Heads up with the bare nut low draw

[yukoncpa]

I’m in a loose 2-4 limit Omaha 8 game with 7 players. I’m UTG and am dealt A27K rainbow. I limp and everyone folds to the button who limps. Little blind folds BB raps.
I have no reads on opponent, but assume he plays like a typical online 2/4 O8 player.


Flop is 56Q rainbow

BB checks I bet, button calls, BB folds ( It is now heads up in small pot and I’m oop).

Turn is 9 ( board is still rainbow and all I have is nut low draw)

How should I play the turn? If betting is correct, I assume then that I should also bet the river if I miss.

edit - also, even cs's will sometimes fold very weak hands that have me beat.

[Buzz]

Yukoncpa - If you don't bet the turn, your opponent probably will, and then what will you do?

If you answer is you will call, then you should probably bet the turn yourself.

If you answer is you will fold, then check, planning to fold to the bet.

I'd bet the turn and hope for a fold or a good river. But that's just me. One could make a good case for check/folding here.

Buzz

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Yukoncpa - If you don't bet the turn, your opponent probably will, and then what will you do?

If you answer is you will call, then you should probably bet the turn yourself.

If you answer is you will fold, then check, planning to fold to the bet.

I'd bet the turn and hope for a fold or a good river. But that's just me. One could make a good case for check/folding here.



Buzz


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for responding Buzz,

If I check the turn, it would be because I am going to fold if he bets. My proclivity in this situation is to always bet, indeed, for me it is automatic. I’m just wondering if I should tamper my enthusiasm down a bit when faced with calling stations. It just seems to me that even against calling stations, my lone opponents miss often enough or a river hits me often enough to make an auto bet worthwhile when heads up in this situation.

edit - also, even cs's may fold very weak hands that have me beat.

[jlocdog]

Buzz,

I see an opportunity for pot control.

Getting Quartered is not a farfetched possibility. Putting 2BB in on the turn only to get 1/2BB back is tough. C/c'ng here gives you the oportunity to lose the minimum (if you miss river) while still being able to maximize on a good card since you will have the opportunity to either c/r or look to bet/3bet river.

Having no redraws to a comfortable high makes me want to be more passive.

Also the redraw on my low is nonspectacular which furthers my desire to minimize this pot.

Offering 4-1 or so on our money seriously reduces our FE.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
still being able to maximize on a good card since you will have the opportunity to either c/r or look to bet/3bet river.

[/ QUOTE ] If you're so worried about getting quartered, what rivers would you possibly checkraise here?

I vote for bet turn, check/call a good river. Possibly bet a king.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting Quartered is not a farfetched possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]jlocdog - Neither is it very likely. Indeed it seems more unlikely than likely. Not impossible. Just less likely than not.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting 2BB in on the turn only to get 1/2BB back is tough.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. [ QUOTE ]
C/c'ng here gives you the oportunity to lose the minimum (if you miss river)....

[/ QUOTE ]That's true.[ QUOTE ]
.... while still being able to maximize on a good card since you will have the opportunity to either c/r or look to bet/3bet river.

[/ QUOTE ]I can't think of a river card such that I would want to either 3-bet or check/raise with this hand/flop/turn. An ace on the river would make the best high for Hero, a possible winner for high, but then Hero has a poor low and still only one pair for high. A seven on the river would give Hero the nut low plus a pair of sevens, hardly what Hero wants, but on balance Hero should most prefer to see a seven on the river if it comes to that. But hopefully it will not.

[ QUOTE ]
Having no redraws to a comfortable high makes me want to be more passive.

[/ QUOTE ]If you happen to be playing in a game where there is a tacit understanding there will be no betting when one-on-one, then checking makes sense. I don't like those "no-bet-heads-up" games, but sometimes that's the way it is in a B&M casino.

Otherwise, it's not unreasonable to assume the turn was not particularly favorable for your opponent. And this is a good place for an Omaha-8 semi-bluff. By betting this turn, you hope to take the pot rather than ending up splitting or losing it.

It's true that Hero risks being raised by betting the turn. But only threes, fours, sevens, and eights, a total of only 15/44 river cards help Hero by making him the nut low. All the rest of the cards, the other 29/44, are not very good for Hero.

If Hero doesn't bet this turn, it's an almost sutomatic move for Button to bet, and in that case Hero has lost the initiative. Do you think that if Hero check/calls the turn and then bets the river Button will fold? I don't.

Do you think that if Hero check/calls the turn and then check/raisess the river Button will fold? I don't.

