so basically i am hoping to get the goofball off a better two pair i guess, i immediately regretted raising here before he even had a chance to act but now ive decided i think its okay but im so bad at this game that i post here just in case. utg+1 is missmuffet who honestly seems terrible about half the time and like a genius the other half but his lrr pf is undoubtedly a good hand of some sort. other guy was probably some random ******

Poker Stars $75.00/$150.00 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 10 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Pre Flop: Hero is UTG+2 with 2 4 A A
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero raises, 1 fold, MP2 calls, 4 folds, BB calls, UTG+1 3-bets, Hero caps!, MP2 calls, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls

Flop: (7.333 BB) 8 Q 4 (3 players)
UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, MP2 3-bets, UTG+1 calls, Hero caps!, MP2 calls, UTG+1 calls

Turn: (13.333 BB) 2 (3 players)
UTG+1 bets, Hero raises

Looks like suicide.

fundamentally, the raise is negatively convex in a game that plays notoriously fast and people do not fold. you're facing A3 or A23 at least 50% of the time. taking your low outs for a live ace. you also getting freerolled against somebody with A234.

UTG: the preflop LRR, flop bet/call, turn lead narrows it down to A23x/A34x for me. especially for a spazzy LAG regular.

MP2: with MP2 yet to act you have to assume he has something near set/top two given the way he played the flop on that dry board. however, you may get lucky and get MP2 to dump his hand. to be honest, i doubt two pair dumps his hand because he thinks his high hand is good and that you're ramming and jamming a made low with redraw.

however, there's upside to your raise. one, you can slow down naked A3 hands. second, you slow down better high hands that beat you but will not fold. third, they can both have A3xx and you are ahead for high. the third reason is a bit of a strech but definitely a possibility.

in the above cases, raising is better than calling. calling in between two very active players when an obvious bad card hits is the green light to whipsaw you. you also might get to check down the river for 2 BBs total rather than 4 on the turn and a couple on the river.

worst case scenario would be the turn gets capped and the river is board-pairing club and you get to pay it off in a 25 big bet pot.

so to summarize, raise>call. i'd rather give up a little equity to slow these guys down than to get whippsawed for 4 bets on the turn and make a huge mistake on the river by folding a winner or paying off multiple bets.

any does anybody think a fold is a good idea here?

I think you are head for high very rarely on the turn. If you mean they could both have A3xx where xx is a set, then yes, I would agree with your statement. It is possible that your raise could slow down a bigger high hand, it is also possible that your raise could allow the original better to 3bet you. You can slow down Q8, but you are probably getting jammed by a set. You have about a quarter of the deck to half the pot not counting that you'll make an extra bet on the end if you hit a lot of the time. If you knew you were going to get jammed for four you should fold, but I think you have to grit your teeth and call.

Hi howzit - What does "negatively convex" mean? Doesn't "convex" have to do with the shape of a lens? (Concave wouldn't make sense here either).

Since I don't know how Hero's opponents are playing, it's hard for me to know how to best play this premium starting hand, but generally I would take a different approach than that taken by HOWMANY.

I think of Hero's starting hand as a pulling hand. It's a hand that will often make the nuts, sometimes both ways, on the river. And when you make the nuts on the river, you want customers who will pay you off.

But after Hero raised, five opponents subsequently folded on the first betting round. Would they have folded without the raise? (I don't know).

Did they fold poor or mediocre starting hands because of the raise? If Hero picked up the club flush on the flop, might one or two of them have chased all the way to the showdown with a non-nut flush? If Hero picked up an ace on the flop and then made aces full on the turn, might someone have continued with a loser? (I don't know).

Hero did pick up support for the nut low draw on the flop (but lost his counterfeit protection). Without the pre-flop raise would he be up against opponents who folded non-nut low draws? (I don’t know).

Pre-flop raising to isolate a blind who was defending with random cards did not work out for Hero this time against this group of opponents. Pre-flop raising to get idiots to become trapped in a huge pot with inferior holdings also did not work out for Hero this time against this group of opponents. Would one or the other of these usually work out against this group of opponents? (I don't know).

At any rate Hero ends up sandwiched between two voluntarily played starting hands held by UTG+1 and MP2.

Hero still is the pre-flop favorite but after the first betting round the pot is bigger and harder for Hero to get away from than if Hero had simply limped.

