I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Is the turn a call of the raise or a 3 bet?

The river a cap? I led hopefully so the high would raise but the 3 bet made me think more nut lows were out.

PokerStars 2/4 Omaha/8 (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB checks.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(7 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Button calls, BB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 folds.

Turn: (6.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, Button calls, Hero calls, MP1 calls.

River: (14.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, Hero calls, MP1 calls, CO calls.

Final Pot: 26.25 BB

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

I'd check/call turn and river, as your hand is a pulling hand. Betting on the turn allows someone with a full-house to raise and possibly knock out someone with a 5 and low kicker. If these 5xxx people stick around, you build a bigger pot.

On the river, same logic applies. I think the probability of you getting quartered is pretty high here, so I check-call.

Disclaimer: I play lower stakes than this, though, so I may be wrong.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

CJS - I'd bet the flop. And then everything might play out differently.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the turn a call of the raise or a 3 bet?

[/ QUOTE ]It's close. I probably just call so as not to risk losing MP1 at this point. But a raise would be fine too.

[ QUOTE ]
The river a cap?

[/ QUOTE ]Again it's close. Either seems fine.

If you had bet the flop, everything might be different. The way things are, both the turn and river are places you could mix up your play, sometimes raising and sometimes calling. You're not going to gain or lose much one way or the other.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Buzz what is the rational behind the flop lead? I have the draw to the nut low but no counterfit protection and no high. There seems to be no way to promote the hand to a scooper without a 4 and that might still lose to full house.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

This makes no sense buzz, there is no need to lead at this pot with that hand, you are on a DRAW to only half the pot, don't listen to buzz i have no idea why he is telling you to lead, then call then maybe cap??? You are behind so many hands and by continuing to bet you are creating a bigger pot to which you might be getting quartered. If you are going to play this hand use pot control and keep the pot small as you can only win half of it unless a 4 comes and that still might not be good, My advice do not play this hand check the flop, and get away if someone bets. Play hands in which you can win both sides, when you start playing omaha 8 to win just one side that is when you will start loosing alot of money

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
CJS - I'd bet the flop. And then everything might play out differently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you bet at this point? I can't see how someone holding A3 will fold in a 7-way pot. On the other hand, you might scare off some weak high hands, such as the second diamond flush.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz what is the rational behind the flop lead?

[/ QUOTE ]CJS - Multiple reasons. I almost hate to list them for fear I'll leave something out.<ul type="square">
• I think you get a better idea where you are.
• You disguise your own hand better. Your thinking, reasoning opponents have to wonder if you have a five, a full house, a diamond draw, a low draw, or some combination of these.
• You put pressure on your opponents and they're more likely to make mistakes when they're under pressure.
• If you make the nut low on the next card, it's not quite as obvious as checking here and betting there.
• If you get counterfeited on the next card, it's not quite as obvious as checking here.
• Betting here tends to disguise your betting for some future time when you do flop the nuts.
• Betting here fits well with my overall style of play.[/list]I could probably come up with some other reasons, but that's enough for me (and maybe for you as well).
[ QUOTE ]
I have the draw to the nut low but no counterfit protection and no high.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that the flop is certainly not ideal for you.
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be no way to promote the hand to a scooper without a 4 and that might still lose to full house.

[/ QUOTE ]Good points. I still like betting this flop.

No hand is an island.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you bet at this point?

[/ QUOTE ]Tilt Monkey - Please see my reply to CJS, just above.
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how someone holding A3 will fold in a 7-way pot. On the other hand, you might scare off some weak high hands, such as the second diamond flush.

[/ QUOTE ]Good points. I agree.

But I think the reasons for betting outweigh the reasons for checking.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense buzz,

[/ QUOTE ]Sneaks - Please read my reply to CJS for some reasons to bet.

[ QUOTE ]
there is no need to lead at this pot with that hand, you are on a DRAW to only half the pot,

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not quite looking at it that way.

[ QUOTE ]
don't listen to buzz i have no idea why he is telling you to lead,

[/ QUOTE ]Perhaps you will have an idea if you read my reply to CJS.
[ QUOTE ]
then call then maybe cap???

