to be.
This is Omaha-8. How does bringing up an issue of terrible play in Texas hold ‘em necessarily apply here?
Whoa. You seem to think you have somehow proven that metagame is not a factor.

However, I do agree some thought should be in “very simple, equity based terms.” And that is a very good point.
Not necessarily.

If six players (five opponents) see the flop and if Hero has raised from the button before the flop (and five opponents have called the raise) very often they all will tend to check to Hero on the second betting round. And then presumably Hero will bet. And also presumably some opponents will fold. Assuming Hero goes on to scoop, the second, third, and fourth round bets of those who fold are lost to Hero.

I’m saying whether Hero raises or not on the first betting round can make a difference in terms of how much Hero actually makes on future betting rounds when Hero goes on to win. If you have played any Omaha-8 with intelligent opponents, I don’t see how you can argue with that.

If may be that Hero will make more on subsequent betting rounds when Hero raises from the button with a fine starting hand. But it also may be that Hero will make less. I’m saying it depends on Hero’s opponents and the interaction between Hero and his opponents. I’m saying for me that’s a consideration.

Buzz

when the sb limps along with 2899 and the bb has 47JK and they both outflop you, should be considered too. Losing a pot you would have won if you had raised takes away all the positives you give and adds even more negative imo.

"By the way, I would have no trouble with the statement "Limit poker is a battle of small edges."

See the difference?

Buzz"

not really because what else are you defining as part of limit poker that the term all can't be used, if you have no problem saying it without the all

Good point.

Buzz

This is an extremely good point, and may be the best defense Buzz has made so far.

Preflop raises from late position have a way of slowing down, or even freezing, postflop action, since players tend to expect the preflop raiser to go to war on the flop, or at the very least make the obligatory c-bet.

If there are 5 people in front of you and (for example) one of the early players has a habit of betting the flop as a matter of course almost regardless of his cards and getting overcalled by opponents who have noticed this tendency, and if he DOESN'T do this when someone (ie, you in this case) has shown strength preflop, then it may be absolutely in your best interest to just call with the hand preflop, wait for the aggressive player's flop bet, then the overcalls, and THEN you raise. And you get the added benefit of being able to cut bait if the flop misses you, with only one bet invested instead of two.

Can any of you honestly say that you have never adapted to a maniac/oddball player by letting him hang himself? That's the sort of thing you start to set up preflop, and just limping is one way of doing it.

Again, most of you are emphasizing absolute, purely mathematical considerations, and not allowing any room for play-the-player considerations.

I think it's true that much of fixed-limit Omaha-8 is a battle of small edges.

I don't think it's true that all of fixed-limit Omaha-8 is a battle of small edges.

Sometimes Hero will have a huge overwhelming edge, as when the board on the river is
K, 3, K, K, 8, and Hero holds the missing king with, let's say
A, K, 3, 2. Indeed, I think probably Hero had a rather large or huge edge all or most of the way.

That's admittedly an extreme example. My point is all of Omaha-8 is not a battle of small edges.

Maybe we're looking at this differently or something.

Buzz

I was thinking of it from the outset and should have immediately stated it. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Nice to have someone else see it too.

Thank you.

Buzz

Buzz,

First off, don't worry about upsetting me in this kind of stuff as after all, this is only an internet forum. I once got into it in a pretty heated way with Rolf "Now I have a playing style named after me" Slotboom here, and he ended up offering me a writing gig for Cardplayer. I'm pretty thick skinned. In fact the only thing that upsets me is that damn baby crying picture Wintermute used to post

I don't want to get into some of the semantics you mentioned. I can see why, if you really want to, you can object to the use of the word "all". I do tend to write in a declamatory way but I also believe most people got my point, regardless.

On the more substantive points:

1. You seem to be defining success in more broader terms than this question requires. When someone comes to a forum and asks a question about how to play a hand, he is looking for the best advice, unless otherwise stated. He isn't asking about how to play the game for fun or for interest. Or excitement. But the "best" in terms of making him the most money.
2. It's interesting both you and Omaha Chris quote Badger. Playing like a nit was exactly the style he advocated. He was saying it was boring, not that it isn't the right way to play.
3. I say that live players overestimate how much they gain by playing non-standard ways or non-standard hands, then you proceed to say that's just what you do. This is important as it leads back to the Backgammon analogy I gave and want to expand on.

The backgammon analogy is important because it mirrors, quite realistically, the difference between live and internet players in poker terms. Before programs like Jellyfish and Snowie, being good at Backgammon was a black art, with a handful of books and theories and some hardworking, brilliant minds dominating the game. But backgammon, quite literally, was solved. Understanding equities stopped becoming a matter of judgement, of feel, of experience, but something you could type into a computer and get *the answer* for. The players who didn't move with the times simply got wiped out.

