Buzzian O8 starting hand analysis

[Phat Mack]

First of all, let me confess that I'm a slow thinker, and that I was still trying to digest Buzz's November article when the December rolled around.

My first reaction upon reading the Nov. piece was, "Is Buzz pulling my leg?" I mean, after spending years thinking about an omaha starting hand as an integrated four-card unit--after reading Bob Ciaffone state that the worst thing an omaha player can do is think of an omaha hand as a couple of hold 'em hands--here is the famous Buzz, God's gift to methodical reasoning, breaking down omaha hands into two-card components.

Now, in the Dec. article, Buzz walks to the edge of the abyss, looks down, and sees--Point-Count Systems! For those of you who may not know, point-count systems have been discussed, often sneeringly, since Day One on 2+2, and before that on RGP. Are we to become bridge players? In January, will Buzz have us opening 4-card minors?

What to do? I have been trying for a few weeks to find a way through all this with no success. But hope springs eternal, and the answer for me may be found, as so many answers are, in the movie What About Bob: Baby Steps towards understanding Buzzian analysis.

For my first Baby Step, I'm going to go back to the Nov. issue and look at the lists of the best and worst two-card combos. The best is A2s, and the worst is 77. (As an aside, I'll say that I was interested more in the worst combos than in the best, with the possible exception of bests like Q2s.)

Now, I'm going to fire up my sim, Poker Calculator, and run a hand containing A2s against eight opponents playing random hands...

[ QUOTE ]
Hand |As2sxx | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
High | 4736 | 5302 | 5242 | 5351 | 5216 | 5391 | 5226 | 5366 | 5449 |
Draw | 14189| 5336 | 5315 | 5386 | 5290 | 5418 | 5346 | 5249 | 5269 |
Lose | 58643| 82953| 82923| 82828| 83136| 82872| 83092| 82867| 82783|
Scoop | 6582 | 4591 | 4734 | 4607 | 4513 | 4559 | 4548 | 4715 | 4618 |
Low | 17545| 2257 | 2215 | 2255 | 2262 | 2172 | 2230 | 2212 | 2308 |
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Win% |21.26%| 9.82%| 9.92%| 9.87%| 9.69%| 9.82%| 9.74%| 9.94%| 9.94%|
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

[/ QUOTE ]

...and we see that As2sxx has a win% of 21.26, where, for a random hand in nine-way action, we would expect a random hand to achieve 11.11%. A2s is good to have. But we knew that.

If good 2-card combos make win% go up, shouldn't bad 2-card combos should make win% go down? To test this hypothesis (with the role of Beaker being played by PokerCalculator), I'll add 77, the worst 2-card combo, to the A2s and see if the win% goes down...

[ QUOTE ]
Hand |As2s7c7d| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
High | 5386 | 4774 | 4942 | 5012 | 4797 | 4888 | 4729 | 4777 | 4811 |
Draw | 10064| 5165 | 5279 | 5314 | 5043 | 5283 | 5241 | 5194 | 5248 |
Lose | 69131| 82760| 82417| 82256| 82647| 82396| 82589| 82488| 82655|
Scoop | 5931 | 5119 | 5246 | 5295 | 5322 | 5283 | 5242 | 5271 | 5174 |
Low | 11065| 2663 | 2588 | 2628 | 2649 | 2665 | 2677 | 2714 | 2630 |
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Win% |16.54%|10.26%|10.48%|10.57%|10.44%|10.52%| 10.4%|10.45%|10.34%|
------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

[/ QUOTE ]

...and lo and behold, the win% goes down from 21.26 to 16.54!

Now we have to step forward to the December issue. But before we do, I have another aside: assuming that we play O8 not to win pots, but to win money, is it possible that while the addition of 77 to A2s lessens its win%, it adds to its money-winning potential? I'm going to have to leave that can of worms for a future Baby Step...

