Theoretical O8 Spot

[Bavid Denyamine]

I think I agree, not to reiterate, but I can't see many flops that you're going to go hit that also hits their hand, so your far more likely to fold to a 643 than 3 people with A2XX are.

TStone, would you take KKQJ in this spot over a hand like A234?

[TStoneMBD]

no

[Micturition Man]

FWIW I just made the following calculation.

If we start with a 52 card deck, remove our KQJT, and remove 6 low cards (which is my possibly too extreme way of accounting for the card removal effect created by our opponents distributions), then we will flop 2 or more cards K-9 35.5% of the time.

(We also flop trips another 3% or so.)

Those flops are great for us as long as there is not a 2 or 3 flush out. They're actually still quite good for us with a 2 flush out, though a lot less strong.

I guess I would conclude from that that KQJT badugi is definitely playable for a cap from the BB (this is actually obvious to good o8 players I think).

KQJT ds is playable any time any pos.

KQJT with one flush draw is probably playable in very many spots.

KQJT badugi I think should always be playable for one or two bets. For 3-4 outside the blinds you probably need to be able to assume very favorable card removal effects.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a very loose play.

Think of all of the possible flops that you don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not relevant to whether or not the hand has value. In fact, because there are a clear number of boards that are bad for this high hand, it is easier to play post-flop.

[Buzz]

Bavid - This is limit-Omaha-8 we’re talking about, not Texas hold ‘em or a pot-limit or no-limit game, right?

You know your opponents better than I do. If your opponents who are jamming before the flop are likely to have low only hands, as you suggest, then the deck is likely to be enriched in high cards, and in that case you should go ahead and join in the jamming melee.

However opponents I have encountered in various casinos have not seemed to behave in that fashion. In general, those who like to raise before the flop like to usually raise when they enter the action. They’ll raise with low cards, they’ll raise with high cards, and sometimes they’ll raise with middle cards or a mix. I think some of them raise because raising makes them feel more alive or more powerful or more dominating - something like that.

Once in a while there has been somebody stupid enough to raise whenever, he/she has a good low hand, and not raise without such a hand - but usually that has not been the case in my games. Pre-flop raisers and non-raisers have fallen into two broad groups - those who raise a lot and those who don’t raise much. The good players who raise a lot tend to mix up their play, so that you can’t necessarily put them on low cards or aces when they raise. There is a lot of faking and feinting by those who tend to make pre-flop raises. Not always, by any means, but more often than not when somebody raises, it seems simply an attempt to intimidate or confuse. Opponents raise with hands I would not even play.

From your opening post in this thread:[ QUOTE ]
UTG raises,....

[/ QUOTE ]Could be aces. Could be kings. Could be a good low. Could be a bad low. Could be a high only hand. Could be an attempt to isolate a blind. Lots of possibilities. Hard for me to determine what that is without being familiar with the player. And then it would have different meanings coming from different players.[ QUOTE ]
....folded to a MP player who re-raises,....

[/ QUOTE ]Could be MP trying to isolate the raiser or gain the button. You think MP needs low cards to do make it three bets????? I don’t. Typically making it a triple bet certainly wouldn’t mean a low hand. (That would seem so very stupid). But hey, MP is your opponent, not mine. Seems like you should know what a re-raise from MP means better than I do. [ QUOTE ]
....the cutoff flat calls....

[/ QUOTE ]I’d read that simply as a decent starting hand and not being intimidated by the raise and re-raise. You think it means the cutoff has a bunch of low cards????? I suppose it is one of the possibilities - but it’s only <font color="white">_</font>one of the possibilities. Could not the cutoff have the same hand as you, except possibly suited or double suited? (which would make it considerably better than your badugi).

From the post to which I am directly responding:[ QUOTE ]
....I can't see many flops that you're going to go hit that also hits their hand....

[/ QUOTE ]If your supposition that your opponents have aces and low cards is correct, then except for flopped flushes and flush draws, indeed there are not many flops that will fit Hero’s hand that also fit an opponent’s hand. And in that case, go ahead and cap it.

