Steve Badger\'s advice
 

On a previous discussion I replied talking about position in this game. Everyone seemed to be debating against me and Steve Badger, ever since I referred to http://www.playwinningpoker.com/omaha/pot-limit/
I have been playing on PartyPoker starting with $5000 play money and now I have around $120 000 on my account play money. A lot of my decisions are based on what Badger says. However, one person replied to me saying that his advice was silly, wrong, misleading etc; It certainly has not mislead me. By the way, the reason I'm starting a new discussion on this is because this made the other discussion totally off topic when by the starter was asking out flop and turn play and not nearly as much on pre-flop starting hands.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

I am not going to focus on this too much, but expect to get plenty of comments that focus on how you are playing with play money not real dollars. The article you are referencing is focused much more on a game that is several hundred BB deep, where the implied odds against hero of playing every street OOP are taken to the extreme.

In the article you linked, Steve Badgeer states:

"If the chips are deep you should be limp/fold almost everything. The main reason to play hands out of position in PLO is to encourage other people to play out of position. That is really and truly the main reason. You want to limp and fold, while they limp and call your raises when you are in position."

Steve Badger never defines "deep" but I assume it is at least 200 BB. If you limp fold from EP against aggressive players in a deep stack format, hero will never get a chance to outplay the aggressive players with a variety of weak leads, check/raises and check/call + check raise or bet combination moves that can take advantage of the other players' aggression to create relative positional advantage.

"If the chips are deep you should be limp/fold almost everything." When holdemsucks posted that folding aa83 ss was the correct play when faced with one preflop raise he misapplied this part of the article. Suited aces represent an elite section of starting hands. If you limp/call with them from EP you will have hidden the nature of you hand, and created the opportunity to play advantageous flops in relative position to the aggressor. Deep stack scenarios may be even more advantageous by encouraging the late position aggressor to take multiple shots at the pot, thereby allowing hero to more effectively trap with strong hands.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

The problem with Steve Badger's advice is that it implies that it's basically impossible to win money from early position. Yet almost every winning player on this forum will tell you that they win money from EP. Therefore, his advice is wrong. It's not even debatable, it's that simple.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Steve Badger's advice is that it implies that it's basically impossible to win money from early position. Yet almost every winning player on this forum will tell you that they win money from EP. Therefore, his advice is wrong. It's not even debatable, it's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, I'm not a huge winner by any means but the only spot I'm losing from is the BB, and clearly that is less position related than forced to pip.

Omaha is not like real estate, position, position, position.


[ QUOTE ]

But again, PLO is position and betting. A solid player who understands the game and has deep chips, can play 3579 in position and eat up AAKK, while also play AAKK in position to eat up 3579.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if the guy that has AAKK doesn't understand the game.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

a solid player who understands the game and has deep chips will eat up anybody from any position with AAKK.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

My life at 6-max:


http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/8434/positionuh9.jpg

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

I know you are well intentioned but surely you can see that this is going to be a somewhat trollish thread. The problem is, Badger wrote for a game that almost everyone who posts here has never played. Comparing full ring, live game PLO from the 90s to 6 max internet play online, is well, insert your own metaphor for very different things.

It doesn't help that badger exaggerates to make his point.

What is the point, is that unlike holdem, there are very many winning styles of PLO, so if it works for you, [censored] 2+2. To be honest, my style of play in the PLO ring games online 2+ years ago was very Badger-esque and although it had a lot of flaws, it made money. Making money is the ultimate test.

gl

bdd

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

<font color="green">Hi Big Dave - I intend to keep my eye on the thread and manage it if it becomes trollish. In the meanwhile, perhaps a healthy discussion of different points of view will develop.

As I'm sure you’ll agree, there are different successful styles of card play, including pot-limit Omaha-high play. And if an Omaha style that formerly was successful for you no longer works well, this seems a good place to make that clear.

I think it's healthy for a forum to have different points of view presented, as long as the opposing posters are cordial to each other.

At any rate, I'm inclined to let this thread continue for a while to see what points of view people come up with.

What do you think?

Maybe I'm missing something.

I do understand your concern, and appreciate your representing it.