Therefore I very much dislike the initial raise with this (premium) starting hand. This starting hand would fine for a raise from some positions against some opponents - just not here, and I write that because I would not have expected it to work out well here and then it did not work out well here.

Once the field is narrowed by the initial raise, I suppose Hero might as well go ahead and gamble by jamming on the first betting round. Seems like most of the damage has already been done.

However, note that since these two opponents, have invested four small bets each before the flop, there's a pretty fair chance they have the other two aces. Thus one of the weapons in Hero's starting hand (the pair of aces) is somewhat reduced in strength. The pair of aces is still good if there comes to be an obscure pair on the board, say a pair of eights or nines, such that if nobody makes trips or a full house (or a straight or a flush), Hero's two pairs, aces over, will prevail for high. But it feels like the power of the pair of aces is greatly reduced by the pre-flop action.

Then after the flop, I would just call UTG+1's lead bet. Hero has lost his counterfeit low protection, has not picked up the flush or flush draw he hoped for - and now only has the bare nut low draw plus the pair of aces. It's still a playable hand, and I'd bet it if someone else had not already bet - but since someone else has already bet, I'd just call. I do not think a raise here would get MP2 to fold very many hands within his range.

On the first betting round, the power of the pair of aces was substantially reduced. Then on the second betting round, a second strong feature of the hand, the counterfeit low protection afforded by the four was lost. (Since Hero has a pair of aces already in his hand and can only use two cards from his hand, the pair of fours stinks for high - and if the fours trip, Hero will be trapped and that can be very dangerous with trip fours.)

In addition, a third strong feature of Hero's starting hand, the nut club flush draw had been reduced to worth basically the equivalent of one out immediately after the flop. (It's a backdoor nut flush draw after this flop, which is worth about one out for a runner-runner draw).

Hero still has the nut low draw after the flop - but a bare nut low draw is very vulnerable. I'd still want to see the turn, but as cheaply as possible. I would definitely not raise, and I damned sure would not cap!!!

At any rate, Hero caps again on the second betting round, then gets counterfeited for low on the turn, but picks up the club draw. There are nine missing clubs and some other possibilities that would be more than enough for Hero to initiate fresh money into the pot if it were not a split pot.

But since low is already enabled and Hero has no chance at it, Hero is basically playing for half of what one opponent will have contributed, while risking all of what Hero will contribute. Hero is thus getting half pot odds of one for two to initiate fresh money into the pot.

And the flush draw plus a pair of aces simply isn't that good. Hero does not have favorable odds (or +e.v.) to raise - and Hero has virtually no fold equity.

Thus Hero has favorable odds (or +e.v.) to call on the third betting round, but has unfavorable odds (or less positive e.v.) to raise.

Very interesting reasoning. (I’m not being sarcastic). Makes good sense against some opponents. Points out the disadvantage of overbetting this hand out of position on the first two betting rounds. Now the pot is so big that Hero is more or less stuck drawing primarily for a nut club flush with two opponents.
I disagree for most opponents, but for some opponents your reasoning makes good sense.
Valid point against some opponents.
Although unlikely, it is possible an opponent has a set. But O.K., let’s be conservative and not count the eight of clubs one way or the other. In addition, I think another 11 cards are more or less break even for Hero. So approximately I’d call it 24 to 8 or about 3 to 1 against Hero making a winning hand for half the pot on the river. Hero’s implied pot odds are:

• ~7.67 to 1 if there is only a single bet on the turn,
  ~8.17 to 2 if there is a double bet on the turn,
  ~8.67 to 3 if there are three bets on the turn, and
  ~9.17 to 4 if there are four bets on the turn.

Thus if Hero can foresee the betting, Hero has favorable odds for a single bet on the turn, probably also favorable odds for a double on the turn, but probably not favorable odds for a triple or quadruple bet. (I estimated pluses and minuses would more or less balance out when I approximated eleven cards not counting one way or the other to get to the 24 to 8 hand odds).

The problem with raising on the turn, aside from raising lowering Hero’s favorable implied pot odds if there is only one bet on the turn, is that raising may result in three bets, which actually would give Hero unfavorable implied pot odds. .

I can’t foresee what is going to happen.

I’d just call and hope MP2 did likewise. If MP2 raised after I called and if UTG+1 re-raised, then I’d fold to the double bet (but I’d call the single bet raise to close out the action on the turn).