[/ QUOTE ]Wait! You're putting words in my mouth.

But yes, I am not going to fold to a raise.

[ QUOTE ]
You are behind so many hands and by continuing to bet you are creating a bigger pot to which you might be getting quartered.

[/ QUOTE ]or sixthed, or eighthed. Yes, that's a risk.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to play this hand use pot control and keep the pot small as you can only win half of it unless a 4 comes and that still might not be good,

[/ QUOTE ]In a limit Omaha-8 ring game, I'm always going to play this hand. I might not play it in a tournament, depending, and I can't speak for pot limit play. But there's no doubt about my playing this hand in a limit ring game. It's not a close decision.
[ QUOTE ]
My advice do not play this hand check the flop, and get away if someone bets.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow.
[ QUOTE ]
Play hands in which you can win both sides,

[/ QUOTE ]Of course.
[ QUOTE ]
when you start playing omaha 8 to win just one side that is when you will start loosing alot of money

[/ QUOTE ]That's too tight for me. It takes good judgment to play well after the flop, and how best to play always depends on your opponents, but I think you leave a lot of money behind if you fold everytime you don't have a two-way hand after the flop.

Sometimes you can promote those hands that seem one way hands to scoopers. I don't think that's probably the case here, but a four of spades on the turn and then a ten of spades on the river, and maybe the hand does get promoted - I don't think that's going to happen, but something else might. I honestly don't think something else is going to happen to give Hero a scooper here either, but I think Hero should play so as to be able to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.

I still like betting this flop. If you are incapable of understanding, so be it.

Lastly, allow me to point out that if you play too tightly you are very exploitable. Too loose is obviously not good. But too tight, though not as bad as too loose, is also not good.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Buzz you seem to like to lead the flop in a lot of different situations. It seems to make putting you on a hand very difficult. However you don't seem to have to hit the flop hard to take the initiative in a hand. Is that a true indication of your flop thoughts? Does this get you in trouble on later streets in your hands?

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz you seem to like to lead the flop in a lot of different situations.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to make putting you on a hand very difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]I hope so. [ QUOTE ]
However you don't seem to have to hit the flop hard to take the initiative in a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
Is that a true indication of your flop thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]It's true that I usually (but not always) bet the flop when I am planning to continue with a hand. And that has me betting in a lot of different situations (but not always). And part of the reason I do that is to somewhat disguise my cards at all times when I bet the flop. But there's more to it than just disguising my hand. In my second response to you, I listed some other reasons why I bet the flop. One of the most important is to try to get a clearer picture of where I stand in a hand, and that is based on the reactions of my opponents. Hopefully I can out-play them on later streets...steal sometimes, promote a one-way hand into a scooper, fold when I should, etc. Honestly I can't always out-play my opponents on later streets. Some of my opponents are simply better poker players than I am. Some of them, from my perspective are damned fine poker players!
[ QUOTE ]
Does this get you in trouble on later streets in your hands?

[/ QUOTE ]Hopefully no, but possibly yes. I've got my antennae out when I make that flop bet, trying to put my opponents who continue on a range of hands, or maybe on particular two-card combinations. It's tough because they're all a little (or a lot) different from each other, and the way they play generally depends on who else is in the hand. Lots of combinations in the opponents themselves and also in the cards they'll play under different circumstances. And poker is a game of deception. They're mostly trying to fool me and they do it in different ways.

There's a lot to this Omaha-8 game.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

I never thought I'd see the day when Buzz became the loose cannon of the O8 forum, but here it is. I guess reading all those Wintermute posts finally paid off... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I'd like to add that seven players saw this flop. In a loose game, there is no harm in building a pot with the nut low draw. In a tight game against no 5s and/or a bunch of dinked deuces, he might take it down there. Plus, it's important to bet your low draws so that you won't be so easy to read, and you''ll get paid off better for your other stuff.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

results

PokerStars 2/4 Omaha/8 (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB checks.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(7 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Button calls, BB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 folds.

Turn: (6.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, Button calls, Hero calls, MP1 calls.

River: (14.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, Hero calls, MP1 calls, CO calls.