Hero's best chance to scoop this pot is to bet the turn, hoping that Button will give up.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the redraw on my low is nonspectacular which furthers my desire to minimize this pot.

[/ QUOTE ]You only want to minimize it when you're going to lose it. And in that case, I think you do better by simply folding.

It's not impossible for check/calling to work out best for Hero, as for example when he's up against AA23 here - but I think Hero does generally better by being aggressive here.

Buzz

[kitaristi0]

To those advocating a turn bet (which I agree with FWIW), how often are you following through with a river bet when you miss your low?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
how often are you following through with a river bet when you miss your low?

[/ QUOTE ]Kitaristi0 - It's a good question but impossible to answer without consideration of how Hero has played other recent hands, how the current opponent has played other recent hands, or how far into the playing session this is. However, even though impossible to answer, I’m going to take a stab.

The bottom line is I’m probably going to bet the river.

Going back to the turn, we hope Villain will fold to Hero’s semi-bluff turn bet, but recognize that Villain doesn’t need much to call, especially if he mistrusts Hero. Or if Villain trusts Hero to have a good low draw and probably not much more, then Villain still doesn’t need much to call the turn bet, heads-up.

Thus admittedly the possibility of Villain folding to Hero’s semi-bluff turn bet does not look good once Villain has called Hero’s flop bet. However, Hero certainly doesn’t want Villain getting a free draw and eking out a win with a hand he would have folded if Hero had bet. Thus Hero should still make a turn bet, hoping that Villain will fold. Even if Villain puts Hero on a low draw, in addition Hero could have a made straight, or at least a queen. A cautious Villain might fold to a turn bet.

At any rate, even though Hero knows the ploy will not work very often, it’s not impossible or even far fetched that Villain will fold and thus Hero bets this turn hoping Villain will, indeed, fold.

But if Villain calls, all is not lost. Hero still has a chance to make a hand on the river and barring that, still has a chance to out-play Villain.

Part I
The first step, after Villain calls the turn bet, is to try to estimate what cards Villain holds in order to have limped, called a flop bet, and then called the turn bet. This is more difficult without knowing Villain. For example, there’s a guy who I played against yesterday who only plays hands containing at least one ace plus a deuce so frequently that it’s a safe bet to put him on ace-deuce-X-Y whenever he enters the action. Every single time he showed down a hand yesterday, it contained an ace plus a deuce. On other occasions I have also seen him play such hands as AA34 with a suited ace. But the great bulk of hands he plays belong to the A2XY family.

Card playing skill in any card game requiring thought (bridge, gin rummy, poker, etc.) always involves correctly putting your opponents on cards and playing accordingly. Assuming Villain knows the game and simply calls Hero’s 3rd round bet after limping on the first two betting rounds, then Villain probably either has a low draw and/or has a high hand but is too leery of Hero possibly holding a nine-high-straight or a set of queens.

A leery but doubting opponent who calls Hero’s 3rd round bet with at least two pairs is also going to almost always call Hero’s 4th round bet.

I think it’s most likely a Villain who knows the game and who calls Hero’s 3rd round bet is also on a low draw, possibly with a pair for high. Villain who doesn’t know the game might be playing anything and probably calls on the river with at least a pair just to see if he won or not.

At any rate, Hero is going to profit from betting the river when he doesn’t make low and when an opponent with a better high hand folds on the river. I only see that happening when (1) an opponent who knows the game (2) has exactly one pair for high.

Betting against an opponent who doesn’t know the game doesn’t make much sense. He’ll know enough to fold when he doesn’t have a pair, but with even only a pair for high, he still probably will call.

When Villain knows the game and does not even have a pair, there is no profit in betting the river, because he’ll simply fold to the bet, and he loses the showdown anyway. When Villain knows the game and has more than one pair, there would rarely be profit in betting the river. It’s possible, depending on the river card, that Villain would fold two low pairs, like fives and sixes - but it’s not probable Villain was dealt 56XY, and then it’s also not probable Villain who knows the game would have seen the flop with 56XY. Combine those two and it’s only remotely possible Villain who knows the game has 56XY here. 55XY, 66XY are similarly remote.

QQXY is more reasonable in that someone might fold 55XY or 66XY before the flop, but would be more likely to see the flop with QQXY. After the flop, from Hero’s perspective, one of eight opponents will have been dealt a pair of queens only about one time in seven. But since someone might not play a starting hand with a pair of queens, there is not as much as a one in seven chance this opponent has a pair of queens. After the flop, the chance this one opponent had a starting hand with pair of queens is actually somewhere between about one in fifty and one in seven.