Buzz

It would be quite bad to limp preflop. AA24suited is a monster and plays well heads up or multiway. To be honest, I don't understand a lot of your commentary.

You are in a 3 way capped pot with AA24. How is that not working out well? We could have limped and then had it multiway with another A2 out there and our chances for high severely diminished. Playing it as close to heads up as possible is desireable.

Weak tight. You have the nut low draw with good, but vulnerable high potential. If you had something like A2 with the nut flush draw calling is better, but here you want to raise and hope to get it headsup. Even if he does call, which he will a lot, it's fine. The pot is too big to worry about saving bets, and more importantly, your hand is strong.

Uh, is that like being "trapped" with the nut flush when a straight flush is possible? Sure, you can always be up against top set and a23. I think you'll lose a lot more pots with this attitude and thinking than bets you'll save.

Yes, this was the one card in the deck that points out this "disadvantage".

In general, your style of play seems more suited to the lower limit games where there is more emphasis on drawing to the nuts and getting the people to pay you off with second nuts.

I believe you when you write you don't understand my commentary. I'll try to explain by responding to your comments.
It's not working out well if Hero might have had a 6 way pot before the flop. That's how.

It was not 3-way when Hero made the initial raise. Would it have become 3-way even without the raise? If so, the raise was fine. If not, I think the raise was a mistake.

But perhaps it is working out well. Hard for anyone to know on the basis of looking at the play of one hand.
Playing it heads up does increase Hero's chances of winning the high, but it also decreases the amount of money Hero wins when he only collects from one opponent as compared to many.

*Start edit for clarity:

If one opponent contributes $100 to the pot on a particular betting round, then two opponents contribute $200 on that betting round, three opponents contribute $300 and four opponents contribute $400. You must understand the simple principle - yet you don't seem to be applying the simple principle!)

And there are three more betting rounds after the first betting round. Hero (with a winning hand at the showdown) collects from each opponent chasing with a losing hand on each of the next three betting rounds.

*End edit for clarity
Do you think Hero's the pre-flop raise induced an opponent to fold another ace-deuce-Y-Z? If Hero only raises with ace-deuce-Y-Z, a very astute opponent, a pro, might have folded. But that line of play would make Hero a comparative yokel. Otherwise, unless a significant majority of Hero's pre-flop raises signal ace-deuce-Y-Z, no astute opponent is going to fold very many ace-deuce-Y-Z hands to Hero's pre-flop raise.

Thus Hero is very unlikely to have knocked out another ace-deuce-Y-Z hand with the pre-flop raise. It's true that Hero might knock out another ace-four-Y-Z or deuce-four-Y-Z hand, and that would be to Hero's advantage if his nut low got counterfeited, but Hero collects more over the long haul by having these inferior hands chasing all the way to the showdown.
I don't understand. I know what weak tight is, but I don't understand what you mean by starting a paragraph with that non-sentence. If you're suggesting the line of play I'm advocating is weak tight, then either we don't have the same understanding of what "weak tight" means or you simply don't comprehend the rather sophisticated line of play I'm advocating (or both). Hero has a beautiful starting hand! Hero has a premium starting hand! So what? Evidently you think Hero should raise simply because he has a beautiful, premium starting hand.

I don't.

I do not think Hero should raise simply because he has a beautiful, premium starting hand. Sorry. I simply do not raise because I have a premium starting hand. That's just the way I play. Honestly, I think my concept of raising or not before the flop is a more advanced concept than raising with every hand a point count system would advise raising with (whether or not you actually use the point count system). I feel I can raise or not with any hand I'll play. Whether I raise or not entirely depends on the effect I think my raise will have on my opponents.

I think it's a flaw in anyone's game if they raise every time they have a premium starting hand. I think unless you raise every time you enter the action, you provide information about your starting hand when you raise every time you have a premium starting hand.

