One day I will learn how to play 10/20 LO8

[lucid75]

When you raise w/ this hand preflop, you need to hit a board that fits in very well w/ your hand. Say, generally paint, maybe a spade or two. Paired board isn't horrible either. This flop is maybe one of the worst case scenarios. You have to dodge low and have one pair hold up for potentially half. The safe cards that can come for you that MIGHT make it possible to card are slim. while the cards that scare the [censored] out of you are many, low cards, straightening low cards, a paired low card. Calling on the flop is only reserved for when you have a realllllllllllllllllllly good read on this guy, and then you have to be Neo and dodge bullets for half.

[Micturition Man]

Buzz -

I think your combination of steal equity, plus the secondary possiblity of getting heads-up with position, makes the hand playable from the cut-off.

I specificed reasonable opponents though. I guess if they are too laggy you would have to fold, or if they were loose-passive you might open-limp (not that I like open-limping).

I agree that it's not a very good starting hand, obviously, but that's not the point. When are in the cutoff you no longer need a very good hand, just a decentish hand. IMO it's good enough.

As a thought experiment let's say everyone folded to us in on the button rather than in the cut-off. Do you still like a fold?

I would lay very generous odds that we are +EV opening on the button with this hand. Just curious if you agree with that or if you still don't like the hand even then.

[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

[Micturition Man]

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

you have position and a decent hand.

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

just look at the equity between KKT9 and A2 XX, you might be shocked, with position, I'm not folding here and I think its a SMALL leak to do so.

stop being nits! gambol.

[/ QUOTE ]


I hadn't noticed this post until buzz responded but I think it is very well put.

The playability of a hand is a function of it's strength AND position.

When you get as late as the cut-off, the bottom end of your opening distribution should consist of decently coordinated high hands. Badly coordinated high hands are still unplayable, and well-coordinated high hands are not at the bottom.

The analogy with 97s is perfect imo. Is it a good hand? Not really. Is it good enough? I think so.

[hoppscot22]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

you might not think a bare ace-deuce is a great O8 hand, but the majority of people do, even up to 25-50 and 30-60. My overall point is that if you actually look at preflop equity in omaha 8, a lot of hands are much closer then you would originally think, so shorthanded in position I am going to play much more aggressively and take the edge i get in position over the slight equity i may give up.

this is especially the case in shorthanded, higher stakes, aggro games. Maybe im just more used to 25-50 where it is usually 3 or 4 handed and aggression is king.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you still like a fold?

[/ QUOTE ]Micturation Man - I'm not exactly in the fold camp. I'm more in the grimace and call camp. Well.... I don't know.... maybe I would fold with no limpers ahead of me.

But on the button? Well.... I don't know.... I like the position better and from on the button after all folds I'd be seriously considering the possibility of stealing the blinds. I guess if I thought I could get away with stealing more often than not, I might come in with a raise from on the button.

[ QUOTE ]
I would lay very generous odds that we are +EV opening on the button with this hand. Just curious if you agree with that or if you still don't like the hand even then.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm guessing "opening on the button" means coming in with a raise on the button.

I don't play this game like I play Texas hold 'em. Holding either KK or T9s in a Texas hold 'em game, after all folds to me on the button I would open, meaning I would come in with a raise.

I don't play ring games like I play tournaments. Holding KKT9s- at the final table in a tournament, after folds to me, if I played this hand, it would be with a raise and against blind posters I expected would fold.

I would not raise with this hand in a ring game unless I was fairly certain I could steal the blinds and be unchallenged. And stealing the blinds in a typical ring game is just not very realistic. It does sometimes happen, but not much and I think with this hand it's a bad gamble, a long shot.

Buzz

[gergery]

Fold preflop as default play.

you could look at it a couple ways:
1) As a rough guideline, Bill Boston's book KKT9 as top 55% of hands for tightish fullring game, and stealing w that range is too loose for most games

2) you could look at its equity. So, vs. random hand hot/cold you're even money vs. a top 25% hand and around a 42-57% (or 1.35 to 1) dog. Comparing this to limit holdem, for example, makes your hand roughly equivalent to say T6s, Q5o, or 22.

