Omaha8sPoker - I agree with Bart and Shabamabam that you should fold.
Your starting hand is not terrible for full game play, but is nothing to write home about. I might play it in a ring game or I might not. I might play it in a tournament or I might not.
But I would not play it at this stage of the tournament when only Acessassin, the chip leader has limped in ahead of me and five unknown players, including the blinds, are yet to act behind me. (You left out what seats five and six did on the first betting round - I presume they folded to your raise).
It's four more hands until you have to post and there are two players with lower stacks than you who have to post first. They could both be gone before you're forced to play a hand. And perhaps you can get out cheaply (if you miss) when you do post your blinds. There is no need to be desperate.
You need to know how your opponents play in order to play well against them. You might get a better idea of how your opponents play if you delay.
Once Acessassin limps in front of you, although there is a chance you can isolate Acessassin and play the hand one-on-one with position against an opponent with a weak starting hand, there also is a chance you cannot isolate and that Acessassin actually has a good one-on-one hand. For your plan to work:<ul type="square">• (1) Acessassin has to have a poor starting hand for one-on-one play.
• (2) The players behind you all have to get out of your way.
• (3) You need to get a favorable flop.[/list]You need
all three of these things to happen - and each one is a gamble.
When you raise, you're commiting more than a fourth of your chips on the triple gamble. Might work - but it's just a gamble. Sometimes you have a better chance of success when you gamble. Other times you're forced to gamble. But here, you can opt out.
There is no compelling reason to play this hand, and a reasonable case can be made against playing it.
The starting hand itself is not indecent, but neither does it often make the nuts. Thus it's risky.
A pair of queens is a strong starting hand in Texas hold 'em because chances are there will be no ace or king on the flop and if there is, chances are none of your still active opponents will have a matching card. There's about the same chance of no ace or king on the flop in Omaha-8, but the difference is, one of your active opponents is likely to have a match. And in any event, you'll only catch a queen on the flop about one time out of eight. What it boils down to is a pair of queens is not a particularly strong component to have in an Omaha-8 starting hand.
The deuce-five could win for low, and even could possibly make the nuts for low. But it's still a rather weak two-card low combo.
You've seen for yourself what often happens with a queen-high-flush. It's risky and needs a deft touch.
[ QUOTE ]
This is a very interesting discussion and may fix up a MAJORLY HORRENDOUS leak in my game, because I viewed this type of hand as a pretty decent starting hand...
[/ QUOTE ]You'll never get agreement on this forum as to what a pretty decent starting hand is. I think the decency of a starting hand is very relative to your particular situation and mix of opponents. Tighter players will be more or less aghast at voluntarily playing the hand.
I'm not in that category. I play a bit more loosely, but I think it's fair to say that my opponents probably generally regard me as a fairly tight player.
I place QQ52d in the same general category as KK52s, AJJ4n, and AKK5n, if that puts the relative value of QQ52d into better perspective for you. What do you think of those starting hands? (rhetorical)
First of all, I would not play the hand in this particular situation.
But then you played it poorly, in my humble opinion.<ul type="square">1. If you could get one-on-one and have position on an opponent playing trash, then the raise on betting round #1 seems fine. But that didn't work.
2. When shamalamana bets the flop, you don't show much respect. (You raise). I don't much like the raise, because shamalamana could well have the nut flush. However, to be honest, I also dislike chasing and I also dislike conceding. Thus I don't like anything - and that's one problem with playing this hand in the first place.
3. (This is the really bad part, in my humble opinion): shamalamana reraises and you
still don't show any respect! At the very least you should back off a little here.
4. You continued to bet as though you had the nuts. But you didn't! If you're going to play the second nuts, it should be with your feelers, your antennae, fully extended. That means you give shamalamana some credibility for his representation of the stone cold nuts. You don't necessarily give up and concede the hand, but neither do you insist you have the winning hand while shamalamana is playing foolishly.
What else besides the nuts can shamalamana hold to bet this way? You, yourself, have the 2nd nuts and you are representing the stone cold nuts with your own betting! Does shamalamana know nothing whatsoever about the game? The way you're betting implies shamalamana either does not understand what a good hand is or shamalamana is putting you on a bluff and is re-bluffing with nothing. Either way, you don't seem to give shamalamana much credit for understanding how to play the game.[/list]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no read on the villian
[/ QUOTE ]Then consider giving the villain some benefit of the doubt.
I vaguely wonder if shamalamana and Shabamabam are related (or one in the same).
Buzz