Final Pot: 26.25 BB

Results
Hero has 3h Td 8s As (Low: 6, 5, 3, 2, A | High: two pair, sixes and fives).
MP1 has 4d Ad Kd Qh (Low: 6, 5, 4, 2, A | High: two pair, sixes and fives).
CO has 4s 5h 4c 2c (High: full house, fives full of sixes).
Button has 9s 5c Qd 6c (High: full house, sixes full of fives).
Outcome: Hero wins 13.12 BB. Button wins 13.12 BB. </font>

I don't know if leading the flop would have made any difference in this hand. I got a nice 2 way split against 4 players but I may have left aleast one bet on the table on the river. Not sure I would have got both to call a cap.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Add MP1 to your x-mas card list. On a .02/.04 table I would expect someone to call the 3-bet with A4 on the river, but are there really a lot of people like this at $2/4?

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Look, with that many players involved in the hand, you'd have to be nuts not to bet out at that flop with a draw to the nut low. It's a helluva lot less "chasy" than someone holding A4 or a diamond draw that misses. This is a spot where we're right to hope to build a huge pot and take down the bottom half. Even if we earn a quarter, by the river the pot will be so large from the number of hopeful chasers drawing to worse lows and crappy his that we still make $$$...
As usual Buzz is right. Any 6, 7, or 8 with two cards to come wins us nut low. That's 12 outs x 4 = 48% chance of hitting. No brainer.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any 6, 7, or 8 with two cards to come wins us nut low. That's 12 outs x 4 = 48% chance of hitting.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Count - Well, you got pretty close, but...

Any four, six, seven, or eight with two cards to come wins us nut low.

The easiest way to figure this is to think in combinations rather than permutations.
(step 1) to know that after the flop, there are always 990 possible turn/river combinations. That's from C(45,2) = 45*44/2 = 990. That's because there are always 45 unseen cards after the flop (assuming no exposed cards, no collusion, and no peeking).

(step 2) Either compute the number of unfavorable combinations and subtract from 990, or simply compute the number of favorable combinations. I'm going to compute both and the check is that they add up to 990.

This is slightly complicated because there are not just two groups of cards, as there are for some probability calculations. Instead, there are three groups of cards:<ul type="square">• favorable cards,
• counterfeiting cards, and
• blanks.[/list]The favorable cards are fours, sixes, sevens, and eights. The counterfeiting cards are aces and deuces. The blanks are everything else.

Since there are three groups of cards, I'll label them F (favorable), C (counterfeiting), and B (blank).
There are 15 F cards, 6 C cards, and 24 B cards. And of course that adds up to 45, the total number of unseen cards.

Then there are six possibilities, FF, FC, FB, CC, CB, and BB. Since we are dealing with combinations rather than permutations, the order of the cards doesn't matter. (Thus after both cards have been dealt, FB and BF amount to the same thing).

The favorable combinations for Hero are FF and FB. Unfavorable combinations are FC, CC, CB and BB.

Now let's compute.
FF, 15*14/2 = 105.
FB, 15*24 = 360.

We could stop here, but just to show that it all balances, we'll continue.

FC, 15*6 = 90
CC, 6*5/2 = 15
CB, 6*24 = 144
BB, 24*23/2 = 276.

Thus there are a total of 105+360 = 465 favorable combinations, and
90+15+144+276 = 525 unfavorable combinations.

And finally, for our check, 465+525 = 990.

Thus the probability Hero will make the nut low is 465/990 = 0.47 or expressed as a per cent, 47%.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

LOL thanks Buzz... that's close enough for me. I didn't count 4s (+4 outs) because we don't really need one to secure the nut low as the cards lie... especially given that threes (-3 outs) counterfeit us b/c they nullify the fours. So I considered the odds of seeing a 3 or a 4 as a wash. Plus, I didn't use a calculator [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
results

PokerStars 2/4 Omaha/8 (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB checks.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(7 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Button calls, BB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 folds.

Turn: (6.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, Button calls, Hero calls, MP1 calls.

River: (14.25 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, Hero calls, MP1 calls, CO calls.

