[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I find something very interesting when I post hands in this forum, which is I think there is a huge gap in skill/style of play between the straight omaha games many of the forum regulars here would play in and the random mix games I play in where omaha/8 might be included. The result is you guys advise me on how to play against players that you expect to play in a certain way, and I feel don't exist in the games I am in.

[/ QUOTE ]DeathDonkey - Good point (and very interesting). How best to play always depends on your particular opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
A good example of this comes from Buzz's excellent post, where he expects the initial flop raise from UTG to represent an extremely strong high holding that might put bottom set in a really tough spot.

[/ QUOTE ]No. I evidently did not make my meaning clear.

I wrote:[ QUOTE ]
"I wonder if UTG really has the set of aces he seems to be representing." And then immediately, "Would UTG bluff more often than one time out of four here?"

[/ QUOTE ]That means I neither expect nor don’t expect UTG to have a set of aces (or any extremely strong high holding). That means I think UTG’s betting might represent a set of aces, but I wonder if UTG really does have such a hand, and I also wonder how often UTG would bet without such a hand.

Maybe my evident failure in communication has to do with my choice of the word "bluff." Perhaps it would have made more sense to you if I had wondered if UTG's bet was a "bad bet" or an “overly-aggressive bet,” or simply a "meaningless bet," rather than a "bluff."

I think I’ve had trouble communicating in a couple of posts where I used the word “bluff.” And it’s true that an opponent might not be “bluffing” so much as simply over-betting his hand or betting stupidly, and without even realizing he’s over-betting or betting stupidly. (In the past I probably have lumped all of those together under the general category "bluff"). When I write something, I certainly want it to be understood. Perhaps you’ve helped me to become a better communicator and for that I thank you. (That’s sincere).

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is UTG's raising range here includes many weak high hands (possibly a pair of aces with a weakish low draw) to straight low draws, all two pairs, and probably broadway + big pair draws (high only type hands he opened with).

[/ QUOTE ]Interesting. I've calling betting those weak high hands "bluffs." I think it's my usage of the word "bluff" that has caused the problem.

Since I advocated folding your hand in a game with a four bet maximum, you evidently think though I'm putting Villain on a very strong hand. But that wasn’t quite it. Rather, in light of your subsequent description of Villain, I assessed a higher probability to Villain holding a strong hand than I should have.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the way the game was playing and the ranges I know these guys are capable of having that folding bottom set to the flop action would be a big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]In light of your explanation of your opponent’s ranges for betting, calling, and raising after this flop, I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the likelihood that I wind up having to dodge many draw outs for half the pot with an utter lack of low possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]I don’t know. I’ve gotten kicked in the teeth and watched others getting kicked in the teeth so often by making a losing full house with a low pair that I try to avoid hands with low pairs. But that’s a bias I have based on full game experience, and here you are playing four handed. Four handed, bottom set seems a lot stronger.

However, even though you are four handed, [ QUOTE ]
SB bets, BB calls, UTG raises

[/ QUOTE ]seems like you might be up against some strong hands. But of course you know your opponents better than I do.

Buzz