I originally estimated that I’d like 34.8% of the total possible flops with this starting hand. After more careful reconsideration I’m revising that to 31.2%. It’s not a big difference and it’s not the main consideration. The main consideration is the actual types of hands your opponents hold to play in this aggressive fashion.

In my estimation, the essence of card playing skill as it relates to Omaha-8 is correctly putting your opponents on cards and playing accordingly. Seems like you are trying to do that here, and I applaud you for that effort. However, what you write about the kinds of hands your opponents must be playing simply does not ring true in terms of my own B&amp;M casino experience playing in ring games of limit-Omaha-8.

I have had many opponents who like to jam with high only hands such as yours. I’d be a bit wary of being up against such an opponent with such a hand here. (Or CO may have such a high only hand). And in case an opponent does have a high only hand such as yours, the very opposite of a favorable deck is what awaits you - and then even when the flop is favorable, you’ll not only often have to split with another high hand using the same to ranks as you, but you’ll also occasionally get hurt by a rivered flush.

Buzz

[Bavid Denyamine]

Buzz, as always, your advice is well taken. This is definitely an exercise in putting opponents on ranges of hands. I suppose there is a threshold that exists where ranges of hands that might seem unplayable in other spots become playable, but that just develops with experience from the game.

I was wondering mostly about the aggressive nature of this hand. Sure, if 5 people limp to you on the button with KQJT, it's definitely a spot to call, but how does that impression change in a raised pot?

I realize every decision in poker is situation-based, but I left out descriptions of playing styles to see how other people would respond to the possible hand ranges against unknown players. And yes, this is limit. I like this game because of the seemingly infinite number of combinations for playing almost any hand.

Thanks for all the comments/opinions/etc.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering mostly about the aggressive nature of this hand. Sure, if 5 people limp to you on the button with KQJT, it's definitely a spot to call, but how does that impression change in a raised pot?

[/ QUOTE ]Bavid - I wish I could give a definitive answer to that question for us both. But I think what to do when there is a raise depends very much on your impression of the opponent who is doing the raising, also on how the other opponents have reacted or will react to the raise. In addition, what to do depends on how loosely your opponents will play on subsequent betting rounds should the board be favorable for Hero.

I realize you posed the scenario as a hypothetical problem, but it actually does seem to portray pre-flop play at some tables where there is lots of action before the flop. And it would be possible for Hero to have been dealt KQJT-rainbow (or anything) and be in the midst of such wild pre-flop action.

Hero may only have three opponents here. I think he needs four with this hand to break even on the first betting round. I’d call a single bet and even a double bet (if I felt reasonably certain that would be the end of the raising) with this hand, even though I really want at least four opponents, because I would hope to play enough better than my opponents on subsequent betting rounds to make up for the small net loss I’d expect from the first betting round. Here is my reasoning:<ul type="square">There are two immediate effects of pre-flop raises in Omaha-8: (1) everybody who decides to see the flop puts more money into the pot on the first betting round, and (2) although a pre-flop raise won’t always limit the field, there will tend to be fewer players seeing the flop unless the pre-flop raise is made by the big blind, even in a loose game. It doesn’t matter if you make the extra bet(s) or an opponent does - those are the two immediate effects.

Let’s first assume that play after the flop (on betting rounds #2, #3, and #4) will be the same regardless of the pre-flop raise or raises. It won’t be, but let’s temporarily make that assumption in an attempt to purely isolate the first betting round. After doing the thinking about the first betting round from this point of view, we could go back and consider the effect pre-flop raises have on subsequent play. I'm not going to try that here because the effect would be very opponent specific. In other words, the play of different opponent types would be affected differently on subsequent betting rounds by the pre-flop raise(s). Some would become more conservative, others would react differently.

For this hand, let us assume that we will like about 30% of the possible flops and will go on to scoop or win the equivalent of a scoop about two thirds of the time if four opponents also see the flop. In that case, we expect to effectively scoop about 20% of the time.
(30%*2/3 = 20%).
I think that’s realistic or even possibly a bit optimistic with KQJT-rainbow.

