Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

[Dynasty]

Buzz is in the November issue of the Magazine again. As only an occassional O8 player, I was surprised by some of the results in his article.

I'd really like to see more post-flop strategy articles from other posters.

[1MoreFish4U]

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would be very interested in reading an article from you in which you address specifics related to this thought.

As to Buzz's article, great to see & nice job. Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way. There are no secrets disclosed in it. It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most. These are not criticisms of it at all.

Hopefully it will serve the purpose of encouraging more players to give the game a try while armed with very little in terms of knowledge to defend themselves with.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
As to Buzz's article, great to see & nice job.

[/ QUOTE ]Fish - Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way.

[/ QUOTE ]How will it do that?

[ QUOTE ]
There are no secrets disclosed in it.

[/ QUOTE ]No. But I believe it has fundamental background material for improving one's game. For example, pairs (except for aces and kings) are not included in the top forty two-card combinations found in winning hands. In the starting hand analyzer section, I sorted by win rate (given as a percentage) rather than by $ net per hand) but if sorted by $ net per hand and presented the data that way, no pairs (except aces and kings) are found in the top 40/169 two-card combos found in winning hands either.

I presented Painless Potter data. (Painless Potter is a special no bet, no fold Wilson character used in running no-fold-'em simulations). However in other simulations with a mix of Wilson characters, aggressive or passive, tight or loose, tenacious or irresolute - for any character chosen and in any mix of characters I used (and I tried dozens of mixes) pairs did not fare well. And the same group of two-card combinations (AA, A2s, A2n, A3s, A3n, A4s, A4n) kept cropping up in the top ten regardless of the way the groups were sorted and regardless of the characters used in the sims.

Where were queen pairs? Well... mostly they're losers. Did you know that already?

If so, good for you, but most people wouldn't. I didn't myself before I ran the series of simulations. And what do you think that means for jacks and tens? (Do you think they're any better than queens?)

This is not exactly a secret, but it certainly is something I didn't know before I ran the series of sims. And it doesn't matter which Wilson character is playing them, or if I'm playing them myself against a collection of tough Wilson characters.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most.

[/ QUOTE ]It's probably true that most losers lose most on the three betting rounds after the first betting round. But losing starts with hand selection. Someone sees the flop with a hand that would have been better folded, perhaps a hand with a pair of queens or even kings or aces, and then
gets caught up in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not criticisms of it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Fish. I felt they needed a direct response from me anyhow.

Buzz

[Buzz]

Dynasty - In the September issue I tried to explain how to count outs for high and low as worth less than scoop outs, but I wasn’t happy with the result. One scoop truly is worth more in real play than two average wins for high – and an average high win is truly worth more than an average low win. But it doesn’t show that way in % wins in simulations. What I wrote actually works well in terms of counting outs and roughing out odds in actual play, but my explanation was flawed. I hate it when I make mistakes and I made one in the article.

I am happy with my article for the November issue. It leads to a simple system for starting hand selection based on choosing hands with superior two-card combinations. Seems to me that’s something people keep asking about on this forum and one place they keep screwing up even when they don't directly ask about it. But you do have to understand the background material about two-card combinations for it to make good sense.

I’ve been sticking to the system for the last month in casino games - and with success (while continuing to polish it). I'll send you the latest version early next week. Maybe it will get published in the on-line magazine next month - and then the article for this month will make more sense.

Buzz

[1MoreFish4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way.

[/ QUOTE ]How will it do that?
We both know that in LO8 if you play a hand without an ace, you are starting off in less than ideal shape. This article certainly illustrates that well. Most players can find that info in various places. The players who already (try to) follow starting hand guidelines of some sort would be reassured by this article. Some who were playing very tight may add some hands. Some who 'follow guidelines' but don't think much for themselves will be less likely to protect their blinds with so-so holdings.

[ QUOTE ]
There are no secrets disclosed in it.

[/ QUOTE ]No. But I believe it has fundamental background material for improving one's game. For example, pairs (except for aces and kings) are not included in the top forty two-card combinations found in winning hands. In the starting hand analyzer section, I sorted by win rate (given as a percentage) rather than by $ net per hand) but if sorted by $ net per hand and presented the data that way, no pairs (except aces and kings) are found in the top 40/169 two-card combos found in winning hands either.

