[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
why do people raise in the CO with 97s? J9s? etc

[/ QUOTE ]Hoppscot - Those are two card Texas hold 'em hands. Texas hold 'em is a game such that you can gamble on your opponent's lack of fit with the board.

But this is Omaha-8 and one of your opponents is much more likely to actually have a fit with the flop.
[ QUOTE ]
you have position...

[/ QUOTE ]Position matters in limit Omaha-8, but not nearly as much as in pot-limit Omaha-8, and not as much as in no-limit Texas hold 'em.

[ QUOTE ]
...and a decent hand.

[/ QUOTE ]KKT9s- is not what I would call a "decent hand." (By s-, I mean the ten suited to the nine. I use s without the minus sign for suited to the highest card in the hand). KKT9s- is what I would call a sub-marginal hand. By "sub-marginal" I mean a tad below marginal. Sometimes I'll play sub-marginal hands, but usually for something more than their own intrinsic value.

[ QUOTE ]
i understand that in o8 there are a lot of flops where you are seemingly drawing only to a chop.

[/ QUOTE ]This is one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
just look at the equity between KKT9 and A2 XX, you might be shocked,....

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure what you mean by "equity" as you are using the word here. I don't think a bare ace-deuce is a great Omaha-8 hand, although I'll generally see the flop with it. And I'm probably often going to see the flop, especially from late position along with a lot of limpers, with KKT9s- too, although I surely can see the case for folding it.

But you're comparing four cards (KKT9) to two cards (A2XX). Hardly seems quite a fair comparison. How's about you make it A2T9 and KKT9. Now which of those two hands do you honestly prefer? While A2T9 is not a great hand by any means, it's a head above KKT9 (not quite head and shoulders above).[ QUOTE ]
...with position, I'm not folding here and I think its a SMALL leak to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]How about QQT9? Want to play that one too? How about JJT9? 88T9? 77T9? 66T9? (all with a suited T9) Where do you draw your line?
I don't think any of those hands are very playable. But in a game where everyone is often seeing the flop I might play any of them to alleviate boredom and to appear looser - but certainly not for two bets.
[ QUOTE ]
stop being nits! gambol.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not exactly a matter of being a nit. It's a matter of playing in such a way as to have the odds on your side.

In my considered opinion, the hand needs volume to be playable. If almost everyone ahead of me had limped, I would limp too. If so, I'd be mainly playing the hand for the pair of kings within it. And then on the one time out of eight when the flop had a king, I'd have odds to continue. I'd still need the board to pair, and that's what I'd be drawing for (the board to pair). The suited ten-nine adds value too, but in Omaha-8 suited ten-nine is not great, even when the flop is 8-7-6 (unless you flop a straight flush, but that's too rare to merit serious consideration). In a full loose game, your ten high straight will probably not be the nuts for high on the river (but you'll be stuck in the pot even though you're only playing for the high half of the pot).

I think where you're going wrong is over-valuing KKT9s- as a starting hand. Even when you catch a king on the flop, you're still drawing after the flop, needing the board to pair. And then you're probably paying off on the river even when the board doesn't pair (because the pot may be huge and your opponents will tend to bluff into huge pots).

Gamble? That's what we do. However, we want an edge because the pain of losing is greater than the joy of winning and we thus need to win more often than we lose to have the joy exceed the pain.

Nits? Is playing properly with the odds on your side being a nit?

Buzz