I emailed stars about this once but they couldn't seem to comprehend the problem (and how much money they were losing by letting this happen).

They thought I was some donk who couldn't use the filters properly and I gave up trying to explain. Be my guest if you want to try it out for yourself - you might get a smarter customer service rep than I did

I think its better to play 2-3 regs. Than just 5 weekend donks. I have been railing few hours last week. And have seen alot of shenanigans on the tables.

4 people all in pre with hands like 447j.vs jj49 vs aj68 and the poor guys with aaxx ds hands loose more or less all the time.

just started playing the 1.50's as an experiment/bored of cash, good lord some of the players are awful, in the money after 2 hands looooooool

Not sure which regs you think are shoving 447j or jj49 very often....?

It was weekend donks playing those hands not regs. all in first hand.

You mean regs play AAxx ds and always lose?

Not always. But more than they should. Cant win them all.

Think I've never got 2222. If I would, should I go all-in just for the gamble?


Ok, now the low content thread hit its low mark.

Ask GoGetaRealJob, he's got an impressive pocket quad graph in PLO. It's harder to pull of in O8 hypers as stacks are shorter, but if you have a non-all-in raising range in the first level, you might try to win postflop without showdown (representing A2 with the absolute blockers).

In pot limit it could maybe work, why not in some deep NLs. I'm afraid though that in the hypers it would just be:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
2222	9.00%	45,116	62,863	0	0	0
A	91.00%	537,137	537,137	0	182,750	0

Gambooling for the 10:1. I hate making bad moves, never "feel I can win this time". But who knows, maybe I will make an exception the day I get 2222, just for maybe being able to tell a story. First in of course in the early game, otherwise you are practically giving a whole bi away, can't afford that, even if it's ever so seldom. But it could also be correct. If the bb is 40 (and hence antes 4), and you are in the big blind with half a dozen chips left, then SHOVE.

Hmm, interesting, do people really call off with any ace? I probably know equity distributions too poorly

An Ace is about equal to 30% of the best hands, but shorter to write

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
A	50.19%	197,517	291,465	22,838	134,939	33,656
30%	49.81%	195,333	285,697	22,838	144,130	33,656

But maybe this is more correct?

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
2222	7.96%	39,603	55,892	0	0	0
18%	92.04%	544,108	544,108	0	189,009	0

But yes, I think knowledge of all-in equity is the basis for being a winner at the hypers. A lot of other things matter too of course, but I'm meaning the absolute core. In limit full ring it's flop nut low potential, and so on.

Nah.. Some aces are in +50% hand ranges. Clear example:

Not to talk about the worst of them all:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ax9y9z9w	33.86%	146,634	259,425	371	0	0
*	66.14%	340,204	340,204	371	243,861	0

Quad A is like a premium when compared

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AAAA	46.02%	241,040	311,173	0	0	0
*	53.98%	288,827	288,827	0	148,337	0

And, where is the 60-40 or 70-30 at most now?

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

1,086,008 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
AAAA	100.00%	1,086,008	1,086,008	0	0	0
2222	0.00%	0	0	0	0	0

Have thought much about this, and it's time to let it out: the strength of the Ace is you kind of have five cards in your hand.

Profound.

Since you need to use exactly two cards from your starting hand, I try to think in two-card combinations. (There are six of these in any four card starting hand and ten of these in any five card starting hand). But these two-card combos are not independent of each other because each of the cards in each two-card combo also may play with each of the other two cards in a four card starting hand or with each of the other three cards in a five card starting hand.

Sometimes a particular two-card combo detracts from the value of another particular two-card combo. For example, A-9 detracts from the value of A-7 because a heart flush is less likely.

Yeah, having an ace is kind of like having five cards instead of four, but more than that, an ace is the best high card and also the best low card.

And even more than that, at the showdown an ace is found in the winning two-card combination more often than any other rank.

I'd say the strength of an ace is due to having a higher probability of being part of a winning combination than any other rank.

But I like the way you put it. Having the best high card and also the best low card is kind of like having two cards.

Buzz

Yes, I think that saying an Ace is like two cards in O8 is a "balanced truth". You could find flaws in the reasoning, but in the end you should have the guts to say something that appears to be true in a nutshell.

