Fold a set here? Omaha/8PL

[PorkPieHat]

Rush, as a new poster you should probably get acquainted with the search feature. Phil is pretty good when it comes to the math of the game (and to some folks that IS rocket science).

And no, we don't always intend to draw to nut hands. DUCY?

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're such a tool.

And lol at trying to apply the shania concept to limping this hand from the button.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice mathematical analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]


What do you want me to do? Put up the same mathematical analysis you did?

The point that most people (including yourself) dont seem to understand about O8 is that the hand values are often extrememly close in value, especially in multiway pots.

The problem with those hand values, or any mathematical analysis of O8 hands, is that it fails to show you how to play the hand correctly.

8873 is a hand that has gross reverse implied odds.

* If you make top set with 8873, a low hand WILL ALWAYS be possible

Now, if a low hand will always be possible, and the pot is multiway, we have nearly no chance of SCOOPING. And if you do happen to get your money in the pot with top set, you can almost be sure you'll be getting free rolled if your competition is anything but brain dead.

e.g.

8-2-3, if the money goes in on the flop, expect to see AA45 or similar a lot.


/end thread

[Rush17]

[ QUOTE ]
Rush, as a new poster you should probably get acquainted with the search feature. Phil is pretty good when it comes to the math of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually...I did get acquainted with the search feature(although I failed to find any posts from Phil regarding O8) Now, I did not ask, nor was I doubting, if Phil was compitent or even an authority when it came to the math part of the game. I asked, if he actually PLAYED the game. Big difference. And as much as I feel that the math is important, being in actual situations, with all different kinds of players, who play their hands in all different styles...you can come up with all the simulations that you want and it won't ring true enough because they aren't taking into account all of the other variables that need to be taken into account, which can only occur when you are playing the game. Now of course, if all we did was deal out the cards and then deal the flop, turn, and river to see what hands would win (over time) without anyone ever betting or making any moves/bluffs or what have you, then yes, perhaps I should take another look at the 8873 hand...but poker doesn't work that way.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're such a tool.

And lol at trying to apply the shania concept to limping this hand from the button.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice mathematical analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you want me to do? Put up the same mathematical analysis you did?

[/ QUOTE ]
Something other than a one line insult is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
* If you make top set with 8873, a low hand WILL ALWAYS be possible

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you implying top set it the only good/playable/profitable hand we can flop?? If that was true, I would agree with everything else you say.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually...I did get acquainted with the search feature. And, I did not ask, nor was I doubting, if Phil was compitent or even an authority when it came to the math part of the game. I asked, if he PLAYED the game. Big difference. But now that you mention it, I failed to find any posts from Phil regarding O8, so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I played for quite a while. Haven't recently though, hence no posts. Here's an old graph that I posted recently in another thread from when I used to play low stakes PLO8 (mostly $25 and $50 with some $100PL at the end). You can see the power of semibluffing in action. Green minus blue is pure forced profit from getting people to put money in and then fold. This is 45/16/3 stats You guys have no idea.

[Truthiness24]

Solid.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't skewer a preflop call here, but if you don't flop top set or better I don't see too much logic in betting into such a large field. With bottom set, betting the pot is reduced to a "go away" bet where you must take it down there, hit a boat on the turn, or completely shut down. Given those parameters, this hand can but still probably won't work, after all the odds your hand is best on the flop are probably negligible.

I almost always fold this preflop in this situation. As an open you can do whatever from this position and I won't flog the choice of action, but on this flop you have to almost always check/fold this hand, perhaps check/call if you are almost certain all the action is for the low and the call is a small fraction of the pot. Losing a relatively small pot with a small boat isn't a capital offense IMO, and if you want a LAGgy image then showing down a hand like this (if it makes a boat!!) can help your image without being a big money pit. Now that is O8, crafting a laggy image by showing down boats!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[LeeLoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would be me.

And if you're going to go around saying that O8 is not a game of the nuts but rather a game of draws, then may I ask you, what it is exactly that you're "drawing" to when you put your $ in the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, it's a game of draws and semibluffing, not nut hands.

Semibluffing is very profitable. Few around here seems to understand this concept - and the ones that do generally keep their mouths shut.

In this hand you can flop a straight draw or set, with a backup flush draw. Both are very profitable situations when played correctly - even more so because of the possibility of a low draw. People love flopped low draws in this game, even with a poor chance of high. This + fold equity after people put money in and miss + idiots who take on your set with a low draw and a little something, is where the money comes from. The nut hands are there regardless - it's how you play the others that defines your game.

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop equity simulations don't tell you that much about the playability of a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I suggest comparing the flop equity distribution graphs as well. You'll find them surprising. Multiway hands play differently to common wisdom, just as they do in NL holdem.

[ QUOTE ]
If we put a lot of confidence in them, we would be led to believe that we should almost always defend the BB (in limit)

[/ QUOTE ]
Limit O8 is a different game. It doesn't has the same chances for opponents to make very expensive late street mistakes. It's the same situation with low pairs and suited one gappers and other speculative stuff in limit holdem vs NL.

[ QUOTE ]
It might make more sense to think in terms of the kinds of situations you will find yourself in if you play this hand, and whether they will be profitable. And as it turns out, it's hard to win a big pot with 8873s, but easy to lose one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Flopping a set is a very profitable situation. You can make a profit out of straight draws. Even the pair of 8s is a valuable part of the hand which backs up your straight/flush possibilities against a low chaser.

[ QUOTE ]
Any nuts you flop (other than the rare FH, which will probably not get much action) will have the potential for you getting freerolled by a good low hand with a draw to a better high.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why all the talk about "nuts" and "freerolled"? You seem to be looking at the worst case scenarios here and discounting the profitability of both sets and straights. Exactly how often do you think a low is flopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even tho I love ya Phil, in the words of Yoda "that is why you fail"

[gergery]

I would much rather have my opponents play that hand preflop
than fold it

-g

[niss]

Nice to see you posting again LeeLoo.

[bbartlog]

I looked at my PTO data (40K hands in PLO8 microlimits) and set up categories KKQx, QQJx, JJTx etc. all the way down to 665x. Which of course includes 887x.
In my data, the top three (KKQx, QQJx, JJTx) are winners, and all the rest are losers. To be fair, my VP$IP for 887x is like 8% or something, so the sample size of played hands for everything less than TT9x is on the small side. And of course you could argue that these hands would be profitable if only I knew how to play them right. But I am a winner over these 40K hands (4BB/100 overall, 7BB/100 at PLO8 0.10/0.25 where I spend most of my time), and I already play a pretty loose, speculative game overall. Even for me a hand like this seems like a step too far.