Math class... I am the dumb student.

[daveT]

Okay, since I have finally admitted that I truly suck at this game, although I am very good at HE, I am determined to learn this the same way that I learned HE, with math.

Anyway, I would like to point out that good Omaha players seem to have an inherent atvantage over all the other players, because there really isn't anything that good out there, and there seems to be inaccuracies in all of the books. One that sticks out for me is Ray Zee's contention that you can play any A2 in a low-limit game, forgetting to add that you would need six or more players for one bet PF, flop, and turn to make this a break even play, and that is implying that I never get quartered, and always see a board that I can draw to low.

Anyway, on with the confusion!

1- I recently learned that in Omaha, a player needs to flop 17 outs to play break even against a set, implying that all the money gets in the middle, creating a race. Compare this to HE, witch you only need 9 outs to break even in a race.

Is this because the nub is smaller, and we now have a higher chance of pairing the board?

2- Gus Hansen article. I am not entirely sure of the exact hands, but they are something like this.

1- A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
2- A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
3- K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
4- 3468 suits probably don't matter.

So, can we all guess witch one is the favorite? The fact that I am asking makes the answer obvious, as hand #4 has a 34% equity. Is it correct to play this hand because the deck is richer in low cards, and it is more likely to hit two pair?

3- There is an interesting thinking, derived from game theory, that sometimes the best you can do is take the least worst of it. Not suggesting that you will actually profit, but will take the least amount of loss by certain plays. I think that Ray Zee's suggestion of playing any A2 exemplifies this concept if you are to continue after the flop. How important of a role does this take in Omaha, where you are constantly stuck in messy post-flop situations?

4- And to get back to basics, when I am attempting to calculate my outs, what is the best procedure here? How much should I take in consideration my opponents possibilities when I am counting, if I am drawing to a flush and I know my opponents are too? Is it really viable to include all 9 "outs" at any time? When I am drawing to low and I belive I am going to get quartered (my opponent will only play A2), how much equity to I really have to continue drawing?

I guess this is a good start, I have plenty more questions, but I don't want to get too arcane right now.