I might raise with this hand, but I might not. In this situation, with all those potential pullees behind me, I would try to pull them into the pot. Pre-flop raising tends to push people out of the pot. You seem to think pushing is a good thing to do. Sometimes it is good to push - but in this particular situation I think pulling is better.
Absolutely not. And note that if that is Hero's intent, the tactic does not work here.
You lost me. I was talking about Hero's first raise, before the flop, with his premium (but pulling hand. Hero is not playing heads-up.
No.
Somehow I did not make myself clear enough for you to understand. My primary consideration was not "bets you'll save." My primary consideration was "opponents who might have stayed in the pot with inferior hands that are pushed out" by the pre-flop raise. "Bets you'll save" by not being trapped in a pot because it's too large to get out is an important consideration, but not the primary consideration. "Bets you'll save" on the first betting round is a relatively trivial consideration.
What are you talking about? Hero screwed up the play on this hand from the get go. Hero screwed up the play of the hand with the pre-flop raise (unless the pre-flop raise had no effect on whether or not those five opponents dropped out of the hand before the flop). From looking at the play of one hand, I can't tell if they probably would have folded or not.
Evidently you do not understand a rather more advanced, more sophisticated style of play than raising with a hand before the flop merely because it's a beautiful, premium starting hand.

Yes, of course I am drawing to the nuts when I can. I think everyone should draw to the nuts when they can, regardless of the limit. Don't you?

Often I'm not drawing to the nuts. But that's beside the point. In this post, before the flop Hero IS drawing to the nuts. That's WHY Hero has a beautiful, premium starting hand. Think about premium starting hands - aren't they hands where Hero has an excellent chance of ending up with the nuts to scoop on the river?

You're suggesting my style of play is more applicable to lower limits and at the same time you're suggesting a less sophisticated style, almost a beginner's style for higher limits? That doesn't make sense!

Buzz

I think you misunderstood some of the things I said, but this fallacy really stuck out to me. It's not like preflop, or on the flop, after the betting is complete, everyone flips over their hands and the guy with the most equity gets shipped the pot. Yes, the more people that contribute to the pot, the bigger the potential pot you can win, but these people aren't putting in money with 0 equity. With each additional player that enters the pot, people take equity from the other players. Every time a player leaves the pot, that equity gets redistributed among the other players. With aces with strong low potential, look what happens when a third player comes in.

Heads up against a23
pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 ac 4c 2s ad - ah 2d 3c jh
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 202008 357049 131796 11155 26867 53589 152299 0.652
3c 2d Ah Jh 84075 131796 357049 11155 69676 10668 152299 0.348

3 way with another high hand
pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 ac 4c 2s ad - ah 2d 3c jh - kc kd js td
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 89609 214853 273417 11730 32894 65352 181156 0.416
3c 2d Ah Jh 47787 95921 391831 12248 83403 14875 181156 0.304
Js Kc Kd Td 101835 176978 322504 518 0 0 0 0.279

3 way with another low hand
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 179896 252990 238970 8040 0 45960 155160 0.516
3c 2d Ah Jh 66516 109269 383174 7557 0 7576 193628 0.278
As 6s 4d 3h 38129 127401 367470 5129 2392 135396 72749 0.207

(you lose 15% equity, other hand loses 8% equity)

Almost all that equity in both instances is being taken directly from you. Raising is good to exploit your preflop edge and also reduce the chances that other players come and dilute your high potential. This is basic O8 stragety. Now let's take that idea and apply it to this hand in question.

pokenum -o8 ac 4c 2s ad - ah 2d 3d jh - as 3h 8d tc -- 8h qc 4d
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 666 enumerated boards containing Qc 4d 8h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 100 376 283 7 0 24 389 0.506
3d 2d Ah Jh 33 99 554 13 0 0 456 0.275
As Tc 8d 3h 77 178 482 6 0 342 71 0.220

Here we have the nut uncounterfeitable low draw, and there's another idiot in there with the second nut low draw and a really bad pair. Let's let him in, right? Wrong. Look how much equity he has in this hand. It's clearly correct for him to call getting 15 to 1, in fact, for him, even drawing to a quarter for low and having one small pair, he would be correct to call 2 bets. You still clearly have the equity edge in this scenario though, and while he probably won't fold, you should push your equity edge and occasionally force him to make a bad fold. Just because the pot is big and he won't fold doesn't mean we shouldn't try to put in our money with the best of it. Look how the equity changes if he folds.

pokenum -o8 ac 4c 2s ad - ah 2d 3d jh -- 8h qc 4d
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 820 enumerated boards containing Qc 4d 8h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 212 675 135 10 0 36 459 0.684
3d 2d Ah Jh 63 135 675 10 108 0 459 0.316

Our equity skyrockets, while the other player's isn't particularly changed.

I could do this all day with varying scenarios in twodimes to show you how your hand benefits immensely from getting it heads up, but you get the general idea.

