starting hand point system

[Nina]

Ty Buzz!

[1MoreFish4U]

Buzz - I didnt do that with hilo - but decades ago I did do that with 5 & 7 Card Stud - I guess not 'all' of the "good old days" really were.

A high speed computer does make things a lot easier, faster and more accurate for sure.

A debate could be undertaken as to which hands are likely to make the most money "per hand" and then we'd have to go down the whole road of how to play them.

So much is variable based on the other player's styles, what order the board cards come, etc.

[wackjob]

I hope I don't sound like a jerk(!), but I think starting hand charts are really not that valuable, point systems the same. I think understanding fundamental poker is way more important, having a fundamental understanding of poker odds and probabilities, and understanding the more complex odds of a split game, are really the keys. Ditch the point systems(they are too slow & cumbersome in even a live game), ditch the starting hand charts, learn the fundamentals of poker and put them into practice, and then learned advanced poker by playing, reading advanced articles/books, posting on forums, and having meaningful discussions on particular hands played by yourself and others. As well, get a coach if you can afford it. These things will be way more worth your time than a point system.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
....but I think starting hand charts are really not that valuable, point systems the same. I think understanding fundamental poker is way more important, having a fundamental understanding of poker odds and probabilities, and understanding the more complex odds of a split game, are really the keys.

[/ QUOTE ]Wackjob - I don’t see having a guide to Omaha-8 starting hands and understanding fundamental poker concepts as mutually exclusive. Neither do I see having a guide to Omaha-8 starting hands and understanding probability concepts as mutually exclusive.

Why not all three? What is wrong with (1) using a guide to Omaha-8 starting hands, (2) understanding fundamental poker concepts and also (3) understanding probability concepts.

[ QUOTE ]
Ditch the point systems(they are too slow & cumbersome

[/ QUOTE ]What if they were not too slow and cumbersome? What if someone has already devised one such that it would take less than an hour to learn well, and such that a novice could evaluate whether or not a hand was worth seeing the flop or not in a few seconds?

[ QUOTE ]
ditch the starting hand charts

[/ QUOTE ]You can do that, but if you do, I think you need some method of deciding whether or not to see the flop with a hand. In part, whether or not to see the flop depends on your opponents and how they are playing. This is true in Texas hold ‘em and it also is true in Omaha-8.

But in part, and the extent to which this applies to Omaha-8 more than to Texas hold ‘em is one of the fundamental differences between the two games, whether or not to see the flop depends on the cards you hold yourself, on your starting hand.

[ QUOTE ]
learn the fundamentals of poker and put them into practice, and then learned advanced poker by playing, reading advanced articles/books, posting on forums, and having meaningful discussions on particular hands played by yourself and others.

[/ QUOTE ]Certainly all very good advice.

[ QUOTE ]
As well, get a coach if you can afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]Interesting notion. Not at all a bad idea for someone playing for big money, where the cost involved would only be a small percentage of your winnings or savings as a result of being well coached. I think first you should address some other issues, for example why you are playing the game.

[ QUOTE ]
These things will be way more worth your time than a point system.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you mean “than <font color="white">_</font>learning a point system” or do you mean “than <font color="white">_</font>developing a point system”? (There are different arguments for, and probably against, depending on your meaning).

I think people often do not all learn in exactly the same way. What works well in terms of learning a concept depends to some extent on one’s background.

I read a whole lot of material about Omaha and Omaha-8 (everything I could find) before I ventured into playing the game against strangers in casinos. It honestly seems to me that there was some poor or misleading advice mixed in with the good advice, and much of the poor or misleading advice had to do with starting hands.

I don’t know how you, Wackjob, decide which starting hands to play. I can tell you that after reading everything I could find on the subject, it wasn’t very clear to me. I was playing crap like
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. How horrible both of these starting hands are was not at all obvious to me. I regularly see otherwise good poker players see the flop with hands worse than those two. At the other extreme, I see otherwise good poker players waiting for starting hands containing an ace-deuce combo.

Learning which starting hands play well seems very worthwhile to me. Whether you use fundamental principles to somehow amazingly figure it out with all the other stuff that’s going on, or whether you use a point system or remember a chart..... whatever works for you seems worthwhile to me.

I remember sitting in geometry class in high school wondering what the teacher was talking about. I really didn’t have a clue. After several weeks had passed, I turned around in my seat and asked the girl seated behind me when we were going to start using numbers.

She replied, “This is geometry. There aren’t any numbers. Geometry is about proofs.”

I asked her if she would show me how to do one. She did and somehow I survived the class. Her short explanation was the sole extent of my instruction in that class. I did do the proofs, but on my own. I did them while the instructor was talking about something else. And that was geometry for me.

Somehow I simply was unable to concentrate on what the instructor was saying. You may think that perhaps I subliminally learned something about geometry from words said by the instructor. Perhaps that is true, although I honestly don’t think so.

The girl seated behind me did learn geometry (I presume) by listening to the instructor. I “learned” geometry by gradually working my way through the book while the instructor (along with the rest of the class, I presume) was doing something else.

Did I learn what I was supposed to learn about geometry? I don’t know. Maybe I should have somehow learned to enjoy proofs. I had to deal with proofs in other math classes, but never enjoyed them. I never came to have the true loving appreciation of proofs every math teacher in every math class I took after geometry seemed to have.