Buzz
moderator</font>

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
unlike holdem, there are very many winning styles of PLO

[/ QUOTE ] I do not want to discuss Hold 'em in an Omaha discussion, but I disagree; there are two main styles in winning Hold 'em, tight-aggressive and loose-aggressive and one could stick with one or the other or slightly alter either or both to his taste or use both and change gears. But that is not the main concern.

Look, if there are many winning styles in PLO, what are they? Are you suggesting that you win more money using your style than what Badger says?

[ QUOTE ]
my style of play in the PLO ring games online 2+ years ago was very Badger-esque and although it had a lot of flaws, it made money

[/ QUOTE ] Well if it had a lot of flaws, how did you make money?

In fact, I find there is nothing wrong with Badger's advice. If you guys can win in early position, fine, so can I. With Badger's advice, you may be playing too tight though. That just results in losing the least in early positions and winning close to nothing in them. So, in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with just playing and winning in a late position.

If you have good opponents, they would start folding in early positions when you raise on the button and that is when you start limp-folding in early position. There is nothing 'wrong' with that system of play. You have to lose a little win to again, that is all there is to it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way, on PartyPoker people play 10-handed Pot-limit Omaha High games.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

holdemsucks , if playing like Steve Badger works better for you then using your own head to think about the game and you are fine with it by all means do that.
Play like Steve Badger.

Why do you have a need from 2+2 posters to acknowledge the "greatness" of Steve Badger?
What`s in it for you?

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you have a need from 2+2 posters to acknowledge the "greatness" of Steve Badger?

[/ QUOTE ] I do not have a need from 2+2 posters to acknowledge the "greatness" of Steve Badger. That was not my intention. My intention was to discuss that webpage.

[ QUOTE ]
What`s in it for you?

[/ QUOTE ] Stupid question. If 'it' is the webpage, then the advice is in it for me.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What`s in it for you?

[/ QUOTE ] Stupid question. If 'it' is the webpage, then the advice is in it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it can sound like a stupid question to someone incapable of understanding it.

Then again, the reason could also be that English is my 4th language.
I`m first to admit that it usually takes a pretty high IQ in order to decipher some of my English posts.

<font color="green">Let's try to keep egos out of the discussion, all right? I don't want to do heavy editing here, or to lock this thread (or any thread). I don't see the opening post or the thread as about Steve Badger or holdemsucks or flip flop. It's about what is a winning style of play. Let's stick to that issue and not worry about who is smart or what someone's motive is for posting. - Buzz</font>

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

Steve Badger's logic seems to hinge solely on one major assumption...opponents can always put him on the strongest of hands in EP. This has to be the assumption he is making, because 3579 in position should not be able to eat up AAKK. He is assuming that our pf range is so narrow that you can decipher our holdings easily. If this assumption is accepted as true, then maybe you should be dumping every hand UTG. Or, you can open your range in EP to include hands that are not the top 10% and therefore make it much more difficult for 3579 to dominate you.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

It's true in the sense of 'if you can't win out of position don't play out of position.' Sort of like game selection on a hand-by-hand basis.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
I Comparing full ring, live game PLO from the 90s to 6 max internet play online, is well, insert your own metaphor for very different things. What is the point, is that unlike holdem, there are very many winning styles of PLO, so if it works for you, [censored] 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]
these two sentences go together pretty well. Even if you sucked really really bad you could make money in whatever full ring live game 10 years ago, if you played tight and didn't tilt much. So the guys who played tight and didn't tilt much thought they were gods and wrote books and articles about how this is the way to beat PLO. With tougher games it turns out most of these guys are morons who got lucky enough to play in an aquarium.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

I guess my fears were justified. If you read my post properly, you will see that it is mostly supportive of Badger. As to your post on another thread about Ribbo, well I've "known" him longer than you, I suspect.

gl

bdd

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Comparing full ring, live game PLO from the 90s to 6 max internet play online, is well, insert your own metaphor for very different things. What is the point, is that unlike holdem, there are very many winning styles of PLO, so if it works for you, [censored] 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]
these two sentences go together pretty well. Even if you sucked really really bad you could make money in whatever full ring live game 10 years ago, if you played tight and didn't tilt much. So the guys who played tight and didn't tilt much thought they were gods and wrote books and articles about how this is the way to beat PLO. With tougher games it turns out most of these guys are morons who got lucky enough to play in an aquarium.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to sack up and name names and make the thread interesting?