Let's take a look at a worst case scenario. Someone with a set and someone with the nut low uncounterfitable draw.

pokenum -o8 ac 4c 2s ad - ah 2d 3c jh - qd qh as 5d -- 8h qc 4d
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 666 enumerated boards containing Qc 4d 8h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 7 29 629 8 0 28 385 0.175
3c 2d Ah Jh 26 55 603 8 65 6 385 0.250
As Qd 5d Qh 192 574 92 0 6 384 0 0.576

That's a really bad spot for you. However, by raising the flop, you are likely only going to force one more bet to go in than would have otherwise. And this scenario is much less likely to occur than the one I previously used as an example. Look how much there is to gain if the other player folds in the other scenario. Increasing your equity by 18% in a 15 SB pot is tremendous, and well worth the extra small bets you risk, because even if you are crushed, you still have some equity in the pot and at most stand to lose a fraction of a big bet. And the times you do have the best hand more than make up for that.

*disclaimer: I didn't proofread this, so something might not make sense.

thanks so much for your contributions tongni

buzz's advice is commonly ridiculously weak-tight and bad (and suited to low limit o8 games).. it's something you have to get used to if you read this forum

For a long time I was playing exactly like Buzz recomends but its far from optimal. Probably the bigest leap forward that I made in my omaha8 game was understanding all the things togni wrote about. Lots of respect for the post as its really good.

Unfortunatly alot of posts have been wiped out but I wrote a pretty good one about 3-beting in position last year. The concpet goes like this.

MP raises and folded to hero who sits with A35Q in CO. There is only one corect play - raise!!! The point is that we have 2 alternatives.

A) Playing hu with position after we 3-bet against a similar to ours hand.
Sounds good!!!

B) Playing a 3way pot with a spew happy BB who has a hand like 3678 or QT94 and cuts awfully into our equity of winning the high part. Dont let the donks do anything cheap. Pound them.

P.S

And there is the IKEA factor, poker made me trash a few chairs, furniture and lots of other stuff. Now I prefer to cap with my good hands and play as suckoutfree as possible. At least I dont have to refurnish my flat every year and the results are also better.

Hello everyone, I'm quite new to Omaha 8/b and here are my thoughts on this hand, please someone correct if I'm wrong:

Capping PF is IMO correct play. You get to cap it with 2 players PF and you hold AA42... that's a great result!?

The flop is good enough to cap it again since you've got nut low draw and a high hand good enough to win against most low draws, and of course against high draws. How often can we expect our opponents to be drawing to high outs vs. already have a high hand better than Hero's vs. only low outs + some weak high draw?

I think turn raise is correct, too, since we've got a good hand and most importantly don't want the third guy to get in. We're getting 50% or more of this pot a lot of times if there's going to be a heads-up showdown. Sometimes we get 25% of the pot and then we're just going to have to deal with it.

Any help appreciated!

I think tongni's analysis is spot on in general and especially for the 75-150 game. Some of buzz's advice is more applicable for lower limit games.

-g

Parlay Slow – We discuss and debate topics that are of interest to Omaha-8 players on this Omaha-8 forum.

You can disagree with anyone, including me, on this forum. Well thought out arguments opposing anyone’s point of view, including mine, and corrections to obvious mistakes, including mine, are welcome.

Rudeness and insults are not welcome.

Various posters have their own styles of play. There isn’t a single correct style of play. Some styles probably work better against some groups than others. It’s often hard to tell what style works best with a particular group of opponents.

I’m not always right. Just ask my wife. Sometimes I catch my own mistakes after I have posted. Other times I miss my own mistakes and then I appreciate anyone pointing them out. In either case, when I have made an error, I either edit the post or post a separate correction. I try to get it right. That’s as good as I can do.

Here’s a quote from Mason Malmuth, the founder of these forums, used with his permission: It’s not any fun to post and be insulted and demeaned.

The posted discussion is for a $75/$150 game, not a low limit game. Thus posting is rude, demeaning, and insulting.

Buzz

Hi Greg – The principle that applies here (pushing and pulling) has nothing to do with the limits. And it's a dominating principle of fixed limit Omaha-8.

Suppose you set up a 32 hand match so that you and your one opponent would play exactly 32 deals.

Now I’ll give you the choice of
(1) winning one small bet for each of the 32 deals (100% equity) or
(2) winning 6 small bets for 22 deals while losing 6 bets for 10 deals. (~69% equity)

Which do you choose?