Final Pot: 26.25 BB

Results
Hero has 3h Td 8s As (Low: 6, 5, 3, 2, A | High: two pair, sixes and fives).
MP1 has 4d Ad Kd Qh (Low: 6, 5, 4, 2, A | High: two pair, sixes and fives).
CO has 4s 5h 4c 2c (High: full house, fives full of sixes).
Button has 9s 5c Qd 6c (High: full house, sixes full of fives).
Outcome: Hero wins 13.12 BB. Button wins 13.12 BB. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really the results the hand history gave? If so, something is messed up - they seem to be playing some form of Omaha in which you can use 4 board cards.

You (and MP1) should not have two pair for high here, you can only use three of the board cards. Also, CO should have only fives full of twos, not fives full of sixes.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
The easiest way to figure this is to think in combinations rather than permutations.
(step 1) to know that after the flop, there are always 990 possible turn/river combinations. That's from C(45,2) = 45*44/2 = 990. etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding me. The easiest way to think of this is that there are 16 cards to complete the NL, and everything else is bad. How is running all those calculations easier, save for a math genius or human calculator? Most people are averse to math, even some poker players, and in almost all cases thinking about smaller numbers is better... i.e. the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator).

I don't think there is a wrong play between calling, raising or anything but folding this flop, and later streets as well, although as long as it's 4 ways why not at least call everything when the NL comes in and isn't later counterfeited? Given that it's limit, when you're splitting low you are even, when you're counterfeited you are not losing a huge pot, and when you scoop you MAY be more than making up for the losses of the other permutations. If we were infinitely deep in PL or NL, a flop fold would be wise, and perhaps even on the turn, because then the danger of counterfeiting is extreme. But in Limit, four way, we have to take off our tin hats.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
The easiest way to think of this is that there are 16 cards to complete the NL, and everything else is bad. How is running all those calculations easier, save for a math genius or human calculator?

[/ QUOTE ]Rando - I see your point. Good point. It's just that 990 is always the number of combinations for the turn and river in Omaha or Omaha-8, and thus it's a pertinent number after every flop.

And although sometimes you want to use 16/45 after the flop, other times you want to project for two more cards, and then you use 990 as the denominator.
[ QUOTE ]
in almost all cases thinking about smaller numbers is better

[/ QUOTE ]Maybe in most cases, but not here.

It's actually much easier to divide by 990 than by 45. (990 is only 1% away from a thousand. Just move the decimal place over one place, round up a tiny bit, and think in terms of per cents).

But I see your point.

I thought it was amusing that The Count used 12, somehow multiplied by 4, and got damned close to the right answer. I got a kick out of that.

And then I just decided to solve the problem rigorously for The Count (which I did) - and he got a kick out of it too.

It was just in fun.

But more seriously, I think with two low ranks on the flop and the nut (though not counterfeit proof) low draw, once you see the turn, unless you are counterfeited, you're also going to see the river - but then you're also ducking out if you get counterfeited on the river. So you want to know your chances for the next two cards, not just the next one card.

What I meant by "easiest" is that using combinations is easier than using permutations, just to get an idea of how often you'll end up with the nut low.

I like numbers.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Buzz, I'm finding it hard to believe that a man of your vast poker knowledge has never heard of "the rule of 4 and 2"????

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Hi Count - I have the feeling that you're pulling my leg, but I'll bite.

What is the rule of 4 and 2?

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

OMG...

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

It's a Texas Hold'em rule of thumb, why should it be relevant here?

Buzz is hard core Omaholic!

Then you've got split pots to consider, so go figure...

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Um, it's a POKER rule of thumb... the kind of poker played with a five-card community board. But you go right ahead and ignore it. Please.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Texas Hold'em ain't Poker!

Just add up all the seen cards on the flop, and relate outs to % figures and you'll realise the MisCount.

Then also in a game where the 'Turn' is so fickle, why would you be interested in '4' at all, you gonna draw multi-way on a str8 or flush with a paired board?

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Obviously a paired board makes a straight or flush draw highly unprofitable, so the outs wouldn't count.
Like I said, don't use the rule. I did, and came up with the same number as Buzz in much less time.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

That rule is not accurate for Omaha, even if you can't figure out any of your opponents cards; when you can it's significantly worse.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any 6, 7, or 8 with two cards to come wins us nut low. That's 12 outs x 4 = 48% chance of hitting. No brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's not worry about a 'bust' cards (turn or river) card then.
Let's not consider the chances of our Nut Lo being duplicated, causing us to be quartered.

