LO8 Full Tilt - $22 Deepstack: Go Home or Fold?

[Omaha8sPoker]

SCENARIO: The FIRST hand after the tables were reset for the final 18, so I have no read on the villian...So the question here is FOLD or GO HOME...I'll post results with the hand because I don't think there is any analysis because I don't have a read...

Full Tilt Poker Game #2679690677: $3,000 Guarantee (19949562), Table 16 - 2500/5000 - Limit Omaha H/L - 2:45:09 ET - 2007/06/16
Seat 1: Jade n Gabs (3,136)
Seat 2: Acessassin (91,657)
Seat 3: HERO (19,000)
Seat 4: AneOakley (14,614)
Seat 5: nutznbolz (46,571)
Seat 6: melika783 (55,809)
Seat 7: shamalamana (57,514)
Seat 8: fumani (23,020)
Seat 9: moonfruit (15,484)
shamalamana posts the small blind of 1,250
fumani posts the big blind of 2,500
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to HERO [Qd Qs 2s 5d]
fumani: u wanted him to bust
fumani: keep it real
moonfruit folds
Jade n Gabs folds
Acessassin calls 2,500
HERO raises to 5,000
AneOakley folds
shamalamana calls 3,750
fumani calls 2,500
Acessassin calls 2,500
*** FLOP *** [Kd 9d 8d]
shamalamana bets 2,500
fumani folds
Acessassin folds
HERO raises to 5,000
shamalamana raises to 7,500
HERO raises to 10,000
shamalamana calls 2,500
*** TURN *** [Kd 9d 8d] [5c]
shamalamana bets 5,000
HERO calls 4,000, and is all in
shamalamana shows [3d Ad 2h Td]
HERO shows [Qd Qs 2s 5d]
Uncalled bet of 1,000 returned to shamalamana
HERO: nh
*** RIVER *** [Kd 9d 8d 5c] [5s]
shamalamana shows a flush, Ace high, for high
HERO shows a flush, King high, for high
shamalamana wins the pot (48,000) with a flush, Ace high
No low hand qualified
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 48,000 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 9d 8d 5c 5s]
Seat 1: Jade n Gabs didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: Acessassin folded on the Flop
Seat 3: HERO showed [Qd Qs 2s 5d] and lost with HI: a flush, King high
Seat 4: AneOakley (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: nutznbolz is sitting out
Seat 6: melika783 is sitting out
Seat 7: shamalamana (small blind) showed [3d Ad 2h Td] and won (48,000) with HI: a flush, Ace high
Seat 8: fumani (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 9: moonfruit didn't bet (folded)

[Rush17]

Fold. Preflop.

You played the 2nd nuts very aggressively. Was that because you didn't have a read on your opponent? Oh, and just because you may not have had a read, doesn't mean it's not worth analyzing. It is.

[bbartlog]

Hand is bad, fold preflop.
If I did see the flop, I'd play it the same way. Since I'm not going to be able to find a fold I might as well jam it in on the flop in case I'm up against a set or lower flush.

[Shabamabam]

Fold preflop.

I raise if first in.

With your stack, I always go broke.

[Omaha8sPoker]

Rush yeah I played it this way because I had no read...If the King of diamonds wasn't out there I wouldn't have played it as aggressively (may have even folded) the 3rd nuts...But with my stack I couldn't really put in a "tester" raise, because if I did that then I'd be left with 9000 chips, which is crippled so I thought it was either jam it in or fold it...

[Omaha8sPoker]

Wow I'm really shocked about the comments about folding this hand preflop...Not that I'm arguing, my limit game is FARRRRRRRRRRRR from anything that would resemble decent...I would think that in this stage of the tournament raising with this type of hand in late position would be what you want to do...The chip leader at my table had been limping with a large variety of boarderline hands to plain crap so I really wasn't worried about his limp, I was trying to get it heads up between the two of us...

So if there was another limper in front of him you would insta-muck this double suited pair?? Is this because of my stack size or would you play this type of hands with many more chips or if you were short stacked??

This is a very interesting discussion and may fix up a MAJORLY HORRENDOUS leak in my game, because I viewed this type of hand as a pretty decent starting hand...Especially in position...

[Buzz]

Omaha8sPoker - I agree with Bart and Shabamabam that you should fold.

Your starting hand is not terrible for full game play, but is nothing to write home about. I might play it in a ring game or I might not. I might play it in a tournament or I might not.

But I would not play it at this stage of the tournament when only Acessassin, the chip leader has limped in ahead of me and five unknown players, including the blinds, are yet to act behind me. (You left out what seats five and six did on the first betting round - I presume they folded to your raise).

It's four more hands until you have to post and there are two players with lower stacks than you who have to post first. They could both be gone before you're forced to play a hand. And perhaps you can get out cheaply (if you miss) when you do post your blinds. There is no need to be desperate.

You need to know how your opponents play in order to play well against them. You might get a better idea of how your opponents play if you delay.

Once Acessassin limps in front of you, although there is a chance you can isolate Acessassin and play the hand one-on-one with position against an opponent with a weak starting hand, there also is a chance you cannot isolate and that Acessassin actually has a good one-on-one hand. For your plan to work:<ul type="square">• (1) Acessassin has to have a poor starting hand for one-on-one play.
• (2) The players behind you all have to get out of your way.
• (3) You need to get a favorable flop.[/list]You need all three of these things to happen - and each one is a gamble.

When you raise, you're commiting more than a fourth of your chips on the triple gamble. Might work - but it's just a gamble. Sometimes you have a better chance of success when you gamble. Other times you're forced to gamble. But here, you can opt out.

There is no compelling reason to play this hand, and a reasonable case can be made against playing it.