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my fears were justified. If you read my post properly, you will see that it is mostly supportive of Badger. As to your post on another thread about Ribbo, well I've "known" him longer than you, I suspect.

gl

bdd

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this meant to imply that you two were lovers? I mean, I'm cool with homosexuality, but PLO forum incest is just ew.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

Have you seen what we both look like? That is a pretty repulsive coupling indeed. My " " were short hand for Internet known and not real life known. Not biblical known.

gl

bdd

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, Badger wrote for a game that almost everyone who posts here has never played. Comparing full ring, live game PLO from the 90s to 6 max internet play online, is well, insert your own metaphor for very different things.

[/ QUOTE ] At PartyPoker, all possible games are played up to 10-handed. In fact, I've never played 6 max PLO.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help that badger exaggerates to make his point.

[/ QUOTE ] How does he exaggerate?

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Steve Badger's advice is that it implies that it's basically impossible to win money from early position.

[/ QUOTE ] In the article he tells people to limp-re-raise in early position with AAxx. Any sensible player would figure out that AAxx would have to win a lot of the time in order to justify re-raising someone. Therefore it is possible to win out of position.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not even debatable, it's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not even that simple, it IS debatable.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

The problem with playing only aaxx for a reraise in ep is that your opponents will abuse you. For instance in 6-max:

hero limps (2.5 bb pot), mp limps (3.5 BB), button pots (9 bb), hero repots (27 BB pot), mp folds... button can either call with wraps and double pairs with position or he can fold weak kk/qq type hands that dont fare well. Even if villian calls it is 13.5 BB more to call. This means that only 18 BB are commited preflop, which means hero still needs to play a pot OOP without automatic stack scenario.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

I think i should have put 19bb above.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
...hero repots (27 BB pot), mp folds... button can either call with wraps and double pairs with position or he can fold weak kk/qq type hands that dont fare well....

[/ QUOTE ] At least you have got the pot heads up which is how everyone would want it with AAxx.

On PartyPoker, 10-handed, let's say you are UTG, UTG+1 pots it, 2 or 3 fold to the button and button pots it, you repot it and you have a repotting war - you will go all in more of ten than not at a 5-10 2000 table (starting with 2000).

[ QUOTE ]
This means that only 18 BB are commited preflop, which means hero still needs to play a pot OOP without automatic stack scenario.

[/ QUOTE ] If that is imminent, do not play out of position with such a great hand.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
On PartyPoker, 10-handed, let's say you are UTG, UTG+1 pots it, 2 or 3 fold to the button and button pots it, you repot it and you have a repotting war - you will go all in more of ten than not at a 5-10 2000 table (starting with 2000).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 4-betting preflop is great with AAxx. In my example I gave a situation where hero is HU on flop. Lets say we modify the scenario so pot is 58.5 BB and 3 way on the flop. Hero still has 81 BB. Do you check fold all non-Ace, no flush draw flops? How does your system address the tough situations that are part and parcel of playing omaha? If you can not produce answers in these situations, then you are missing opportunities.

I would also be interested in hearing how this strategy works on the party poker real money tables.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hero still has 81 BB. Do you check fold all non-Ace, no flush draw flops? How does your system address the tough situations that are part and parcel of playing omaha?

[/ QUOTE ]
First, everyone says that part of winning PLO is winning in EP - fine. Now let's NOT mutate this discussion to this new reference http://www.doylespokerroom.com/poker/omaha_poker.cfm
but somewhere in there you'll find a section on early position raising. It's called raising from up front or something like that. Now I'll continue with Chucky's most recent scenario in answer to his question. By now, you may or may not think you are pot-commited. If you are, then you lose everything unless your opponents pot-raise you back and you are convinced you are beat. Either accept that you will lose a lot re-raising from ep but stand to win a lot when you do pre-flop or don't play any hand from there. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

P.S. If you want to discuss Lyle Berman's PLO chapter, start a new discussion on it but not in mine please. Over there you can criticise whether it is better than Badger's or Ribbo's or mine or your system of play and whether it's too weak and passive or whatever LOL [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

Could you have gotten more off-track here? The part of the advice where Badger suggests LRRing AAxx when short is the only part of the advice that most people here wouldn't have a problem with. That's completely standard. The reason people don't like his advice is the way he advocates playing every hand but AA, namely limping and folding to a raise. He basically states that it's impossible to play hands profitably out of position.

