|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 9:50:16 PM PACIFIC |
 Not always "0 sum", Snorbolus, 31. May 2003 06:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Omaha is a good game for extreme examples of ideas that apply to all forms of poker. Playing casino O8 for the first time last night I experienced this one: I raise 4 limpers, from the button, with A238. My ace was suited, the other two weren't. Small blind folds, everybody else calls. The flop comes: 67J, two of my suit. Four players, including me, see the turn for one bet apiece. Turn: J, no help to me. Checked around. River: 4, giving me the nut low. The action goes bet, fold, raise. I call and the two other active players proceed to cap it with me calling along. It is pretty obvious that the pot was quartered; but my point is the other A2, no chance of high, was costing both him and myself money every time that he raised. It was miserable. I could see what was happening but there was nothing that I could do to stop it. If you ignore the rake, poker should be a "0 sum" game. However, this does not mean that when another player in a hand (that you are contesting), makes mistakes you always profit. Sometimes they cost you money too. It is just that somebody in that hand will profit from their mistakes. There are examples of this type of thing in all forms of poker, such as Texas Hold'em when you get the right odds to call but then somebody raises behind you with nothing, but I think that O8 provides the most striking example. Not really sure what my point is. Just wanted to share my misery with y'all. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Big_Slick, 31. May 2003 08:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| How did you do overall? I've played a lot of Hi-Lo tourneys and have done quite well but have never had the guts to sit down at a money game. I'm just not comfortable enough with the game yet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", gunbuster, 31. May 2003 09:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 31. May 2003 08:30 Big_Slick wrote: > How did you do overall? I've played a lot of Hi-Lo tourneys and have done quite well > but have never had the guts to sit down at a money game. I'm just not comfortable > enough with the game yet. I find most lower limit O/8 games to be pretty juicy. A lot of players hang around with subpar drawing hands. I was intimidated the first time I played, but I sat around, waited for good quality opening hands and proceeded to drag several big pots (and even bigger "kill" pots). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Kill pot–definition please, SKinner, 3. Jun 2003 12:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Would someone please explain to me what a kill pot is? Thanks, SKinner | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Kill pot–definition please, Andrew Wells, 3. Jun 2003 15:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A kill pot is a hand played at a higher limit. In Omaha-8 this generally means that someone scooped the whole pot which was larger than a certain amount on the previous hand. $5-$10 O-8 with a full kill for example, you win the whole pot over $70 (even if there was no low possible), and on the next hand you post a live small bet of $10 (the blinds remain the same at $2 and $5). This hand is played at $10-$20 limit. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Snorbolus, 1. Jun 2003 08:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| As it turned out I only played Omaha for 20-30min. There was only one O8 game going. It was a full table when I sat down but rapidly became short handed. As I am just a beginner I wanted a full game - fewer tough decisions. Worse still, it seemed to be all the bad players who left. By around about the 3rd orbit the game was down to 6 handed and, I was beginning to suspect that, I wasn't among the best 4 players left. So the next time that the blinds hit I made a run for the Texas Hold'em games instead. I was down 2-3 big bets when I left the game. Even though it was the right decision, I was a little disappointed to leave the game. I was enjoying it. One thing that I did notice though, was that I had some difficulty in managing my cards. Four are quite a lot to just peak at and then leave face down for the rest of the hand, as I do in Texas Hold'em. When I play Omaha in home games I like to keep hold of my cards and, occasionally, fan them out and mull them over for a bit during the hand. In a casino, with other players sitting quite close on either of side of you, it is harder to do that without flashing them. In summary, I will definitely check out the O8 games again and, if they look jucy, I'll play. I very much enjoyed playing. The game has a nice pace and, in that game at least, the players seemed less aggressively competitive than Texas Hold'em players can be. That is to say, the good players seemed more relaxed and friendly. As if they were confident that the money would come their way. So they could just sit back to enjoy the game and the socializing. Snorbolus on 31. May 2003 08:30 Big_Slick wrote: > How did you do overall? I've played a lot of Hi-Lo tourneys and have done quite well > but have never had the guts to sit down at a money game. I'm just not comfortable > enough with the game yet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Andrew Wells, 1. Jun 2003 06:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would have put in a raise on the flop with the double nut draw, the low side being uncounterfeitable. Maybe get a free card when that jack pairs the board on the turn. Still get quartered though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Snorbolus, 1. Jun 2003 10:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the