live 75/150 mix games hand

[DeathDonkey]

Thank you all for the advice. I find something very interesting when I post hands in this forum, which is I think there is a huge gap in skill/style of play between the straight omaha games many of the forum regulars here would play in and the random mix games I play in where omaha/8 might be included. The result is you guys advise me on how to play against players that you expect to play in a certain way, and I feel don't exist in the games I am in.

A good example of this comes from Buzz's excellent post, where he expects the initial flop raise from UTG to represent an extremely strong high holding that might put bottom set in a really tough spot. The reality is UTG's raising range here includes many weak high hands (possibly a pair of aces with a weakish low draw) to straight low draws, all two pairs, and probably broadway + big pair draws (high only type hands he opened with). I feel the way the game was playing and the ranges I know these guys are capable of having that folding bottom set to the flop action would be a big mistake. Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the likelihood that I wind up having to dodge many draw outs for half the pot with an utter lack of low possibility.

I guess what I conclude is that if you guys played in this game (just the omaha/8 portions of it) you would think we are all terrible, but because everyone plays in the way that they do, my mediocre / terrible play is actually not that terrible because it makes correct assumptions about how my opponents are playing. In that sense we have our own little omaha/8 economy that only exists in random mix games with non-o/8 experts where the best players can be judged by how they beat the worse players in this game, not how well they play omaha/8 by arbitrary standards.

A side effect of this is that my posts here are probably difficult to analyze in a way that is fair to the way the game was playing, which I wasn't able to convey that well. I do appreciate all the advice but I will probably always exist in this gray area where a good omaha/8 player would think I'm a fish but I only play omaha/8 in games where I am a shark (or maybe I'm fooling myself - a distinct possibility).

Anyway in this hand I 4 bet the turn, SB capped it, UTG called two more and I called. River was 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] checked to me, I bet, they both called. SB had couterfeitted 23 low, UTG had top 3 pair and I got 3/4 and SB got 1/4.

-DeathDonkey

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm bad at omaha/8 so please bare with me. And yes I know if I'm bad at omaha/8 playing it at 75/150 might be a mistake, you'll just have to trust me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

4 handed game, UTG raises, I coldcall on the button with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] I'm happy to discuss preflop if this isn't close, I expect a 4 way pot every time fwiw. Both blinds call.

Flop is A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] SB bets, BB calls, UTG raises, I 3 bet. Thoughts on 3 betting vs coldcalling and raising good turn cards? SB calls, BB folds, UTG 4 bets, I cap, both call.

Turn is 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] I'm feeling like this is a good turn card. Checked to me, I bet, SB checkraises, UTG check 3 bets.

UTG is probably the best player in the game though I doubt he is a lot better than me (meaning we are both mediocre but huge favorites in this game), SB is an ok player but I doubt his o/8 experience and I think basically he's a holdem player who has a clue in this game and is very aggressive. I felt strongly he had 23 on the flop and so far I have no reason to change that opinion on the turn.

So after UTG 3 bets the turn should my thought process be on the "crying call and hope to get to showdown cheap" side, on the "oh baby cap it up I've got the nutsssss" side, or somewhere in the middle?

Thanks for any thoughts,
DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, an aggressive four handed game is going to have a surplus of variance and a lot more marginal situations. This hand is representative of both.

You remarked that you thought the turn was a good turn card for you. It wasn't. There were very few good turn cards for your hand, namely a 4,9,A,K, usually in that order. Yes, you picked up a baby flush draw and a low draw, but assuming that you would improve if you made either hand is a mistake. They do add equity to your hand statistically speaking, but it's negligible and to be honest you will lose more when you backdoor these hands than what you will win when they actually improve your hand.

Your action is representative of a few primary hands; AAxx, AKxx, 44xx, and 235X. Obviously your range is wider than that, but an observant opponent will initally put you on those hands and given preflop he will likely put you on one of the first three.

I agree that the SB appears to have 2-3 in his hand. The real question that needs to be answered here is whether or not you feel that one of these players has 235X. When there's a check raise followed by a check raise three bet, it looks to me like at least one, if not both of these players think they're on a free roll, and 235 is the best free roll draw on the turn. If you assign one of them a hand that contains 235 with no flush draw, then you'd have to put a few hands in the range of the other player, and I'd include A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]3x Kx, A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2x 5x, A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Kx 2,3,4,5x, A234, AK25, and a few others. Please note that this is based on the fact that this hand is taken out of the context of the session and is weighted towards the assumption that this action is usually indicative of a strong hand, which is sometimes a false assumption in a short handed and aggressive 75 game. Sometimes both of these guys have the nut low and you're only dodging a 5 to quarter them, but that will also be offset by the times you're drawing dead to one out for half.