(1) nets you 32 small bets while
(2) nets you 132-60=72 small bets.

You give up winning more small pots to net more by winning fewer bigger pots. You give up some equity, but you gain in the long run

That’s the concept of pulling. In other words, when you hold a pulling hand like AcAd2s4c before the flop, you should like an opponent chasing you to the showdown with A358, even though it’s true that you give up some equity.

AcAd2s4c is a pulling hand because of it’s capacity to make the nuts. And when the board is such that your hand makes the nuts, it makes the nuts regardless of the limits.

Are you suggesting “pulling” is strictly a low limit consideration?

In the case of the opening post, the principle involved is pulling in (rather than pushing out) other opponents with a pulling hand from early position. It's worth losing a small amount of equity to get an extra opponent to contribute and possibly end up chasing with a loser to the showdown.

I guess you're assuming the game is tighter at higher limits so that more opponents would not be chasing. While I think that's generally true, it's not absolutely true. (But perhaps it's true against this particular group of opponents).

A sophisticated group of high limit players should be more susceptible to pushing and pulling than a group of clueless low limit players.

Buzz

[QUOTE=Borys313;2266075]For a long time I was playing exactly like Buzz recomends but its far from optimal. Probably the bigest leap forward that I made in my omaha8 game was understanding all the things togni wrote about. Lots of respect for the post as its really good.[quote]Hi Borys - I also have lots of respect for Togni's post.

At the same time, I wonder if you truly understand what I recommend. Borys, there is a massive difference between raising with that A35Q in the cut-off seat after everyone in-between hand folded and raising from UTG+1 with AcAd2s4c before five opponents have folded!!!

What does "IKEA" stand for?

Buzz

I understand.
I understand. That makes good sense. But at the same time, an extra player means extra bucks in your pocket if you win. It’s a matter of how much equity you lose by pulling in an opponent with a poor starting hand, compared to how much the extra player contributes when you win.
•#1 - Heads up against a23
2s Ac 4c Ad 0.652
3c 2d Ah Jh 0.348

•#2 - 3 way with another high hand
2s Ac 4c Ad 0.416
3c 2d Ah Jh 0.304
Js Kc Kd Td 0.279

•#3 - 3 way with another low hand
2s Ac 4c Ad 0.516
3c 2d Ah Jh 0.278
As 6s 4d 3h 0.207

In #1 Hero wins .652*6 and loses .348*6 = +1.824
In #2 Hero wins .416*12 and loses .584*6 = +1.488
In #2 Hero wins .516*12 and loses .484*6 = +2.088

Hero loses equity but collects more when he wins. In #2, Hero ends up netting less, but In #3 Hero ends up netting more. And those are more decent hands than some opponents will play if they can get in cheaply.
That’s true. I see that. What you’re neglecting is the increased gain from collecting on each betting round from another opponent.
Don’t you see the hole in it? You’re ignoring the extra contribution of the extra opponent.
Right!!
I see what you’re doing and I see what you’re missing each time you do it. (already noted above)

Not necessary. Your message is clear to me. You make some good points. And I'll continue to think about this issue.

Thanks.

Buzz

Hi Mike. Welcome to the forum.
I think the other posters in this thread all agree with you. (I don't) I'd say it's variable.
I have a different style.

Buzz

What you don't seem to realize is that I gave the third player in example #3 one of the most favorable hands to be up against if you were in the hand with AA24. You say that this is a "more decent" hand and that people will play worse hands. Look what happens if there happens to be a worse hand in the pot.


pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 2s ac 4c ad - 3c 2d ah jh - as 5d 6h 7d
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 140449 186439 311973 1588 20691 37390 143157 0.413
3c 2d Ah Jh 89950 127581 370831 1588 47075 10728 143157 0.323
As 7d 5d 6h 76674 184392 315608 0 6561 204755 1397 0.264

Same situation as in #2. And look, let's give him an absolutely terrible hand.

pokenum -mc 500000 -o8 2s ac 4c ad - 3c 2d ah jh - as 5d th 9d
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
2s Ac 4c Ad 107793 206104 283789 10107 21997 45528 174149 0.420
3c 2d Ah Jh 70695 120670 366772 12558 54419 13201 174149 0.324
As 9d 5d Th 90044 160668 336095 3237 6590 173587 1390 0.256

Same thing. All the equity is coming directly from you. You are losing a lot by letting the other player in, and the effect is magnified with each additional player that enters the pot. That's not to say that you ever become not a favorite, but it's less optimal for you for sure.