Anyway, on to the Dec. article, where we find this quantification of hand values...
[ QUOTE ]
Step 2. High two-card combos are good.

High combos are good for making winning full houses, winning straights, winning trips and winning two pairs.

• AA (but not if there are three of them) is worth 3 points.
• KK is worth 2 points.
• QQ is worth 1 point.
• AK, AQ, AJ and AT are each worth 1 point.
• KQJ, KQT, KJT and QJT are each worth 1 point.
• JJ, TT, or 99 in a hand with all high cards are each worth 1 point. But if the hand has an ace with a high pair, for example AJJT, don’t add one point for AJ plus another for JJ. When a hand has a pair of jacks, the ace has no “kicker” value.
• Other pairs are more of a liability than an asset: 0 points.

In the interests of keeping the system simple, this overvalues some high combos and under values others. In particular, giving 99 one point is a stretch.

Step 3. Low card combos can be good too, especially if with an ace.
(Note: The points for each of the following include value for high. We don’t take anything off for low pairs, but we don’t add anything either).

[/ QUOTE ]

...which brings me to the First Question engendered by my First Baby Step:

Q1: If we are adding points for good 2-card combos, why aren't we subtracting points for bad 2-card combos?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
in the movie What About Bob: Baby Steps towards understanding Buzzian analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]Mack – That’s one of my all time favorite movies.
[ QUOTE ]
I was interested more in the worst combos than in the best,

[/ QUOTE ]I was almost as interested in the worst as the best. I think you want to make certain you’re only coincidentally playing the worst combos.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm going to fire up my sim, Poker Calculator, and run a hand containing A2s against eight opponents playing random hands......and we see that As2sxx has a win% of 21.26, where, for a random hand in nine-way action, we would expect a random hand to achieve 11.11%. A2s is good to have. But we knew that.

[/ QUOTE ]But it’s good to have your back-up data anyway. Thanks for the sim.
[ QUOTE ]
If good 2-card combos make win% go up, shouldn't bad 2-card combos should make win% go down? To test this hypothesis (with the role of Beaker being played by PokerCalculator), I'll add 77, the worst 2-card combo, to the A2s and see if the win% goes down......and lo and behold, the win% goes down from 21.26 to 16.54!

[/ QUOTE ]Good back-up data. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Now we have to step forward to the December issue. But before we do, I have another aside: assuming that we play O8 not to win pots, but to win money, is it possible that while the addition of 77 to A2s lessens its win%, it adds to its money-winning potential?

[/ QUOTE ]Good question. I don’t think it does, because there are better two-card additions to the A-2 combo. (I think there may be worse two-card additions but I think there are more two-card additions that are better than 77 than additions that are worse).

I’ll run a sim using Mz. Marple (the Wilson advisor for loose games) as Hero playing against a typical mixture of mostly too-loose opponents. Then I’ll run another sim using all C. Chans (the Wilson advisor for tight games).

As simulated with Mz. Marple against eight mostly loose opponents with random hands,
________no call___high___low___scoop___net dollars
Ah2hXY___416___478.50___1040.25___1386___$198,523
Ah2h7s7d__297___399.25___764.00___1074___$111,603

As simulated for C. Chan against eight Chan opponents with random hands,
________no call___high___low___scoop___net dollars
Ah2hXY___2473___558.67___853.08___1355___$94,444
Ah2h7s7d_2187___489.63___717.46___1126___$54,249

We could run some other mixes of opponents, but these are, I think, close enough to the two extremes.

Conclusion: The pair of sevens detracts from the earning potential of an average ace-deuce-X-Y hand – and probably in most any field.

I ran the sims for a suited ace-deuce, but I think the values would just be lower for a hand with an off-suit ace-deuce. The pair of sevens would still detract from the average hand value.

[ QUOTE ]
Q1: If we are adding points for good 2-card combos, why aren't we subtracting points for bad 2-card combos?