All said and done, you're going to have on average about 33% of the equity in the pot against the above scenario. I cant really tell you if the above scenario is accurate because the texture and flow of the game can vary greatly, but if I had just sat down and picked up your hand in this spot, it's the assumption that I would make. The key factor that you need to think about in that equity number is that if villain 1 is holding 235x, your equity doesnt change much at all against any part of villain 2's range, and the only marked change obviously comes when you put a set in his range. For example, if villain 1 has 235x and villain 2 has A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], you have 29% equity, whereas when villain 2 holds any other hand with a bigger flush draw your equity only increases to 31%, and if you run the numbers with his hand having four random cards with a flush draw your equity is between 27-31%. There's a couple scenarios where you have 40% equity, but if I had just sat down to the game and didnt have any previous inclination to believe that both of these players were playing their hands too fast I'd assume I usually have about 33% of the equity in this pot.

So by definition it's a marginal spot, but one in which I would sometimes put in an extra bet strictly because it's not head up, and most importantly because you have position and even a very aggressive player shutsdown on occasion (on the river in this example) simply through confusion of turn action that went check, check, bet, raise, re-raise, re-raise. If nothing else it's usually a break even or slightly profitable raise, and it will increase the number of times they will check to you on the river (to what extent i'm not sure) which ensures you get to showdown more often and gives you more options on the end. I cant tell you how many times I've seen a game like this when someone with your hand just calls on the turn and then mucks the river for better or for worse because it was two bets cold when it got back to him and the river had come a straight, flush, or wheel card.


Hope that helped, but try to keep in mind it's a difficult spot, as well as high variance and marginal, and it takes a lot of time to recognize these spots and adapt to them, and short handed high stakes games are full of them.


-Tex

[DeathDonkey]

Thanks a lot Tex, really great stuff for me here, I confess I didn't think about the actual equity numbers as well as I should have. Your hand ranges and associated equities really drive home the marginal-ness of my hand. I definitely won't call that turn card a "good one" for me in the future, that was a mistake on my part from a lack of omaha experience.

You would have a hard time keeping from laughing if you sat with us in this game. I promise it had to be one of the best 75/150 omaha/8 games ever spread [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-DeathDonkey

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I find something very interesting when I post hands in this forum, which is I think there is a huge gap in skill/style of play between the straight omaha games many of the forum regulars here would play in and the random mix games I play in where omaha/8 might be included. The result is you guys advise me on how to play against players that you expect to play in a certain way, and I feel don't exist in the games I am in.

[/ QUOTE ]DeathDonkey - Good point (and very interesting). How best to play always depends on your particular opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
A good example of this comes from Buzz's excellent post, where he expects the initial flop raise from UTG to represent an extremely strong high holding that might put bottom set in a really tough spot.

[/ QUOTE ]No. I evidently did not make my meaning clear.

I wrote:[ QUOTE ]
"I wonder if UTG really has the set of aces he seems to be representing." And then immediately, "Would UTG bluff more often than one time out of four here?"

[/ QUOTE ]That means I neither expect nor don’t expect UTG to have a set of aces (or any extremely strong high holding). That means I think UTG’s betting might represent a set of aces, but I wonder if UTG really does have such a hand, and I also wonder how often UTG would bet without such a hand.

Maybe my evident failure in communication has to do with my choice of the word "bluff." Perhaps it would have made more sense to you if I had wondered if UTG's bet was a "bad bet" or an “overly-aggressive bet,” or simply a "meaningless bet," rather than a "bluff."

I think I’ve had trouble communicating in a couple of posts where I used the word “bluff.” And it’s true that an opponent might not be “bluffing” so much as simply over-betting his hand or betting stupidly, and without even realizing he’s over-betting or betting stupidly. (In the past I probably have lumped all of those together under the general category "bluff"). When I write something, I certainly want it to be understood. Perhaps you’ve helped me to become a better communicator and for that I thank you. (That’s sincere).

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is UTG's raising range here includes many weak high hands (possibly a pair of aces with a weakish low draw) to straight low draws, all two pairs, and probably broadway + big pair draws (high only type hands he opened with).

[/ QUOTE ]Interesting. I've calling betting those weak high hands "bluffs." I think it's my usage of the word "bluff" that has caused the problem.

Since I advocated folding your hand in a game with a four bet maximum, you evidently think though I'm putting Villain on a very strong hand. But that wasn’t quite it. Rather, in light of your subsequent description of Villain, I assessed a higher probability to Villain holding a strong hand than I should have.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the way the game was playing and the ranges I know these guys are capable of having that folding bottom set to the flop action would be a big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]In light of your explanation of your opponent’s ranges for betting, calling, and raising after this flop, I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the likelihood that I wind up having to dodge many draw outs for half the pot with an utter lack of low possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]I don’t know. I’ve gotten kicked in the teeth and watched others getting kicked in the teeth so often by making a losing full house with a low pair that I try to avoid hands with low pairs. But that’s a bias I have based on full game experience, and here you are playing four handed. Four handed, bottom set seems a lot stronger.

However, even though you are four handed, [ QUOTE ]
SB bets, BB calls, UTG raises

[/ QUOTE ]seems like you might be up against some strong hands. But of course you know your opponents better than I do.

Buzz

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hand ranges and associated equities really drive home the marginal-ness of my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't take this too far. If your hand approaches "marginal" as you put you opponents on better and better hands, the fact that you are playing shorthanded, in a mixed game, and with position, can make these hands profitable. Four-handed, it wasn't a bad situation.