You're using the increased pot size in your calculation here, but we aren't getting into 3 way capped pots by limping AA24. We will end up in 6 way limped pots, where our chance to win the high is negligable at best. Remember that by making the pot big you are tying people with second best draws to the pot. In this game people don't see the Q84 flop limped 6 way and say "Hmm, I'm going all the way with my A3KJ. I sure hope A3 is good for low. Yes, we'd rather have a 6 way capped pot with AA24 than a heads up pot. Playing a 3 way capped pot is much better than a 6 way limped pot.

Yes, I would rather limp if I had A234, because you have no high value. If I had A23K suited to the ace, it's a limp because you have some high value that isn't diluted as much by multiple players in the pot, and your low desires more players. It's the same reason why 3betting A35Q is more favorable than 3betting A346. I would 3bet AKT5 on the button against a laggy CO opener, but I would fold A4J7 to the same player.

I get the feeling that you think your aces aren't going to be good for the high half of the pot very often. That's true, if you limp a lot and let other people come in, or you are in very loose games. It's the same in Hold'em when weak players limp with premium starting hands because "kings always get cracked". It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

This is really wrong. In the example in question: The pot size before the flop action is 13 SB. If first player bets, and you raise, and the other guy folds, now there is a 17 SB pot that you have 11.5 SB worth of equity in. If you call and let the other guy call behind, there is now a 15 SB pot that you have 7.6 SB of equity in. In this example, not raising the other player out is almost a mistake of 2 BB! In fact, I think it is actually worse than that because you are tied to the pot almost always, whereas the third player is not. He has quite good implied odds.

Before you say that being tied to this pot is a bad thing and that we shouldn't have raised preflop, note that due to the aggressiveness of the game you will have to see the river (and pay it off) a very, very high % of the time, no matter the pot size. Would it be possible to get away from it in a game where people wouldn't play AQ77 in this specific hand like it's the nuts? Possibly.

I'm not suggesting that in this spot one player always has A23 and the other person is always paired. However, assuming knowledge of the other player's hole cards, you are coming to a (grossly) incorrect conclusion. As for a general approach to the hand in question, you have an equity edge, push it! Force people to make incorrect folds and build bigger pots that you can win.

In summary:

AA24 is not a drawing hand

Wow you are dense. Just do the math of how losing the equity in the already large pot compares to earning additional (small) fractions of small bets. You are the one that is missing something.

edit: togni did it for me

raising the flop here is a super simple basic and common hilo split poker scenario in which the investment of one more bet either gains you a ****ton of equity or just puts more money in the pot when you have the best of it. im no expert at EO but you are basically inverse hemorrhaging money if you fail to make these raises.

A few points to add here.
1. It is very unlikely to be a 6-way pot here. The limits get tighter and more aggressive with each step up that you move in the online O8 games. I’ve have data from Poker tracker data that calculates exactly how much tighter and aggressive the games get.

2. Buzz’s calculations aren’t adjusting of the size of the pot in the 32 hands/deals thing. Looks at your equity 3 way in a 3bet or capped pot vs 6way in a limped or raised pot. the size of the pot will be roughly the same, while your equity is much higher in smaller pots

3. Opponents are better in higher limit games. They are more likely to make correct decisions on later streets, which means compared to lower limit games more of your equity comes from earlier streets. this means you are less likely to earn those bets in smaller 6-way pots on later streets.

4. Building huge pots preflop ties everyone to the hand to greater degree. Which means its easier for you to make correct postflop decisions – you just call til showdown. Its easier for opponents too, but that’s ok because all of you seeing the showdown favors you with your preflop equity edge.

5. At higher limits I don’t think AA24 is a pulling hand. It loses too much of its high value from winning unimproved or with aces up (or sets), and that isn’t offset enough from making fullhouses/nutflushes given how high limit games play.

6. I don’t think you have a good sense for how these games play. I’ve played the Stars online games up to $75-150, and played live games up to $75-150 and online is different than live and lower limits are different than higher limits, usually by alot. Buzz, how much have you played online? How much have you played in games higher than $3-6? Higher than $15-30?

7. Minor point – you aren’t including your share of the blinds equity, which is higher in 2-3 handed than 5-6 handed. This can be as much as .1 or .2 BB so small but in comparison to tongni’s postflop calculation of a 2BB edge in one spot, it does add 5-10% to your $ equity.