[/ QUOTE ]Excellent question. I did that originally, but decided to not involve any subtractions in the interests of simplicity.

But the last time I played (yesterday), I did subtract a point for a middle card and I think that’s better if you can easily handle it.

Buzz

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, let me confess that I'm a slow thinker, and that I was still trying to digest Buzz's November article when the December rolled around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! I'm not the only one!

Love his articles, but it takes a few re-reads for me.

Keep it up Buzz!

[phish]

When giving basic advice of o8 starting hands, I have a very basic system. Adjusting for position, prior action, etc., my rule breaks down to this:

Play hands that have:

A2
A3 plus one other thing such as suited A or big pair (A3KK, AA39)
A4 plus two other things such as suited A, big pair. Hence, A4sKK is playable, but A4s9Q would not be.

Of course when situations are favorable (late position, no raise, soft-game,) you can loosen up and and play that lone A3, or 4 wheel cards with no A, or 4 broadway cards.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
When giving basic advice of o8 starting hands, I have a very basic system. Adjusting for position, prior action, etc., my rule breaks down to this:
Play hands that have:
A2
A3 plus one other thing such as suited A or big pair (A3KK, AA39)
A4 plus two other things such as suited A, big pair. Hence, A4sKK is playable, but A4s9Q would not be.

Of course when situations are favorable (late position, no raise, soft-game,) you can loosen up and and play that lone A3, or 4 wheel cards with no A, or 4 broadway cards.

[/ QUOTE ]phish - Your starting hand system is simpler than the one I presented - and that’s good. I wanted to present a very simple system for starting hand selection that would mostly include the playable starting hands and mostly exclude the others. I can think of some ways to improve the system I presented in the 2+2 article, but the improvements all complicate the system. Maybe it’s too complicated already, although I did try to keep it simple.

At any rate, your system is simpler, and I like that part of it. Just a few things...

<ul type="square">• 1. A bare A2 is not the holy grail.

• 2. I don’t think A4s9Q is a great hand by any means, but I do think it’s generally playable. Indeed, I like A4s9Q better as a starting hand than some bare A2 hands, for example A287o or A277o.

• 3. I think you are missing some very playable hands, for example 23KK-double suited.

• 4. I want something more than a lone A3, even from late position.

• 5. Four aceless wheel cards? Depends very much on which four wheel cards. 5s5h4d4c stinks, even on the button, and even for a half small bet from the small blind. But 5s4h3d2c or 4h4d3h2c are both generally worth the price of seeing the flop - and from any position. I don’t like low pairs in limit O8. With low pairs you tend to make costly losing sets or costly losing full houses. I’d rather have Kh4d3h2c than 4h4d3h2c, but I’ll generally see the flop with both hands, and indeed any Xh4d3h2c.

There are no aceless great starting hands. KK32-double-suited is as good as it gets. But playing some of these hands expands my range, which is good for me for two reasons: (1) the game is not boring for me if I play enough hands, (2) The more extensive my range of playable hands, the less readable I am.

(You obviously don’t want to take this too far, but there are many hands that break even or even lose a bit that are worthwhile playing if they enable you to profit more on various other hands).

• 6. Four Broadway cards? Depends on which four Broadway cards. QhJsThTc is weak and the rainbow version is even worse. But KhQdJcTh or KhQdThTd are both generally worth the price of admission from any position.[/list]
These considerations are all for typical B&amp;M full ring limit games.

I tried to first identify the top 25% of Omaha-8 hands for typical B&amp;M casino limit ring game play. Second I tried to come up with a simple system to select these hands, and which could be easily modified for tighter or looser play.

But how to best play against any group of opponents depends on that particular group of opponents.

Exceptionally tight tables involve different considerations. Short handed play involves different considerations. Pot limit play involves different considerations. On-line play, especially when some of your opponents are aggressively multi-tabling, involves different considerations.

If you're having good results, then by all means stick to what is working well for you.

Buzz