Now the world of poker is not quite the same. For a start, it is a closed information game. But sometimes, in certain situations, the factors that a live player believes are important, and often they are, are simply overwhelmed by the mathematics of the situation - which others seem to have better explained. Now you can choose to ignore this, in the same way you can ignore the rollouts of Jellyfish, but the answers remain. This situation, as originally described by OP, is just one of these spots. And although you have tried to move this discussion into broader, thinking levels, meta game areas, the bottom line is you said:

and this is simply wrong.

gl

bdd

This is fine, but I think what frustrates me sometimes (and judging from this thread perhaps a couple of others) is that advice often tends to be simplified and formulaic without consideration for the particulars of the situation, sometimes going as far as flat out ignoring the reads of the player. There is significant value in determining the correct default play for a given situation and there is no question that the default best play in this situation is to raise on the button. The default best play may be the best play 90-99% of the time, but it is not necessarily the best play all the time. Reads, tendencies of opponents, flow of the game, image, etc. are important considerations and often impact what the best play should be. This is simply a part of poker that cannot be taken away.

For instance, I can immediately think of an obvious scenario in which the better play is to limp and that is if you have a maniac to your left in the SB or BB who raises every hand preflop when no raises have occurred. Then the better play might be to limp on the button with the intention of 3-betting when it gets back to you.

Hezster,

You are answering a question that wasnt asked. The OP described a situation with no reads at all. And even in your (unlikely, imho) example, you could argue for a raise anyway. But that isn't the point. This was a question with a black and white answer. Buzz answered it, as the OP defined it. He was just wrong. It's no big deal, except the fact that he seems determined to prove that he has some wriggle room here.

gl

bdd

To me, what is interesting about this whole thread is that Buzz and Ben from Stoxpoker seem to play similar styles, both in limit and pot limit.

Buzz, I bet if you ask they would give you a free trial and you could check out some of his videos.

if you have the nuts on the river in position, do you think you should bet it? i think that you shouldn't because your opponent will think that if you had the nuts, you would bet it, so in order to be deceptive you should check behind and outwit the heck out of him

on a similar note, whenever i am heads up and out of position, i sometimes open-fold the nuts for balance's sake. i do this when the second hand on my watch is on the five whenever my turn to act comes up. that way i can completely randomize this deceptive play, and thus, keep my opponent off balance.

only problem is, two weeks ago my damned watch stopped right when the second hand was on the five. now im down 50% of my bankroll.

I am not interested in investing my time producing data to substantiate this position - especially as it is so obvious that you accepted it in your reply to ProDonkey's post shortly after mine. If any less experienced players are in any doubt then they can go and run AA23ds against a selection of 3 and 5 other hands and see what happens to the equity.

You explained your point-of-view clearly and at length - as always. Unfortunately it is incorrect and misleading for readers who are trying to learn the game. Although there may be few absolutes in poker, this is one of them.

TYVM. I don't pretend to know much about O8, and haven't watched Ben's latest vid, but I know a little something about the value of deception in limit poker. If you've watched some of my vids, you may have noticed some hands where villains spewed chips all over the table because of a deceptive play that I made early in the hand. This has happened many times, and unfortunately I've been caught on the other side sometimes as well. My point is: don't assume the value of playing deceptively is trivial without the ability to stack your opponent in one hand.

Hi Chamonyx - But you're the one who wrote that it is "trivially straightforward to prove."

Dave originally wrote: “Not raising here is a catastrophic error of EV which you simply cannot pick back up, no matter how you outplay your opponents later.”

I responded: “Whoa! That's a very glib statement of your own opinion, Dave.”

You responded: “It may be his opinion, but it is also trivially straightforward to prove, especially when you factor in the increased equity from getting the blinds to fold pre-flop.”

My reaction was, (and still is), “O.K. if it’s trivially straightforward to prove, then show your proof.”
I think you misunderstood my reply to ProDonkey. AA23ds is the very best starting hand in Omaha-8. That is not the issue here.

The issue is: “Is it always correct to raise with the best starting hand in Omaha-8 when you are on the button and there have been a number of limpers ahead of you.”

I’m taking the position that it is not always correct to raise with the hand, and that you should consider the effect the raise (or lack of raise) will have on all of your opponents. That position is consistent with the principle: Consideration of how your opponents will react to a pre-flop raise is more important than the actual cards you hold.
Thank you.
This forum is for discussions and debates about how best to play the game. Sometimes we’re all pretty much in agreement. Sometimes, as on this issue, we’re not. Hopefully when we argue opposing points of view, the truth will become apparent.
In my humble opinion, if there is an absolute here, it is that one should always consider the effect of one’s actions on one’s opponents.