However, if Villain was holding QQXY you’d expect a raise on the flop, and if not on the flop, then on the turn (even though a straight is possible). When a raise is not forthcoming, it looks like Villain didn’t start with QQXY. It’s still possible, but remote - hard to say exactly how remote - maybe one chance in thirty at most.

At any rate, if Villain just called on the turn, then I would not think it likely that Villain was playing a set of queens, although that would be a remote possibility.

Neither do I think Villain probably has a lower set or two pairs, although that is more possible from a putz than a strong opponent.

Instead, if Villain calls the turn bet, then I think Villain probably has a low draw, possibly with a single pair. Going back to the call after the flop and the pre-flop limp, a low draw, possibly with a single pair, makes sense.

Then if the river does not enable low and also does not make Hero a decent pair (which would be aces or kings in this instance), putting Villain probably on a low draw possibly with a pair, the pregnant question becomes, “Does Villain fold a single pair to a river bet?” If so, then Hero steals the whole pot with a river bet. If not, or if Villain has more than one pair and doesn’t fold, then Hero loses the river bet.

Some astute opponents would read Hero’s river bet as very possibly a steal attempt after a missed low draw and would re-raise, perhaps with even less than ace-king high. And then Hero would be hard-pressed to call the raise.

Assuming Villain has two low cards for a low draw plus two other cards after this single-bet pre-flop, flop, and turn action, and assuming the river neither makes a pair nor a low for Hero, then I think Villain has
<ul type="square">• one pair about half the time,
• two pairs, a set, or a straight roughly one time out of six, and
• neither a pair nor higher than a pair roughly one time out of three.[/list]That’s crude, but ball-park.

There also is a chance our assumption that Villain has two low cards for a low draw plus two other cards is incorrect, especially if Villain is a putz. But if our assumption is correct, then about half the time Villain will have ended up with exactly one pair.

Considering the size of the pot, Villain only has to fold one pair one time in five to make the bet profitable for Hero. And with only one pair for high, Villain will be hard-pressed to call the river bet.

Thus at first glance, betting the river seems worthwhile, whether Hero makes low, a pair, or nothing.

Part II
We also need to consider what Hero’s hand might look like to a skilled opponent.

With regard to the current hand, immediately after Hero bets this flop every skilled card player at the table is likely to put Hero on <ul type="square">"probably the nut low draw but possibly a set, or maybe a non-nut low draw or a straight draw or two pairs - or a bluff"[/list]. I don’t think this is a good place to bluff, but that very opinion would cause some opponents to bluff, assuming that since I would not think they were bluffing here, they had a better chance to pull it off.

Then when Hero bets the turn, to a skilled card player, the bet probably looks like <ul type="square">"either a nine high straight or a semi-bluff, possibly with a set or the nut low draw."[/list]
Then depending on how Hero bets the river card, more information will be given to everybody at the table. Whatever the river card is, and how hero bets will affect the impression anyone who is watching has of what cards Hero holds.

If the river is a low card, even if it pairs Hero’s ace or deuce, and if Hero bets, then his hand will be perceived as<ul type="square">"probably a low draw that made a low hand after all."[/list]If Villain did not make low, then we have to assume Villain was either playing for high or the river counterfeited his low draw. If the river counterfeited Villain’s low draw, then Villain has at least a pair for high.

If the river card is a king, jack, or ten, and if Hero bets, then Hero’s hand will be perceived as<ul type="square">"either a straight a set, two pairs, or a pure bluff.”[/list]
If the river card pairs the board, and if Hero bets, then Hero’s hand will be perceived as<ul type="square">"either a full house, a straight, a set, two pairs, or a pure bluff.”[/list]
Part III
Let's say you'll play 100 hands in a session of Omaha-8 poker, and that sometime soon you'll probably be playing another session against some of the same individuals who are currently watching your play. And let's say you have previously played against some of the individuals who are seated in the current game. And let's say that some of these individuals are trying to understand how you play so that they will be able to play better against you.

In addition to the opponent who is in the hand with you, let's say at least some of the onlookers are probably trying to put you on cards here. In part, their judgment will be affected by how you have played other hands, especially in a situation like this one. Thus your past behavior becomes a factor in how you should play the current hand.

In addition, the judgment of your opponents as to how you will be playing a future hand and their estimation of what cards you will have in that future hand will also be affected by what you do here.

Thus what you should do depends not only on what you think your opponents currently think but also on what you want them to think in some future situation in which you will be involved. With that in mind, you don't want to be predictable.

At any rate, there are various considerations, and I don’t think Hero should always play the same, but my default river play would be to bet.

Buzz