If we win 20% or 1/5 and lose the other 4/5, then we need 4 opponents to break even. Thus I believe four opponents is the break even point for KQJT-rainbow in terms of moneys going into the pot on the first betting round.

Assuming what happens on the first betting round does not affect what happens on subsequent betting rounds, we can simply look at how much we stand to win on the first betting round when we go on to win and compare it to how much we lose on the first betting round when we fold or lose. We can look at the first betting round in isolation if what we do there does not affect the moneys on future betting rounds.

With more than four opponents, we want as much money as possible going into the pot. With less than four opponents, we won’t recoup what we lose here with what we win here and thus should prefer only one bet going into the pot.

Thus how many opponents you have contributing on the first betting round seems the first issue.

Raising from the big blind with this hand makes sense if there are lots of limpers. Otherwise I probably would not raise from anywhere with this hand because I would want as many opponents as possible contributing to the pot, not only on the first betting round, but also on subsequent betting rounds. This is a pulling hand, not a pushing hand. (In my humble opinion, most playable limit-Omaha-8 full table starting hands are pulling hands rather than pushing hands).

Anyone who has played much poker knows we have a greater chance of winning if we have fewer opponents. With this starting hand (KQJTn), regardless of the number of opponents, we won’t like any more flops than the original 30%, but we’ll win more often than the original 2/3 estimate. Let’s say with one less opponent, we increase our win rate from 2/3 to 4/5.
Then 30%*4/5 = 24%.

We broke even with 4 opponents, and now we don’t quite break even with 3 opponents. (The break even point with three opponents would be 25%).

We can fix that by increasing our win rate to 5/6. But does KQJT-rainbow actually win five times out of six on the 30% of flops we like if we only have three opponents instead of four?

I don’t think it does. I'm assuming a reasonable skill level for our opponents.

Of course knock it down to two opponents and you will have an even better chance to win - but with only two opponents, if you only like about 30% of the possible flops with this hand, then even if you win 100% of the time with a favorable flop, you still lose more on that first betting round than you gain.
(30%*2 bets, one from each opponent = 0.60,
while 70%*1 bet from you = -0.70)

Conclusion: Holding KQJT-rainbow, thinking only in terms of moneys going into the pot on the first betting round, Hero profits on the first betting round with more than four opponents and shows a loss with less than four opponents.[/list]
Can Hero play KQJT-rainbow with less than four opponents also seeing the flop? I think the answer is yes, assuming Hero plays better than his opponents on subsequent betting rounds. What I mean by “plays better” is assuming Hero does not make a mistake but at least one of his opponents does.

This hand itself may be easier to play than various other hands so that Hero may be less prone to make a mistake than an opponent of equal ability. On the other hand, card playing skill always depends on the ability to put opponent(s) on cards and then play accordingly. Depending on how Hero plays this hand and others on the flop, turn, and river, this is also a relatively easy hand for opponents to diagnose.

As you posed the original question, Hero is facing only three opponents, and although you suggested perhaps they all had aces and low cards, that seems contrary to my experience. Indeed, I cannot very well put any of the three of them on cards - and the way opponents would normally react to a flop, turn, and river will probably be distorted by this wild pre-flop action, thus making it difficult for me to correctly read their hands as a result of their actions on future rounds. I lose whatever card playing skill edge I might have and become reduced to the level of my wild playing, gambling opponents.

I’m a card player - not someone who gets a big thrill from taking an unnecessary risk. It goes against my grain to meekly fold KQJTn on the Button to a triple bet - but that is what I would do. It’s just too expensive. The actual money involved is somewhat immaterial to me. It’s a matter of not wanting to make a bad bet - of balking at getting overcharged.

<ul type="square">Calling a single bet with this hand and only three opponents would not be great, (but if there had not been a pre-flop raise then presumably BB would also be seeing the flop and there would actually be at least four opponents).

Calling a double bet with this hand and only three opponents is worse than calling a single bet - but there are image considerations and the possibility of playing enough better than my opponents to compensate.

Calling a triple bet with this hand and only three opponents is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.[/list]
Buzz