Buzz

Ah Mute... There was that picture of a doddering old man he liked to post sometimes in response to me. Got me to laughing sometimes. He posted some very funny stuff, back in the day. He also straightened me out a couple of times. Ah Mute.... Thank you. In my humble opinion, the inclusion of the word "all" makes the statement incorrect. (Sorry). I think we all got your point. But "all" can make your point incorrect. What's the point of getting someone's point if their point is incorrect? Agreed. And I try to give the best advice I can give. Hopefully that is apparent to all.

My response involving a direct quote from you about success was to you, not someone asking advice.

But you're right. In retrospect, it was a mistake for me to babble about success, even though I think what I wrote is true. But it's not well written, not to the point, and not really a response anyone wants to read. My bad.
Specifically, I wrote: ‘I think Steve Badger is the one who coined the phrase "like watching paint dry" and I think that phrase describes how I'd feel playing Omaha-8 like a nit. I'm absolutely certain I can make money playing Omaha-8 like a nit - but it would mostly be like watching paint dry.’

That’s what I wrote and that’s what I meant. Steve was very helpful to me when I was learning this game, and I still appreciate that.
You wrote:
That says nothing about “non-standard ways or non-standard hands.” If either one of us wrote “non-standard ways or non-standard hands” in a previous post in this thread I cannot find it.

My own opinion is “standard” means different things to different people. In addition, I don’t think –ev means quite the same thing to you as it did in the context of what I wrote. I was using the term in the sense of marginal hands being slightly –ev in terms of how well they simulate in non-folding simulations. Specifically I responded: I mentioned nothing and meant nothing about “non-standard ways or non-standard hands.”

Sometimes people paraphrase what others have written so as to slightly change the meaning. I have to admit I sometimes am guilty of doing more or less the same thing myself. But if you’re going to claim I said something and complain about what I said, please make it a direct quote.
Sorry Dave, I follow what you have written, but I am unable to make a connection that leads me to believe limping here is necessarily incorrect.

I don’t want to be stubborn and I don’t want to seem stubborn. But I don’t see how it’s wrong to consider the effect of your actions on your opponents.

I do see that if Hero raises from the button after four limpers, with both blinds yet to act, that there will come to be more money in the pot on the first betting round.

However, my own mathematical reasoning extends further than the first betting round of a particular hand in play.

I don’t agree that because of the first round raise there will always be more money in the pot at the showdown. I don’t agree that because of the first round raise when Hero wins, he will always win more money. I’ll try to briefly explain this in case really don’t understand it. Briefly, Hero may get more money into the pot on the first betting round, but then because of the pre-flop raise opponents with poor connections with the flop will probably check/fold hands they might otherwise play. Hero, with a nut making type of hand (nut low, nut flush, nut boat) thus loses all the contributions players with poor flop fits would otherwise have made to the pot on the second, third, and fourth betting rounds. And Hero may lose some action on later betting rounds.

Are you going to want to play your king flush when Hero may well have an ace flush? Are you going to want to play your second nut low when Hero may well have the nut low? Are you going to bet or raise with your full house into what might well be aces full?
What do you mean by “this”? In other words, what do you think I’m choosing to ignore. It is not my intention to ignore anything. Are you sure you’re not the one who is ignoring something here?

Another consideration in what looks like a juicy loose/passive game is if Hero starts pre-flop raising the game can rather rapidly into a rock garden. Pre-flop raises can have a chilling effect on otherwise loose players. Not everyone, of course. And that is another reason why it is important, in my humble opinion, to consider the effect of your actions on your opponents, even when you have the best possible starting hand on the button in a juicy game.

You keep claiming I’m wrong. Please show me where. It’s not my intention to be stubborn, but I don’t think you’ll be able to convince me that my basic position is wrong here.
I’m guessing you mean “the mysteries of backgammon are solved and so is the mystery of whether to raise or not from the button with the best hand in Omaha-8. You think you have the answer but I think I have the answer too. Our answers are obviously not the same.
One of what spots?
I think there are meta game considerations. I think there are also current game considerations. I spent too much time in this thread fumbling around trying to discuss meta game considerations. In retrospect that was a mistake. My bad.

It is very clear you emphatically think I am wrong, and that it is horrid to limp here. And it’s very clear other prominent posters on this forum think I’m wrong on this issue.

The question, as I see it, is “Should Hero raise or limp from the button with the best possible starting hand in Omaha-8 after three limpers with the blinds yet to act.”

Given that information, I would limp.

I might raise sometimes with this hand, or any other hand I’ll voluntarily play.

I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for Hero to raise with this hand in this position and in this scenario, but I would limp.

I hope this is the last time I feel I have to respond to you in this thread, Dave. But if you again reply that I'm wrong, I'll feel obliged to respond again.

Buzz