advice. Is this a clear raise or a "it depends" type of a situation? Snorbolus on 1. Jun 2003 06:23 Andrew Wells wrote: > I would have put in a raise on the flop with the double nut draw, the low side being > uncounterfeitable. Maybe get a free card when that jack pairs the board on the turn. > Still get quartered though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Andrew Wells, 1. Jun 2003 13:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's a clear raise on the flop for me anyway. You have last position and should be making use of it with the double nut draw. If you didn't have the extra low card with your A2 it might be more debatable. With A23 any low card gives you the nuts on that side though. Playing this way pays off when you catch one (or both) side for the nuts on the turn and still have a redraw to the other half. Although it's much less likely in Omaha-8 that you can get a free card on the turn (since someone almost always hits something), it's worth it if you make the nut flush right away so you can continue to play fast. In your hand though, unless someone has a jack you may well get checked to on the turn. This of course lets you out cheaper if the river also misses your draws completely. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", BigDMcGee, 1. Jun 2003 16:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| with a uncounterfitable low draw, and a nut high draw, you have to gamble on the flop. YOu have by far the best hand. Now, I didn't understand if the action was three handed or four handed. I'm never really afraid to raise on the end in four way action, if i'm playing with weak players who pay off with bad lows( which is common) because, You're not losing any money. Four way action, you're just getting your money back if you're quartered.. think about it. Some times you're 6th'd, but much more common is that someone ace three's are calling than getting sixthed. Of course, if you know you're playing with nut players, you don't do it. But few players are nut players in low limit omaha. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 2. Jun 2003 10:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You made a number of mistakes here. You started off with a hand that was very unlikely to win the whole pot. Don't play for half a pot. Certainly you shouldn't be raising here. When you made your low and realized that you were getting quartered, but this idiot was jammit it, you're in the classic high-low trap. The nut high is laughing his pants off while you get dragged along. It becomes a question of implicit collusion gone wrong. The only way to solve this one is to look at how much money you are getting and how much money you have to pay to get it. Assume that it will be capped the whole way and that you'll get a quarter of the money in the end. Then figure out if you can fold or not depending on how much money is in and what the cap is. Better yet is to not get into this situation in the first place. Also, you must realize that it is unlikely but possible that you are getting 1/6'ed. If you're up against an opponent who has A2JJ (a reasonable holding if the ace is suited and he's loose) you could be in real trouble when the other guy is holding A245. I've seen stranger things happen. This is why you shouldn't be playing a draw to the low without any draw to the high. You should be tossing those cards away on the flop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Wren, 2. Jun 2003 10:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oh my God...are you kidding? He has a HUGE hand on the flop. He has a draw to the nut flush in addition to his virtually uncounterfeitable low draw. And there is nothing to say on the flop that he's going to get quartered if he makes his low. Don't forget that any A or 2 gives him the nut low too, and it is less likely that an opponent will be holding A3 or 23 than A2, so he will most likely get half here. I would be raising here too, probably a pot-sized raise in PL. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 2. Jun 2003 11:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oops. I didn't notice the flush draw was there...that changes everything. The draw is very good there. Mea culpa. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Wren, 2. Jun 2003 11:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Even without the flush draw, though, he still has to stick around for the low. There is enough money in the pot, and nothing to say he won't be good for half if he hits. Of course, he can't be betting the farm if the low comes and there's action ahead of him, but, as I already pointed out, if the low is made by a 2 or 3 coming, there's a better chance that he's taking half and can maybe even put in a value raise if he hits on the turn. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Snorbolus, 2. Jun 2003 10:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 2. Jun 2003 10:38 stdioh wrote: > You made a number of mistakes here. You started off with a hand that was very > unlikely to win the whole pot. Don't play for half a pot. Certainly you shouldn't be > raising here. You wouldn't raise with A238, suited ace on the button? I would raise that holding from early middle. What is your minimum O8 raising hand pre-flop? >This is why you shouldn't be playing a draw > to the low without any draw to the high. You should be tossing those cards away on > the flop. I had four to both an ace high flush and to an un-counterfetable nut low on the flop. You reccomend throwing that away for one bet? What is your minimum O8 calling hand on the flop? I am very much a beginner at O8 and welcome all advice offered but yours seems uber-tight. