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?