The starting hand itself is not indecent, but neither does it often make the nuts. Thus it's risky.

A pair of queens is a strong starting hand in Texas hold 'em because chances are there will be no ace or king on the flop and if there is, chances are none of your still active opponents will have a matching card. There's about the same chance of no ace or king on the flop in Omaha-8, but the difference is, one of your active opponents is likely to have a match. And in any event, you'll only catch a queen on the flop about one time out of eight. What it boils down to is a pair of queens is not a particularly strong component to have in an Omaha-8 starting hand.

The deuce-five could win for low, and even could possibly make the nuts for low. But it's still a rather weak two-card low combo.

You've seen for yourself what often happens with a queen-high-flush. It's risky and needs a deft touch.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very interesting discussion and may fix up a MAJORLY HORRENDOUS leak in my game, because I viewed this type of hand as a pretty decent starting hand...

[/ QUOTE ]You'll never get agreement on this forum as to what a pretty decent starting hand is. I think the decency of a starting hand is very relative to your particular situation and mix of opponents. Tighter players will be more or less aghast at voluntarily playing the hand.

I'm not in that category. I play a bit more loosely, but I think it's fair to say that my opponents probably generally regard me as a fairly tight player.

I place QQ52d in the same general category as KK52s, AJJ4n, and AKK5n, if that puts the relative value of QQ52d into better perspective for you. What do you think of those starting hands? (rhetorical)

First of all, I would not play the hand in this particular situation.

But then you played it poorly, in my humble opinion.<ul type="square">1. If you could get one-on-one and have position on an opponent playing trash, then the raise on betting round #1 seems fine. But that didn't work.

2. When shamalamana bets the flop, you don't show much respect. (You raise). I don't much like the raise, because shamalamana could well have the nut flush. However, to be honest, I also dislike chasing and I also dislike conceding. Thus I don't like anything - and that's one problem with playing this hand in the first place.

3. (This is the really bad part, in my humble opinion): shamalamana reraises and you still don't show any respect! At the very least you should back off a little here.

4. You continued to bet as though you had the nuts. But you didn't! If you're going to play the second nuts, it should be with your feelers, your antennae, fully extended. That means you give shamalamana some credibility for his representation of the stone cold nuts. You don't necessarily give up and concede the hand, but neither do you insist you have the winning hand while shamalamana is playing foolishly.

What else besides the nuts can shamalamana hold to bet this way? You, yourself, have the 2nd nuts and you are representing the stone cold nuts with your own betting! Does shamalamana know nothing whatsoever about the game? The way you're betting implies shamalamana either does not understand what a good hand is or shamalamana is putting you on a bluff and is re-bluffing with nothing. Either way, you don't seem to give shamalamana much credit for understanding how to play the game.[/list]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no read on the villian

[/ QUOTE ]Then consider giving the villain some benefit of the doubt.

I vaguely wonder if shamalamana and Shabamabam are related (or one in the same).

Buzz

[Omaha8sPoker]

Buzz all fair points...Let me address the last part of your post...I have 19,000 to start the hand...The raise commits 5,000 so I'm left with 14,000 going to the flop...Now the flop comes and I have the 2nd nuts and my opponent bets into me...In my view with our stack we have 2 choices here: FOLD or GO HOME if he has the nuts...Like I said in a previous post, I can't put in a feeler raise here and then fold because that leaves me with 9,000 and crippled...And I can't call down because calling down leaves me with 1,500 chips if I go to the river...So it's not really about giving a guy credit for a hand, I have to decide here if my 2nd nuts is good...As soon as the 3rd raise was put in I knew I was pretty much dead in the water...Trust me I wasn't playing this as "OH MY GOD I HAVE A FLUSH, I'M ALL IN!" and not thinking about what the guy has...I had to make a decision on the flop that I had the best flush, I made the decision and I was wrong...For better or worse when I don't have a read on a player I revert to the level of play that I have seen in the tournament to that point, yeah that might come up to bite me in the ass but that's what I did here...I thought I had the best of it and went with it...

In reading these responses and analysis the obvious error is pre-flop and I will take that into consideration when I see this situation in a limit tournament again...

I'm pretty sure the 2 are not the same person because I think that our Shamba plays as another name on Full Tilt, which I just found out was a "starlet" of some sort...Well played Shamba, WELL PLAYED!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the flop comes and I have the 2nd nuts and my opponent bets into me...In my view with our stack we have 2 choices here: FOLD or GO HOME if he has the nuts...Like I said in a previous post, I can't put in a feeler raise here and then fold because that leaves me with 9,000 and crippled...And I can't call down because calling down leaves me with 1,500 chips if I go to the river...So it's not really about giving a guy credit for a hand, I have to decide here if my 2nd nuts is good...As soon as the 3rd raise was put in I knew I was pretty much dead in the water

[/ QUOTE ]Omaha8sPoker - I agree that it's a tough spot. I don't like any of your choices. (Reminds me of some elections).

But I have gone from having only one chip to winning a tournament. And many times I have gone from having only one chip to making the final table and being in on the pay-off. Thus I know it is at least possible.

If you shug off your first round ploy and go into check/call mode, you'll still have 1500T left if disaster strikes. And if disaster doesn't strike you have almost doubled up.

You don't have to commit all your chips here.

Buzz

[Omaha8sPoker]

Buzz, I can't argue with you about going into "cockroach mode"...I have a much easier time doing this in NLHE because there is one winner in a hand the vast majority of the time...With the split pots in O8 it makes being a cockroach so much more difficult...

This is just a stupid ass hindsight justification of my actions...I think the thing to do would be to raise-fold to a reraise and leave myself with T9000...

Thanks for the inspiration, I'll be more patient next time!!!