I presented Painless Potter data. (Painless Potter is a special no bet, no fold Wilson character used in running no-fold-'em simulations). However in other simulations with a mix of Wilson characters, aggressive or passive, tight or loose, tenacious or irresolute - for any character chosen and in any mix of characters I used (and I tried dozens of mixes) pairs did not fare well. And the same group of two-card combinations (AA, A2s, A2n, A3s, A3n, A4s, A4n) kept cropping up in the top ten regardless of the way the groups were sorted and regardless of the characters used in the sims.

Where were queen pairs? Well... mostly they're losers. Did you know that already?

If so, good for you, but most people wouldn't. I didn't myself before I ran the series of simulations. And what do you think that means for jacks and tens? (Do you think they're any better than queens?)

This is not exactly a secret, but it certainly is something I didn't know before I ran the series of sims. And it doesn't matter which Wilson character is playing them, or if I'm playing them myself against a collection of tough Wilson characters.

I believe it provides fundamental information that people need to improve their game. More importantly, I believe it provides enough information to get people to try the game, yet not enough info to protect them from being outplayed by better players. I think that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most.

[/ QUOTE ]It's probably true that most losers lose most on the three betting rounds after the first betting round. But losing starts with hand selection. Someone sees the flop with a hand that would have been better folded, perhaps a hand with a pair of queens or even kings or aces, and then
gets caught up in the hand.

Agreed. Yet I think that the tendency of most online players is to play more hands (and weaker starting hands) than they intend to. I feel like there are gains to be made in any event. For example if they follow this hand selection exactly, I can pick up more pots against them. Losing starts with hand selection - yes & no. I can start with bad cards & win a big pot with them much more often than I will lose a big pot with them. I am quite sure you cna do the same. It's about getting away from bad flops, and knowing when you can move someone else off a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not criticisms of it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Fish. I felt they needed a direct response from me anyhow.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have provided excellent information for players wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that the majority of bad players will make the commitment needed to implement using only these starting hands & then into learning to play them for maximum value postflop as well.

Cheers!

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, I believe it provides enough information to get people to try the game, yet not enough info to protect them from being outplayed by better players.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Fish - Most of us are frequently in danger of getting out-played by better players.

[ QUOTE ]
I can start with bad cards & win a big pot with them much more often than I will lose a big pot with them. I am quite sure you cna do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Well.... all right. You get away from the hand when you miss the flop. But you dribble away all or most of your winnings playing like that, seeing too many flops and then folding. That's not a winning strategy, at least for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that the majority of bad players will make the commitment needed to implement using only these starting hands & then into learning to play them for maximum value postflop as well.

[/ QUOTE ]I think you're probably right about that.

Omaha-8 is my main diversion these days. I'm genuinely interested in the game and it's various aspects.

Take care.
Buzz

[Fiasco]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game

[/ QUOTE ] I think that this is certainly true for PLO8 vs NLHE, or even PLO8 vs PLO. Im NOT sure that this is true with LO8 vs LHE, especially when played at higher limits or in SH games.

[Dynasty]

Frank Jerome (Buzz) completed his two-part pre-flop limit O/8 articles in the recent December issue. Frank is almost too prolific a writer. The two articles were nearly 7,000 words combined and were intially just one article.

I'd like to see more post-flop O/8 submissions. I've occassionally gotten PMs or e-mails from posters who have expressed interest in writing for the Magazine. But, at present, I don't have an O/8 submssion on my desk.

[Dynasty]

Buzz has written three O/8 articles in the past two issues. This month's article, Flopped Trips in Omaha 8 or Better is more narrowly focused than his previous articles.

I've gotten some recent PMs/e-mails from posters about writing some pot-limit O/8 articles. So, I may get some O/8 authors published besides Buzz in the near future.

[Dynasty]

The March issue of the Magazine has another solid article from Frank Jerome.

Playing the Second Nut Flush Draw in Omaha 8 or Better by Frank Jerome