Here is an expansion: the cards 9-K can be used for high only, hands down. You could argue there always is a high hand, but not always a low. So the value of those cards is not half of the 2-8 partly because of that. The other main reason is of course the high value goes down dramatically when you go down the ranks. It seems you can't both eat the cake and have it too.

It seems you have to choose: a good high or a good low? You have the archetype of a bad card, that is, a card in the middle; the 9.

But then BOOM, the Ace. Looking for a high? No problem, it's even better than the King. Going for low? 1 is lower than 2 (remember first grade? )

The Ace is almost like a wild card, even though not as flexible.

Would be interesting to look at the follwing simulation:
Hand one: five cards, totally random
Hand two: four cards, with an Ace every time, the other randomized
Wich hand would win?

I don't think I can run such a sim; the closest I can do is compare 5 random cards to A9 with three side cards not being suited to the 9 (without loss of generality), since the 9 is the most useless card in the deck.

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac9h!hh	55.55%	235,347	318,221	7,419	196,665	5,621
*!A	44.45%	170,803	274,360	7,419	134,088	5,621

As the 9 nevertheless helps make a better high sometimes, the edge of A*** over 5 random cards is smaller than the 55.5%, but I can't say by how much.

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/ace-worth-two-cards-hi-lo-omaha-1469144/

Came up with this simulation:

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
A99	51.72%	211,792	316,309	8,238	143,578	15,475
*	48.28%	190,910	275,453	8,238	178,953	15,475

The idea is you are likely to get a card close to a 9 in an average hand. Having another 9 negates the potential another different card could have. The pair of nines are not very strong in themselves:

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL]

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
99	46.14%	185,530	304,504	7,829	93,677	10,696
*	53.86%	230,810	287,667	7,829	227,837	10,696

The guess is the four cards with an ace is stronger than five random cards, but the "great" question is: how much stronger?

Oops, I thought you were implying that the 5-card hand doesn't have an ace. If we allow it to have an ace too, the equity falls to 53.5% in my sim.

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac9h!hh	53.46%	219,652	309,742	13,215	173,371	17,574
*	46.54%	178,936	277,043	13,215	145,532	17,574

But I think that the ace hand is a slight (40-45%) underdog. There are 10 two-card combos in a 5-card hand and only 6 in a 4-card one, and it must be drawing rather thin for the high vs 5 cards, like 42/58, while the equity distribution for the low is 30 (ace hand) / 26 (5-card hand) / 44 (no low) as seen from the sim (because the 9 doesn't affect the low, except for the slightly increased chance of low cards coming on the board or into the hands).

What does "balanced truth" mean?

No. Somehow I remember my teacher's name, but I cannot remember anything else about first grade. I know that's where I learned to read, but I can't remember learning to read.

I don't know.

I think it's close but I think the five card hand is ahead.

A four card Omaha hand has six two-card combos whereas a five card Omaha hand has ten two-card combos. Therefore a five card hand should have ~ a 10/6 advantage over a four card hand.

10/6 corresponds to 62.50%:37.50%

As simulated, a four card hand with an ace and three random cards is not 62.50%:37.50% ahead of a hand with four random cards no aces. (It's only ahead 56.24:43.76, as shown below):

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
A***	56.24%	244,403	316,526	9,514	190,289	12,800
****	43.76%	170,907	273,960	9,514	105,643	12,800

A problem is combos with an ace are generally stronger than combos without and ace.

Buzz

If the theory is that an Ace is like two random cards, then you have five virtual cards whenever you've got four cards with an Ace.

When you have the five "random" cards you are getting an Ace about 3/51 x 5 ~= 30% of the times. So you have on average 5.3 virtual cards. So the Ace has to be a bit stronger than two random cards for having the A*** to beat the *****. Is it? Waiting for the appropriate simulation, if anybody has the resourses for it. The Ace being both the best high and low talks for it. But it can only be one card when you are looking separately at either the highs or lows. Think about the potential for sets, straights, flushes and non-nut lows when having 5 cards.

Just invented it. It's like "ballpark".

I didn't invent "ballpark."

A ballpark in the USA is a basically a stadium. I suppose the original idea was if something is somewhere in the ballpark, you don't have to look outside the ballpark for it.

Now "in the ballpark of" is an American idiom meaning "in the approximate range of."

Similarly "a ballpark figure" is an American idiom meaning "a rough approximation figure."

Buzz