Now, the thing about this strategy is that there's a maximum yield to it. It's zero. Badger himself states that "the main reason to play hands out of position is to get other people to play hands out of position". This means, he only ever plays them for metagame reasons and doesn't even believe that his strategy is profitable from those positions; just that it loses less than other people's strategies.

Well, guess what, tons of us out there are profiting from early position. Therefore, our strategy is better than what Badger himself says is the best he can hope for. Therefore, there's no debate. The strategy of playing 15-20% of your hands by limp-calling or open-raising is better than Badger's strategy.

I was going to try to prove this using my database, but I don't have a very large sample of FR hands, and then when I tried to make an analogous point about hands from the blinds, I found PokerEV's sorting capacities woefully inadequate. You can sort by how many seats off the button you are, but not by whether you're a blind or not, so the only way to get enough data to be relevant would be to manually compile the number of BB's won or lost from each position with each number of players at the table by working backwards from hands and BB/100 and then recompiling and the whole thing seemed like a little more work than I was up to tonight.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
a solid player who understands the game and has deep chips will eat up anybody from any position with AAKK.

[/ QUOTE ] Not if Pete Fabrizio is up against me. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
...3579 in position should not be able to eat up AAKK.

[/ QUOTE ] Why not? In hold 'em you can play suited connectors in position and eat up AA. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's true in the sense of 'if you can't win out of position don't play out of position.' Sort of like game selection on a hand-by-hand basis.

[/ QUOTE ] Not quite - sometimes you have to donate some money to get a lot more back.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could you have gotten more off-track here? The part of the advice where Badger suggests LRRing AAxx when short is the only part of the advice that most people here wouldn't have a problem with. That's completely standard. The reason people don't like his advice is the way he advocates playing every hand but AA, namely limping and folding to a raise. He basically states that it's impossible to play hands profitably out of position.

Now, the thing about this strategy is that there's a maximum yield to it. It's zero. Badger himself states that "the main reason to play hands out of position is to get other people to play hands out of position". This means, he only ever plays them for metagame reasons and doesn't even believe that his strategy is profitable from those positions; just that it loses less than other people's strategies.

Well, guess what, tons of us out there are profiting from early position. Therefore, our strategy is better than what Badger himself says is the best he can hope for. Therefore, there's no debate. The strategy of playing 15-20% of your hands by limp-calling or open-raising is better than Badger's strategy.

I was going to try to prove this using my database, but I don't have a very large sample of FR hands, and then when I tried to make an analogous point about hands from the blinds, I found PokerEV's sorting capacities woefully inadequate. You can sort by how many seats off the button you are, but not by whether you're a blind or not, so the only way to get enough data to be relevant would be to manually compile the number of BB's won or lost from each position with each number of players at the table by working backwards from hands and BB/100 and then recompiling and the whole thing seemed like a little more work than I was up to tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can do this in Pokertracker easily. On the General Info. tab click "Filters..." and Big Blind/Small Blind are options. Then click OK and look at the Totals in the "Starting Hands" frame. You can make do more interesting filters too. E.g., as I posted in this or some other thread, I tested whether or not raising out of the small blind is profitable for me. It is.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a solid player who understands the game and has deep chips will eat up anybody from any position with AAKK.

[/ QUOTE ] Not if Pete Fabrizio is up against me. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't win money against me with AAKK, even out of position, you're not a very good player.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason people don't like his advice is the way he advocates playing every hand but AA, namely limping and folding to a raise

[/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. Please read: If the chips are deep you should be limp/fold almost everything

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

First you said: [ QUOTE ]
This means, he only ever plays them for metagame reasons and doesn't even believe that his strategy is profitable from those positions; just that it loses less than other people's strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this imply that your strategy loses more?

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could you have gotten more off-track here? The part of the advice where Badger suggests LRRing AAxx when short is the only part of the advice that most people here wouldn't have a problem with. That's completely standard. The reason people don't like his advice is the way he advocates playing every hand but AA, namely limping and folding to a raise. He basically states that it's impossible to play hands profitably out of position.