We'll just say 48% and fire away!

Note, I'm not disagreeing with playing decision, just the assumption that the rule of thumb is of any value, for a good player.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Actually there are 4 cards that still make our nut low (4s) and 3 that ruin it (3s). A conservative estimate is that they cancel each other out.. thus leaving 12 outs to hitting our nut low. So the estimate is perfectly valid.

Hold 'em and Omaha are both games where the number of unseen cards and the number of seen cards are exactly the same. So the Rule of 4 and 2 applies to both. Your saying it doesn't makes no sense, and a "good" player could see that immediately.
Any evidence to refute this, besides you just saying that it doesn't apply?

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

If you had 30 outs then you would have 120% chance of making your hand according to Rule of 4. It isn't a good estimate when there are a lot of outs.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

1) Give me an example of a hand where you'd have 30 outs.
2) Even if you can, give me an example of a hand where you have 30 outs and would need to calculate odds to determine whether you should stay in the hand. Anyone with 30 outs with two cards to come, should there be such a person, would never fold.

Nice try. Try logic next time.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hold 'em and Omaha are both games where the number of unseen cards and the number of seen cards are exactly the same.


[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I got dealt in Omaha, I had 4 cards.

[ QUOTE ]

So the Rule of 4 and 2 applies to both. Your saying it doesn't makes no sense, and a "good" player could see that immediately.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, simply counting your outs properly and systematically, and counting unseen cards then doing 1 division, will show a significant discrepancy.

Besides, 2 &amp; 4 ain't even accurate enough for class FLHE cash, though it's going to be more than fine for NL tourney players.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Give me an example of a hand where you'd have 30 outs.


[/ QUOTE ]
As you seem to like Hold'em, I'll suggest 1/2 a hand; KsQs

Board : Js Ts Tc 5d

Opponent has the 'best' hand 2c2d.

Apart from the obvious 20 outs, remembering 2s is a bust, you have 3 J's and 3 5's.

Once you've checked this 1/2 example, you'll find it's half-baked even for Hold'em, yet many tourney players would fold that hand!

Deal yourself 2 more cards, and give your opponent 2 more cards say 33, I'm sure you'll find it easy to reach 30 outs.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Whether you have two hole cards or four, the number of unseen cards remains the same for HE or Omaha. Duh.

In the example you've given you have 9 flush outs and 8 OESD outs, all of which are tainted by the paired board. Not even close to 30 outs here. A "good" player would not even consider the OESD outs.. and would be very, very pessimistic about hitting a second nut flush with a paired board.

Again.. logic is a beautiful thing. You should try using it sometime.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you have two hole cards or four, the number of unseen cards remains the same for HE or Omaha.

[/ QUOTE ]???

Before flop:<ul type="square">52 - 4 (in hand) = 48 unseen cards in Omaha or Omaha-8.
52 - 2 (in hand) = 50 unseen cards in Texas hold 'em.[/list]
After flop:<ul type="square">52 - 4 (in hand) - 3 (in flop) = 45 unseen cards in Omaha or Omaha-8.
52 - 2 (in hand) - 3 (in flop) = 47 unseen cards in Texas hold 'em.[/list]
After turn:<ul type="square">52-4-3-1 = 44 unseen cards in Omaha or Omaha-8.
52-2-3-1 = 46 unseen cards in Texas hold 'em.[/list]
After river:<ul type="square">52-4-3-1-1 = 43 unseen cards in Omaha or Omaha-8.
52-2-3-1-1 = 45 unseen cards in Texas hold 'em.[/list]

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

I think there has to be an allowance for the fact that exactly two of the four cards seen can be used, where as in HE 0,1, or 2 can... but I'm not sure about the math on that.

Also, the rule is based on outs and cards to come, so I'm not even sure that seen/unseen factors in as much as matching the board to your hand.

Still haven't seen a good, mathematical argument that either disproves the validity of the rule, or proves that it is invalid for Omaha 8 play.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

Hi Count - If I can show an instance of where it doesn't apply, will that suffice as a "proof"?

