[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I am just still caught up on the fact that the Ac is SUPPOSED to be in my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]jlocdog - No. But an opponent without the ace of clubs should expect that you might have it if you have been playing a solid game up to this point. However, if you have been betting without actually having what your bet should represent (to someone trying to logically read you hand) for a while, then it's hard to read you for anything except another possible attempted bluff.

[ QUOTE ]
And given preflop and flop action, I should have the NFD along with my nut low draw with probable redraws.

[/ QUOTE ]Not exactly. If you had been betting logically all session, then your flop bet along with your pre-flop raise might represent A-2-W-X-with-the-nut-club-draw. If you've been betting all session the way you bet this hand, your bet represents an attempt to steal the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
So my raise was one in which I would make if I did hold the Ac.

[/ QUOTE ]Not necessarily. As a bluff, your raise would be more successful if you actually held the ace of clubs. With the nut club flush (the ace of clubs plus another club) your turn raise would be logical. There are also probably some other hands you could hold and logically raise.

[ QUOTE ]
Is that bad?

[/ QUOTE ]"Bad" is the wrong word. I'm not sure there is a single word for your play here.

I like selectively aggressive play. I think you want to use a deft touch in applying that selectively aggressive play. Betting or raising at every opportunity is not what I would call a deft touch.

But it's tough for your opponents to take a hammering like that.

You played the hand exactly like a "maniac" would play the hand. (I don't mean that as an insult - but "maniac" is what someone using that style of play is called). The advantage in playing hands using the maniac style is in getting paid off on other hands where you actually have what your bets represent. And against weak/timid opponents you probably will be successful in many steals.

[ QUOTE ]
I liked my river bet the best out of the whole hand.

[/ QUOTE ]I like it too. I like it even better without all the other betting and raising that preceded it.

[ QUOTE ]
I do find it amusing that raising PF is fine but betting this flop is not AND calling pf is fine and then betting this flop would be good.... and I missed out on both.

[/ QUOTE ]That's not exactly what I meant. In my humble opinion, betting this lack of flop fit after everybody in front of you checked would have been better if you had not raised before the flop.

After you raise pre-flop, your flop bet is probably more or less expected by some of your opponents. You can't necessarily read their checks as lacking a better flop fit than you.

Your pre-flop raise coupled with a bet on the flop would be fine for various other flops, but the very reason you're posting is you evidently sense you missed the mark.

I'm always trying to put my opponents on cards. If I bet this hand the way you did, I wouldn't get much of a read on their hands. So playing like a maniac in a limit Omaha-8 game, except very occasionally, would not fit well with my playing style.

Doing it too much doesn't work well for me. But if you can make it work for you, then go for it.

Buzz