Now, the thing about this strategy is that there's a maximum yield to it. It's zero. Badger himself states that "the main reason to play hands out of position is to get other people to play hands out of position". This means, he only ever plays them for metagame reasons and doesn't even believe that his strategy is profitable from those positions; just that it loses less than other people's strategies.

Well, guess what, tons of us out there are profiting from early position. Therefore, our strategy is better than what Badger himself says is the best he can hope for. Therefore, there's no debate. The strategy of playing 15-20% of your hands by limp-calling or open-raising is better than Badger's strategy.

I was going to try to prove this using my database, but I don't have a very large sample of FR hands, and then when I tried to make an analogous point about hands from the blinds, I found PokerEV's sorting capacities woefully inadequate. You can sort by how many seats off the button you are, but not by whether you're a blind or not, so the only way to get enough data to be relevant would be to manually compile the number of BB's won or lost from each position with each number of players at the table by working backwards from hands and BB/100 and then recompiling and the whole thing seemed like a little more work than I was up to tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point wasn't that LRR with aces is bad, rather than LRR with aces wont necessarily make every flop an automatic play from early position. It seemed like the flow of the article was that folding in early position when faced with a raise is appropriate because unless you can minimize post flop strategy by LRR aces (and only aces) it is nearly impossible to outplay someone when you are OOP. This clearly is not true.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:
a solid player who understands the game and has deep chips will eat up anybody from any position with AAKK.

Not if Pete Fabrizio is up against me.



If you can't win money against me with AAKK, even out of position, you're not a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think you can determine whether one is a 'very good player' or not by seeing how they play AAKK? Good luck

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:
a solid player who understands the game and has deep chips will eat up anybody from any position with AAKK.

Not if Pete Fabrizio is up against me.



If you can't win money against me with AAKK, even out of position, you're not a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think you can determine whether one is a 'very good player' or not by seeing how they play AAKK? Good luck

[/ QUOTE ]
Please stop trying to argue with people that do this for their living, while you play playmoney PLO. Just think about how fing retarded that makes your argument. You come from a knowledge base that is far too shallow. Please............stop.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
First you said: [ QUOTE ]
This means, he only ever plays them for metagame reasons and doesn't even believe that his strategy is profitable from those positions; just that it loses less than other people's strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this imply that your strategy loses more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if he was right. The fact that it doesn't lose more is what proves him wrong. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can do this in Pokertracker easily. On the General Info. tab click "Filters..." and Big Blind/Small Blind are options. Then click OK and look at the Totals in the "Starting Hands" frame. You can make do more interesting filters too. E.g., as I posted in this or some other thread, I tested whether or not raising out of the small blind is profitable for me. It is.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I just did this. I sorted it by hands with a minimum of 3 players where I was in one of the blinds and someone tried to steal against me. Something seems off here as adding "steal attempted and called or reraised" takes the # of hands available from 27,592 to 1,732 which isn't much more than I got for one of my small subcategories earlier when looking at things in PokerEV.

Still, if the numbers are right, not only do I profit compared to folding these hands, I actually show a profit outright with the blind money included. According to PTO (over the admittedly small sample), I'm averaging 0.13 PTBB/hand (or 13 PTBB/100) when someone raises one of my blinds and I choose to play.

Actually, I think I figured out why this is filtering so many hands. "Attempt to steal" means the first one in the pot raised me and throws out the hands where someone raised after a limp. I still can't get the exact filter I want which is basically "in the blind", "any player raises PF", "exclude AA", "call or reraise for me PF". Still though, I think the general point gets across that I'm obviously making money out of position and would be giving away a ton of value if I attempted to play Badger's PF strategy of throwing everything away that I might have to play OOP.

FWIW, I was playing around with the filters earlier and found out that I'm also making a profit with hands that I raise to more than 5 BB from the blinds (so mainly 3-bets), even if I exclude AAxx from the list. That was something where I always kind of wondered if I was throwing away money and I'm glad to see that it's been profitable.

Re: Steve Badger\'s advice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The strategy of playing 15-20% of your hands by limp-calling or open-raising is better than Badger's strategy.

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, I do disagree with some parts of the article. I usually play good hands in early position even against a raise. The thing about 15-20% of your hands. What are some of these hands you guys seem to all play in early position?