8. Parlay, don’t be a jackass. Buzz has educated a lot of people on how to learn the game, beat lower limits and understand math/calculations for situations.

-g

I love this discussion. I agree the math did not include the amount of money that our Hero had to put in on the flop and that may be the kicker that changes it all. I think both plays would work, depending on your style. Too many people play too poorly later in the hand to be doing too much pulling. I think I would have played this hand differently on different days, although I think i would have kept jamming the pot most days for all of the reasons discussed in this thread. After my two pair came, I think there are plenty of reasons to stick around and risk the whipsaw. Having the nut flush draw is one of them. You still have 20% of the deck to give you the nut flush, if you don't already have the high. You aren't losing too much equity with two other players betting the turn that way. In fact, you may slow down the river betting a bit if you don't get there. With three players in, there should be enough in the pot from the first two betting rounds to make it worth calling 4 bets to get to the flush. There are already 12 BB in the pot and if there and you would have to call 4 more to win 14 plus perhaps a piece of the low if you get lucky and they get counterfeited, or you fill up, or you already have the best high hand and they are jamming to get quartered. The very worst case scenario after the turn (one with a-3 and the other a set) makes it very slightly a bad play to make the call(s). If you raise on the turn, the other a-3 will stop betting. The set won't but you'll only have to put in three bets so the math is getting closer to being back in your favor.

I had a similar situation not too long ago where I was in BB with 2,3,5,7 and the flop came down 2,3,4 against two opponents in a full game. I had all kinds of ways to get help there. A,2,3,6. If I get there with the wheel A, my chances aren't great for a profit unless I also hit the river. If I get there with a 2 or a 3, I can quarter or beat all kinds of hands. If I get there with the high straight, I've got the nut high and two pair for backup. The turn paired my 3 and everyone started going nuts with the betting. I thought I was dead to a higher boat but both had a wheel with the nut flush draw in each of their respective suits. In fact, I think they had identical hands in different suits. A,2,5,K

I like the hand in this thread because it demonstrates very well all of the complexities of Omaha 8. My question is, What happened on the river and with the pot?

Hi Togni – Your summary seems to be a major area of disagreement.

The actual hand is 2 4 A A. It contains six two-card combinations, actually amounting to five features because of some duplication. Let’s list the two card combinations and then consider each of the five features in turn.
A, A
A, 2
A, 4
A, 2 this is a duplication of A, 2
A, 4 this adds nothing to A, 4
2, 4

So there are effectively five features in the hand:
a pair of aces,
a nut flush draw,
A-2 (primarily a low draw feature)
A-4 (primarily a low draw feature), and
2-4 (primarily a low draw feature).

The pair of aces may win unimproved, but even in a heads-up contest against random hands, an unimproved pair of aces loses more than it wins, and by better than a three to two margin (as simulated). So I submit that even in a heads-up contest, the pair of aces is a drawing feature. You want to either see at least another ace on the board or a pair on the board. If you don’t get either of these on the flop, then you should be looking for one or the other on the turn, and then on the river if you miss on the turn. And that’s in a heads-up contest!

A pair of aces in heads-up fixed-limit Omaha-8 is very, very much different from a pair of aces in heads-up Texas hold ‘em. You’re not going to blow your one opponent away and unlike Texas hold ‘em, you’ll lose more often than your win (by a three to two margin) if they don’t improve.

A pair of aces in heads-up fixed-limit Omaha-8 is also very, very much different in a pair of aces in heads-up pot limit Omaha-8 (or no-limit Omaha-8). You’re not going to blow your one opponent away and you’ll lose more often than your win (by a three to two margin) if they don’t improve.

Thus even the pair of aces is a drawing feature. Obviously, the other four features of the hand are all drawing features.

In conclusion, 2 4 A A is very much a drawing hand.

We can’t reach any accord if you don’t see that.

I made some crude approximations to try to present the idea of pulling with respect to this hand and situation. (Probably was a mistake to post them because it’s easy to find holes in them). I’ll look at the holes you found in them in a separate post.

Buzz

tongni please don't waste any further time on this

were not playing heads up against a random hand, were playing hu or 3 ways with a hand that is almost guaranteed to contain an A and very likely to contain a 2. AA2 is quite hard to scoop with A2