Suppose you hold
Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and suppose the flop is
Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

I'm not sure how to count your outs. Should we count hearts that make your straight as outs or not? Should we count the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] as an out or not?

At any rate, 13 cards make you a nut straight on the turn (but three of them are hearts).

Using the rule, you have a 52% chance of winning the hand if you count the hearts but not the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. If you count the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] too, you have a 56%, according to the rule. If you count neither the hearts not the queens, you have a 40% chance of winning.

Well, wait, how do you want to count the sixes, since they enable low for your opponent, but not for you?

Let's just run it and see what happens. And then you can decide after you look at the results. (Maybe you can come up with a way to use the rule that will help us all).

As simulated against one opponent with blank cards (to be randomly dealt for 100,000 deals),
Hero ends up with:<ul type="square">94 quads
2749 full houses,
48690 straights,
6639 trips,
19155 two pairs
22673 one pair[/list]
Hero wins or ties with:<ul type="square">94 quads
2735 full houses,
42930 straights,
4695 trips,
10133 two pairs
8688 one pair[/list]
Hero scoops 32213.
Counting winning half the pot, either by splitting with low, or splitting with high as 0.50 wins, and counting winning 1/4 of the pot (losing to low and getting tied for high) as 0.25 wins, Hero has a total of 18391.75 "high only" pots.

The total share for Hero of the 100,000 pots in the simulation, assuming they are all of the same size, is 50594.75 wins. (And Villain must then have 49405.25 "wins"). So I'd round off and say Hero has a pot equity of 50.6% and Villain has a pot equity of 49.4%.

So going back to using the rule, looks like if we just use 13 outs and disregard taking away three for the hearts or adding one for the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], we get pretty close.

Sound like a good way to use the rule? Maybe it is. I haven't checked it out yet. I'm going to do that now.

This time, let's make Hero's hand
8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and suppose the flop is
8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I made that as similar as I could, but dropped it down a few ranks.

And now let's simulate.

Oops, now Hero wins or ties some lows too. Now Hero:<ul type="square">scoops 40600,
gets 9841 for high, and
gets 15915 for low.[/list]Now Hero's equity goes up to 66356, or I'd round off to 66.4% (and Villain is down at 33.6%). How do we count outs when we flop a poor low? And how do we apply this at all to one opponent out of a larger number in a full game?

And, obviously if more than one opponent sees the flop the percentages change. Here are the bottom line pot equities for Hero with five seeing the flop, Hero with stipulated hands and four opponents with random cards:
Hero with QJT9o (flop Qc8h7h): 21.3%
Hero with 8765o (flop 8c4h3h): 28.7%

(Of course your opponents don't have random cards and both of these hands are terrible in a typically loose, live casino full limit game of Omaha-8).

I don't think I "proved" anything, except that I cannot see how to apply the rule in such a way as to be very helpful to me in Omaha-8.

Having to use exactly three cards on the board instead of three, four, or five board cards is one difference between Omaha-8 and Texas hold 'em. Then there is the number of two card combinations in Omaha-8 as compared to the number of combinations you can make using two, one or no cards from a Texas hold 'em hand. Perhaps even more importantly, you cannot count outs as worth as much in O8 as in T.H.E. But the capper is the high/low split aspect of Omaha-8.

At least in terms of the cards involved, Omaha-8, is simply a more complex game than Texas hold 'em. I can't see how to make much use of the rule of 4 and 2.

Trouble is, you usually have some scoop outs, some outs for high and other outs for low. Additionally, you had to make a fudge factor adjustment to get to 12 from the 16 outs Hero actually had for low here.

But I have to admit that in this instance, (coming up with a percentage for the nut low draw after a 2-5-5 flop) your bottom line was pretty close to my rigorously calculated one.

Buzz

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

ok let me read this closely tomorrow Buzz...I'm sure it's rigorously analyzed.

Re: I still don\'t get these low only hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
don't listen to buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst advice ever posted in the O/8 forum.

I ever learned that you never bet a low draw, then your opponents will be able to read you like a comic book. Getting quartered ain't so bad in a big pot.