Re: another useless hypo
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
buzz, i don't quite get the point of your post

[/ QUOTE ]

GIGO as they say. You make a pointless post yourself, don't be surprised if the replies you get appear pointless also.
Frankly the semantics of the situation is so irrelevant to the decisions you will make in an omaha hand, any discussion is purely for speculation purposes only.

[/ QUOTE ]

his post seemed pointless wrt my pointless speculation.

Re: another useless hypo
 

[ QUOTE ]
buzz, i don't quite get the point of your post

[/ QUOTE ]Alas, Pete, I'm not sure you ever will understand me.

Although moot, I thought your question was interesting.

An obvious immediate difficulty is your opponents all play a bit differently and you don't know exactly what cards they're continuing with, so it's hard to know how often a baby flush will hold up.

But temporarily putting that aside, I wondered how often you'd make each type of hand. And so I jotted down some numbers on the back of an envelope.

I could have just calculated. But I often run simulations to check my calculations, and that is what I did.

And since I was running the sims to see how often the specified cards would make flushes and straight flushes, I simply ran them against one hand with four random cards. And the results checked.

My goal was to see if I could find the "rank at which the switch occured" if there indeed was a gradient (as I thought there probably might be). My original plan was to run them all. (5432, 6543, 7654, 8765, 9876, T987, JT98, QJT9, KQJT, and AKQJ), each one with the both pairs of flushed cards connected and then each one with both pairs of flushed cards unconnected.

What I noticed, although I wasn't originally looking for it, kind of surprised me. Random hands fared better, on the average, than 7654 or 8765, even though the four hands I originally used for the simulations were all double suited.

Somehow I thought those run-down straight hands were good starting hands for Omaha-high, especially if double suited.

[ QUOTE ]
-- double-suited rundown hands are the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]Evidently you still think they are. Are you certain? What makes you feel certain?

(I understand that if you hit the flop well, you'll often have a straight or flush with re-draws, and that you'll often have multiple draws - and I understand that some parrot the claim that double suited run-downs are fine starting hands - but I question many things people seem to believe, this included).

At any rate, I decided that to get significant data for the straight flushes, I would run simulations with a million separate heads-up deals, with different random cards to be distributed to the opposing hand on each of the million deals.

I thought I'd get more significant digits with a million runs than with ten thousand or a hundred thousand runs.
[ QUOTE ]
my point was just that when the cards are higher, the higher flush value is worth more than the extra straight flushes, and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]I think that's probably true too, but it depends on how your opponents play against you.

To try to answer your moot question, if that's all your want, the straight flush effect is generally trivial compared to the flush effect, but exactly how much depends on what hands your opponent is likely to be playing when you have one of the specified hands and catch a favorable flop.

I started with your question, but when I tried to answer it, I was led to questioning the value of 7654, double suited as a starting hand in this game. Get it? (I already know that hand stinks for Omaha-8).

Obviously how best to play a particular hand very much depends on your opponents and what works for you against them.

Buzz

Re: another useless hypo
 

i base my affection for 7654ds on a database that shows me it has been very profitable for me from every position.

Re: another useless hypo
 

Good answer.

Edit: What it makes me wonder is if there are any hands in your data base with which you do poorly, and also what the percentile rank of 7654d is.

And assuming there are hands with which you see the flop and then do poorly, what are they?

Re: another useless hypo
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good answer.

Edit: What it makes me wonder is if there are any hands in your data base with which you do poorly, and also what the percentile rank of 7654d is.

And assuming there are hands with which you see the flop and then do poorly, what are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

if i find that i've been playing a hand unprofitably, obviously i either try to stop playing it in that position or start playing it differently -- so the ultimate goal is that in the long-run i wouldn't be losing with any hands from any position except the blinds. but of course everyone has leaks -- e.g., at one point i found pretty conclusively that i was playing some paired hands in early position unprofitably.

as for 4567ds and its ilk, it's really in the top tier of hands. i don't know if i could assign a percentile, but, for example, i think it's a more profitable hand than AKQJ single-suited (although obviously you'd play those hands very differently pre-flop).

Re: another useless hypo
 

Pete - Thank you. Much appreciated.

Buzz

Re: another useless hypo
 

I think Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] is very very close to Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Re: another useless hypo
 

I'm going to guess that 4567r UTG is unprofitable. I disagreed with Ray Zee about almost this exact situation before, and I think I was wrong.

Re: another useless hypo
 

Buzz,
in limit poker, it is usually unprofitable to commit money with a hand on early streets if it does not have an edge over your opponents' hands on those streets. In big bet poker, this is not necessarily the case. I think this is the #1 difference between limit poker and big bet poker, and something you will have trouble with until you play a lot of big bet poker.

Re: another useless hypo
 

Round Tower - They're running (two 1000000 run simulations). I'll post the results for you in about a half hour or so when they're done.

I appreciate your help.

Buzz