B&M LO8 3/6 40 point Full Kill hand

[Little Wing]

I'm in late position and get dealt K K Q J rainbow. A couple of limpers in front of me and I call $6 (full kill hand), BB completes.

Four of us see the flop of 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

BB bets out, gets two callers and I fold.

??????

[franknagaijr]

The fold was clear. I assume you don't need an explanation? Did the turn or river hit a scooper for you, or nobody could beat Kings up for the high?

I'm probably tighter than many to start with, but I get super-nitty on kill-pots, because it costs twice as much to get involved and chase, and its so tough to throw away any chase at all once you've thrown in the first (big)small bet. KKQJ isn't ridiculous, and I can see arguments for playing it, but I wouldn't get involved in a kill-pot with it. I might miss the flop, and chase the turn card because 'A king could still take it'. If the turn came high or paired the board, I might talk myself into staying to the river with an overpair only. Once the river card came, I could probably convince myself that all other parties were chasing lows, and throw in one more bet. That's a huge leak.

But that's just me. I'm sure other people know how to handle KKQJ rainbow in a better fashion.

Edit - I don't do point count systems. Is 40 points considered powerful? Seems like it's got some value for straight draws or flopping a playable set, but with no lows and no flushes, it seems generally playable but nothing to get excited about.

[Buzz]

Little Wing - You don't have a very good starting hand. I'd call it marginal or even sub-marginal. I realize there are those who advise playing all starting hands with four cards ten or above. And you do have that pair of kings, but it's a rainbow hand and not likely to find a favorable flop.

Still, I'd see the flop with it for a single bet from late position.

And then, more or less as expected, you don't get a good enough fit with the flop and you fold. That is what usually happens with these four cards of ten and above type hands.

Take it in stride and go on to the next hand.

If the turn and river include a king and the board pairs, you'll hate yourself for folding. Even if the three or four pairs on the turn and the river is a high card, you might have folded a scooper - but by folding, you also may have dodged a bullet.

This one is figured on the basis of the 990 possilbe turn/river combinations. There are not enough favorable turn/river combinations to give you favorable odds to continue after this flop. Probably the pot will be split, and even if it isn't, your hopes for high have become a long shot after this flop.

An over-pair in Texas hold 'em can be nice. But in Omaha-8, with two low cards on the board, an overpair is not good. Finally, you have one of your own board pairing outs (the queen) in your hand, reducing your chances.

The fold after this flop is absolutely correct.

Buzz

[Little Wing]

Hey Franknagaijr. I agree with you - I thought it was a pretty clear fold also-not even close. You're a long way from a made hand and after that flop you're probably looking at only half of the pot. But a friend was sitting next to me at the time and after I told him what I had said he would have called the flop bet.


[ QUOTE ]
Did the turn or river hit a scooper for you, or nobody could beat Kings up for the high?

[/ QUOTE ]


As it turned out, the low got there and I wouldn't have come close to the high either.

Thanks for the response.

[fishyak]

Little Wing - I presume you have a jackpot based on quad's where you play.

Buzz - Do high pairs and jackpots worth big dough make it worthwhile to "upgrade" hands like these to playable enough to see a flop for a fit?

Closing the action, live, I play this. But I would sure like to see a King in a flush draw. I think this hand points out a flaw in a points based system. Points based on high card power alone without "suitedness" isn't all that great.

[Little Wing]

Hey Buzz. Yeah I think it was a pretty easy fold too, but a friend at the table queestioned it after I told him what I had so I wanted to run it up the flagpole here to see what happened.

I was hoping you would comment on this hand since I know how you feel about 40-point hands from your previous posts. I guess I'm one of the ones that like the 40 pointers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] expecially from late position. If the flop fits, most of the time you are playing for a scoop, even though high-only pots are generally smaller than the two-way ones. If, as in the example above, the flop misses you or the low has a good chance of getting there and you don't have a good draw to a big hand, they are not hard for me to let go of. Again, I think being in late postion adds lots of value to these hands, but in a game where there is very little pre-flop raising, I will almost always play them from anywhere for one bet.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

[Little Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
Little Wing - I presume you have a jackpot based on quad's where you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, quad T's have to get beat, but due to the fact that O8 is only spread on Saturday the jackpot is pretty small(around $5,000 compared to the HE bad beat jackpot of around $80K).

[ QUOTE ]
Closing the action, live, I play this. But I would sure like to see a King in a flush draw. I think this hand points out a flaw in a points based system. Points based on high card power alone without "suitedness" isn't all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being suited sure gives you a lot more options.

[TxRedMan]

standard.

think about how many cards can come that ruin your hand and your odds.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Do high pairs and jackpots worth big dough make it worthwhile to "upgrade" hands like these to playable enough to see a flop for a fit?

[/ QUOTE ]Fishyak - As simulated in 100,000 nine handed deals, with seat ten having KKQJ-rainbow and the other eight seats dealt random cards, quad kings won 1005 times and lost 1 time. That could be a bit different if I ran the simulation again, but it looks like you make quads with the kings roughly one per cent and lose roughly one time in a hundred thousand. At three bucks a crack, it would cost you about $300,000 to see the flop 100,000 times. Do you get paid $300,000 when you lose with quad kings? Do you even get paid $30,000 when you lose with quad kings?

Let's say the jackpot is at $10,000 and you get half or $5000 when your quad kings get beaten. That amounts to an added jackpot value of $5000/100000 or about a nickel a hand. And that would be in a loose game where everybody saw the flop so that your quad kings could get beaten by a straight flush with some damned fool playing hands like 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],Y,Z.

The answer is jackpots are nice, but don't make an otherwise unplayable hand worth playing. (I suppose they could if they were high enough, but they're not).

But even though I don't think much of this hand, rightly or wrongly, I'd actually play it from late position at a loose, passive table. But not because of the jackpot.

Buzz