3) you might argue that with that equity, you are getting odds and have positon so you can play it. But that means that the blinds are also getting odds and so are much less likely to fold. sort of equivalent to LHE when blinds defend super loose

4) But those equities only show hot/cold. When actually playing, your hand is sorta like 22 from LHE: it is not in bad shape equity wise to many hands, can hit big, will often be ahead on the flop but opponets will always have outs, but most of the time won't know where it stands. as a result you are at a playing disadvantage. Here for example, you flopped the most likely flop you would expect: 2 low cards, no set and you have a tough time on the flop.

5) all that said, there are times you steal here: when blinds don't defend correctly, play bad postflop, when fits into overall metagame strategy, etc.

-g

[hoppscot22]

[ QUOTE ]
can hit big, will often be ahead on the flop but opponets will always have outs, but most of the time won't know where it stands. as a result you are at a playing disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really shouldnt be playing omaha 8 or better if that is seriously how you feel about the game, your opponents will almost always have outs, and that definitely does not mean you are playing at a disadvantage, sorry thats just wrong

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can hit big, will often be ahead on the flop but opponets will always have outs, but most of the time won't know where it stands. as a result you are at a playing disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really shouldnt be playing omaha 8 or better if that is seriously how you feel about the game, your opponents will almost always have outs, and that definitely does not mean you are playing at a disadvantage, sorry thats just wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't decide whether you are deliberately obtuse, have poor reading comprehension, or are a troll. What about being put to tough decisions not knowing where your hand stands is unclear to you? This is basic poker 101: you are way behind, or you are ahead with your opponents having a bunch of outs

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
you might not think a bare ace-deuce is a great O8 hand, but the majority of people do, even up to 25-50 and 30-60.

[/ QUOTE ]Hoppscot - I believe a correct understanding of the relative strength of starting hands is an advantage in this game. There are a lot of general misconceptions probably held by a majority of those who play some Omaha-8. I'm not sure that what a majority thinks about a bare ace-deuce is necessarily the truth.
[ QUOTE ]
My overall point is that if you actually look at preflop equity in omaha 8, a lot of hands are much closer then you would originally think,....

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know what you mean by "you." (Do you mean me specifically or do you mean people in general?) But no matter.

We're not comparing KKT9s- to any specific hand. I'd rate it as a not particularly strong hand. I'd also rate A2T9s- as a not particularly strong hand, but at least one that was better than average.

I like both of those hands better in a crowd than one-on-one after a crowd has been dealt hands, all but one of which have been folded.

A2T9 only has a probability of making the nut low 424512/1712304 = 24.79%.

That's only one time out of four, and then there's the whole fractionating thing to consider (getting quartered, sixthed, or eighthed).

The probability of A2T9 making a non-nut low (live ace or live deuce) is another 11.73%.

In a full, tight game (which this one seems to me to be), since everyone is going to play hands with ace-deuce, A2T9 is very likely to be get fractionated for low, and it's not strong for high.

But A2T9, although not a great hand (in my humble opinion, regardless of what the "majority" thinks) is at least a better starting hand than KKT9. In a heads-up contest between A2T9 and KKT9, I don't know and I don't care which is the better hand. (My guess is they're very close). Heads-up against an unknown hand, I would prefer A78J-rainbow to KKT9 with a suited ten-nine. (I would not normally seriously consider playing A78J-rainbow in a full game).
[ QUOTE ]
so shorthanded in position I am going to play much more aggressively and take the edge i get in position over the slight equity i may give up.

[/ QUOTE ]That makes good sense to me. But this is not a short-handed game. Instead this is a rather tight game (by my standards) where Hero is in the cut-off seat after three folds. What that means to me is three garbage hands may have folded, possibly leaving the cream of the crop yet to act behind me.

Playing this KKT9s- hand under those conditions is very awkward.
[ QUOTE ]
this is especially the case in shorthanded, higher stakes, aggro games. Maybe im just more used to 25-50 where it is usually 3 or 4 handed and aggression is king.

[/ QUOTE ]Three or four handed would be quite a different game from this seven handed game. A game where three people have folded is simply not the same as a game where only four people were originally dealt cards.

I don't know as "aggression is king" in my limit Omaha-8 games, but aggressive play, when properly and deftly applied, is rewarded, in my humble opinion. You don't necessarily have to come in with a raise to play this game aggressively.

I suppose it's somewhat a matter of playing style.

Buzz