another useless hypo
 

i would probably rather have 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] than 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], but I would clearly rather have A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] than A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. assuming a gradient, around what rank does this switch occur? would i be wrong to assume a gradient? could i be wrong about which low run to prefer in the first place?

Re: another useless hypo
 

I'd rather have both than the crap I get dealt

Re: another useless hypo
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather have both than the crap I get dealt

[/ QUOTE ]
QFMFT

Re: another useless hypo
 

i think this only makes any significant difference when you get to AKQJ as you dont want the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] for obvious reasons

Re: another useless hypo
 

Pete – Interesting question. Useless, in a way, but interesting. And sometimes when you pursue useless questions you discover something related that you didn't know but that might be useful.

For example, the double suited run-downs do more poorly, heads up, than random cards until you get up to 9876, and that hand does only slightly better than random.

Here are some simulated showdown results for heads-up play against random (four blanks) cards for one opponent. These are for 1,000,000 run simulations.

7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 109561/135705
straight flush 4506/4513
flush+st.flush 114067/140218 = 0.8135
overall: 463776 wins, 14629 ties
(four blanks did better: 521595 wins, 14629 ties.)

7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 110848/137015
straight flush 3370/3371
flush+st.flush 114218/140386 = 0.8136
overall: 463498 wins, 14806 ties
(four blanks did better: 521696 wins, 14806 ties.)

Very, very close between these two. I don't want either of them. The win/try ratio for flushes and straight flushes is very slightly better for the second, but the first one makes slightly more straight flushes. (Should be, and is, about a 4:3 ratio).

9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 111863/136024
straight flush 4520/4526
flush+st.flush 116383/140550 = 0.8281
overall: 500621 wins, 16468 ties
(four blanks was 482911 wins, 16468 ties.)

9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 113471/137127
straight flush 3321/3324
flush+st.flush 116792/140451 = 0.8315
overall: 501564 wins, 16226 ties
(four blanks was 482210 wins, 16226 ties.)

Close between these two. Neither of them is very good, just slightly better than random. The win/try ratio for flushes and straight flushes is slightly better for the second, and that's the deciding factor for me. (Again, the straight flush ratio between the first and second of these should be, and is, about a 4:3 ratio).

A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 125857/137986
straight+royal flush 2223/2223
flush+st.fl.+roy.fl. = 128080/140209 = 0.9135
overall: 600984 wins, 19747 ties
(four blanks was 379269 wins, 19747 ties.)

A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
heart flush 128001/138425
straight+royal flush 1723/1723
flush+st.fl.+roy.fl. 129724/140148 = 0.9256
overall: 601852 wins, 19865 ties
(four blanks was 378283 wins, 19865 ties.)

Again it's close, but this time both of these are good starting hands, and this time there is a discernible difference between the two. The second hand is the better of the two. That’s because the win/try ratio for flushes plus straight (and royal) flushes is better for the second than the first by about one per cent.

I'm not sure what the lesson here is, maybe simply that you should like high cards in this game and coordinated low hands, even if double suited, may not be very good starting hands, even though an expert may be able to turn a profit with them.

But you probably already knew that.

Buzz

Re: another useless hypo
 

I think that is very interesting for HU play--and also other situations where you can expect quite a few HU or 3-way pots.

However, I don't think that means you shouldn't raise them. Imo, they're kind of the exaggerated versions of suited connectors in NLHE, except that in Omaha, you're going to hit with them far more often.

Basically, even though they're not in great shape vs. random, they're hands that you often want to play in very big pots. And if you miss, well, then you just fold.

Re: another useless hypo
 

lmao--me, too!!

Re: another useless hypo
 

low rundowns may be worse against random cards than akqj, but they are much easier to get away from and do quite well in big pots.

Re: another useless hypo
 

buzz, i don't quite get the point of your post -- double-suited rundown hands are the nuts. 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.

Re: another useless hypo
 

[ 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.

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

Re: another useless hypo
 

RoundTower - Here they are, as promised.

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]
flush 117568/135806
straight or royal flush 3826/3826
flush+st.+roy. 121394/139632= 0.869
564105 wins, 20123 ties
four blanks was 415772 wins, 20123 ties.

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]
flush 119550/136490
straight or royal flush 3343/3343
flush+st.+roy. 122893/139833= 0.879
564804 wins, 20214 ties
four blanks was 414982 wins, 20214 ties.

Looks like the second hand (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 better overall by about a percentage point (87.9% to 86.9%). It’s all kind of silly in terms of making money but that's not all there is to life, at least for me.

Buzz

Re: another useless hypo
 

Buzz,

I don't want to say that random hand simulations are useless...because they are not...but in terms of hand playability, especially in a game like PLO, they are a poor guide. For example, the ds med rundowns do so well in the game, because when the pot is big you (ideally) are either against an insane overplayed AA type; in ok shape vs a set/two pair; crushing a similar hand with your freerolls. You are *not* normally stacking vs another made flush, or being rivered for a one pair kind of hand that in reality your foe would not see, which are some of the ways the random hand showdown wins.

This is why hand dbs are so valuable, and why although I often disagree with Pete so much in "play of hands" scenarios here I often think he is posting mischeaviously, I have the utmost respect for him when it comes to starting hand analysis.

gl

bdd

Re: another useless hypo
 

Hi Big Dave. What you write makes good sense. Thank you. Much appreciated.

Buzz