It was lucky for me the girl who sat behind me was kind enough to show me how to do a proof, thus enabling me to be successful in my high school geometry class.

My point? People learn in different ways.

Buzz

[Buzz]

1MoreFish4U - I agree with you that there certainly are a lot of variables. The cards you're dealt yourself are only part of the picture.

[ QUOTE ]
A debate could be undertaken as to which hands are likely to make the most money "per hand" and then we'd have to go down the whole road of how to play them.

[/ QUOTE ]Amen!

For example, when your hand contains a pair of aces and you catch an ace on the flop, I think you generally collect less than when your hand contains a pair of kings and your hand connects with a king on the flop.

The trouble with a pair of kings in a loose game is you generally need to make a full house to win. You need to catch a king (or something that goes with something else besides your two kings) on the flop, and then you need the board to pair. You get a flop with a king about one time out of eight, and then the board pairs about three times out of eight (assuming there's not a pair on the flop). (1/8)*(3/8) = 3/64 or about 5%. That's roughly you chance of making a full house (or quads) with your pair of kings, assuming you need a flop with a king to continue. (You actually would have made a full house or quads roughly 10% of the time if you had continued after an unfavorable flop, but about half of those simulated or calculated no-fold-'em wins would come after you've folded to a flop bet in a real game). The game will generally be loose enough so that a pair of kings, or even trip kings, will not usually win for high - but the game will not be loose enough to collect enough when you do make your kings full.

So you're caught in between.

You hardly can profitably play hands with a pair of kings. Pairs below kings are worse. Pairs from eights down to deuces are generally horrid (except for wheel pairs when you also have two other wheel cards and suitedness or an ace and suitedness or another wheel card).

A55Kd? O.K., I'll play that one for a single bet too, and maybe a few others, but only to keep my range of starting hands as wide as possible.

When you play a hand with a pair of kings, if there's an ace on the flop, the kings as an unimproved winner for high are probably dead.

I suppose I could have a hand containing a pair of kings, continue with some other viable connection with the flop, and then connect with a winning king on the turn or river - but after a flop that had an ace and no king, I would give up most king-pair hands to a bet. (There are some obvious exceptions like 23KK after a flop of A45 or JQKK after a flop of TQA - wouldn't even have to be that good - but unless I had exactly 23KK, flopped a Broadway with a high only hand, or flopped the nut flush or nut flush draw, for the most part I'd consider a hand with a pair of kings dead after a flop with an ace and no king).

Aces are different. If you don't fall in love with them, a hand containing a pair of aces is much better than a hand containing a pair of kings because an unimproved pair of aces (or aces over) wins for high much more often than a pair of kings (or kings over). And suited aces are obviously better than suited kings. And you'll usually have some sort of low possibility with one of the aces plus a low card in the hand.

I realize I have berated hands that contain a pair of kings. In truth I'll consider any hand containing a pair of kings. It's certainly not an automatic fold. In a passive game it depends a lot on how many opponents have limped in ahead of me, (and also on various other factors). In an aggressive game it depends a lot on the other cards in my hand, (and also on various other factors).

I'm currently folding (before the flop) more hands with a pair of kings than I'm playing. And that seems to be working better for me in my games than playing marginal hands that have a pair of kings.

[ QUOTE ]
A debate could be undertaken as to which hands are likely to make the most money "per hand" and then we'd have to go down the whole road of how to play them.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. And I don’t know as it matters whether AA23 is better than A234 or A2TJ-double suited, or whether 23KK -double suited makes more money, since I’m almost surely going to see the flop with all of these fine starting hands, and from any position. And after the flop, it’s a whole new ball game.

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt do that with hilo - but decades ago I did do that with 5 &amp; 7 Card Stud

[/ QUOTE ]Interesting that you used the general technique too. I suspect we're not alone.

Buzz

[EffenDolts]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious if you O8 experts out there would rather play A234ds or A210Jds. with my system as it is now, A234ds is worth 18 pts, while A210Jds is worth 20 pts. AA23ds is worth 26

[/ QUOTE ]

A234ds, hands down. No-foldem equity simulations can be very deceiving. A lot of the no-foldem equity will never be achieved because you will have folded in a real game. Also, equity calculations don't show the EV from raising your best hands and playing aggressively afer good flops, CRing, etc.

I ran some Wilson simulations. A234ds wins about 80% more money per hand versus A2TJds against Loose, Average, or Tight lineups. I also ran the sims for the rainbow versions of these hands. In that case, A234 wins more than twice as much money per hand, especially against the Loose lineup.

I also compared UTG versus the button. It didn't change my conclusion much. A234 is just much more bettable than A2TJ. Even if you flop broadway, you often have to check and call until the turn or river, depending on the suitedness of the flop and number of opponents. I have folded a flopped broadway much more often than I have folded a flopped nut low with CF protection.

I started with the Hutchinson count when I first played O8. I made the obvious adjustments to the raw count. I played looser in late position, and I was more likely to play AAxx hands if I thought I could get it short-handed, etc. After playing a few thousand hands online using the point coint to guide my preflop play, I eventually gained a feel for what I should do preflop. Maybe I should run my hand histories through an analyzer and see how far I have strayed from Hutchinson.

Effen