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 2. Jun 2003 11:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sorry about not reading carefully. I didn't see that you were also drawing to the flush. In this case you're ok on the flop. When the turn pairs the board you're in some trouble and it is a question of fighting for the nut low and now you are really drawing to an ace or duece to not be quartered...so it is going to be worth hanging on to the river. And then you're married to it...so I think that you did play appropriately. I just missed key information. As for raising preflop, I don't like A238 because it is very rarely going to win all of the pot. The suited ace only adds marginal value as you only hit your flush 4% of the time and often get counterfeited when the board pairs. If you make a straight it is going to be the low end of it, so you're unlikely to take a high with that. Something like A23K with suited ace and suited king would be ok to raise because you've got the monster low draw along with 2 flush draws and a little value from the chance of hitting broadway. Something like A238 with the suited ace is limpable, but I wouldn't raise with it. You want lots of people in a hand with big lows since then when you take half the pot you're still making money. You certainly don't want to be heads up right away with little chance of winning the high. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Wren, 2. Jun 2003 11:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No way. If you're in late position with A238 w/ suited ace and there are tons of limpers who are willing to play next to anything, you are losing a lot by not raising this hand, whether the ace is suited or not. You just have such a GREAT chance to take down at least half the pot. I'm not positive, but I suspect your chances, in this situation, are better than those of somebody holding something like KKQT w/ K suited. In early position, you probably want to just limp because you don't want to lose anybody. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 2. Jun 2003 14:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| True. If you are in late position and there are tonnes of limpers and the game is very loose, then you can raise here for value...but if you are in early or middle position, then no way. You want to encourage people to come along with this holding. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Andrew Wells, 2. Jun 2003 18:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is one of those curious hands that I also wouldn't be making a raise on the button with, but would easily make it three bets. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Snorbolus, 3. Jun 2003 04:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 2. Jun 2003 18:57 Andrew Wells wrote: > This is one of those curious hands that I also wouldn't be making a raise on the button with, but > would easily make it three bets. That is very curious. Why? Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Andrew Wells, 3. Jun 2003 07:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is because a single raise is not going be effective in getting someone who is already in the hand to fold before the flop. However a reraise has some possibility of causing someone who limped with a poor hand to reconsider. You may also get one or both of the blinds to release as well. Having dead money in the pot is more important than keeping players with weak hands involved. It's precisely these weak hands which catch random pairs that you want out of the way to improve your chances of a nut flush holding up for the high side those times when you get this draw on the flop. This is even a stronger play when you are in late or middle position since you now also may have bought the button. As long as you have three opponents (or the equivalent in preflop bets in the pot), you have pot odds to flop a nut low draw holding A2 and another wheel card, so even if it is capped when the action gets back to you it's okay. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 3. Jun 2003 08:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Very interesting position and great food for thought. Thanks Andrew. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", shorn, 3. Jun 2003 08:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Andrew- I am interested to ask if you think this applies to Hold em as well (I think it does). I agree that limpers will generally not fold to one raise because they are getting solid odds to call in most cases. But a 3-bet can fold them off their hand. I guess the question is what hold em hands make it worth it to 3-bet on the button or in the cutoff to get some of those players out and try to isolate? Thanks in advance. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", Andrew Wells, 3. Jun 2003 08:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Pocket pairs like TT where you might consider not raising, but could play more effectively off a three bet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Not always "0 sum", stdioh, 3. Jun 2003 09:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I like to three bet with QQ and JJ. There is a real possibility that I am dominated by a bigger pair who raised originally, but I really want to knock out the jackasses who are in there with AX and KX. Basically, I want to have a shot at winning the thing if I don't flop a set or an overpair. Most ideally, I'd like to be taking my QQ up against as few players as possible too, so knocking anybody out is generally a good thing. The exception to that is if there are 6+ people in the hand in which case I can afford to fold my hand unless I have a set or overpair - then I have odds to let everybody in and try to take a monster pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|