Omaha 8 article -- The Flaws

[MeetUrTwin]

[ QUOTE ]
So why are we arguing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering only a single hand, you are correct, scooping is more than 2x as profitable as splitting. However, this is useless information in isolation, and by constructing a case where the EV of the scoop vs. the split are equal, Buzz has inadvertantly created an idea that is very easily misinterpreted (by himself even). The mistake he uses is that he will run the split case twice, allowing the player to win the same revenue while risking two bets, yet he only runs the scoop scenario ONCE. Apples to oranges.

Let me draw up another example. Suppose you have a 50% chance of splitting. However, instead of a 25% chance of scooping, let's say you have a 10% chance of scooping only. Now, the scoop is still "more than doubly profitable" than the split; however, we would never be so stupid as to believe that this is justification for thinking it is better to draw to this scoop than to the split. Even if we run the split case twice, we arrive at EXACTLY the same conclusion Buzz arrives at in his article. From Buzz:

"It’s true that if you scoop once and lose once, you end up with the same amount as when you win half the pot twice (assuming pot sizes are the same). However, you will end up with more chips if you only put your chips at risk once and if you scoop that one time, than if you put your chips at risk twice and win half the pot both times."

BUT THIS IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE SCOOP ONLY COMES 10% OF THE TIME! You must take 10 trials here; 1 in 10 where the scoop wins, 5 in 10 where the split comes. ONLY then can you see how ridiculous it is to claim that the scoop is more valuable than the split.

Now, you might claim that everybody understands these concepts perfectly well (still, I'm not completely convinced that's the case). However, the spirit of Buzz's article and his usage of this confusing concept is entirely misleading to O8 players, and that is the real reason I'm arguing about it. Buzz is clearly trying to use this scenario study to promote the old adage in O8 that we should aim to scoop rather than split is correct in many senses. Unfortunately, his argument offers absolutely no justification for that adage, because in his scenario, a scoop is exactly identical to a split, in any intelligent interpretation of the scenario (which requires several trials to allow the true odds to be revealed). The "try to scoop not split" adage primarily is concerned with starting hands--it is the reason why we might prefer to play a hand like A234ds rather than A29Qr in a full ring game, since the A234ds will make many more nut high hands than the A29Qr against a field, DESPITE the fact that A29Q is statistically better head to head if both hands are always played to showdown:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 500000 sampled boards
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
4c 3c Ad 2d 122764 215220 263769 21011 129827 0 143051 0.485
2s Ac Qd 9h 167107 263769 215220 21011 0 39534 143051 0.515

However, to say that scoop outs are "worth more" than split outs, using exactly the case that Buzz uses, where the EV of the two scenarios is identical, is complete nonsense. When it comes to scenarios where you split 50% of the time vs. scenarios where you scoop 25% of the time, the two ARE IDENTICAL.

edit: holy sht. I just realized that in the example he is using, hero has exactly the same % chance of making a winning hand in both cases. Then obviously the scoop draw is better. Jesus, I thought this article was analogous to that old thread, which was actually interesting. Instead, it's just an obvious spot of playing to half the pot for the same odds as playing to the full pot. Duh, Buzz.

btw, the thread I'm referring to is here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1