I still don't get these low only hands

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you have two hole cards or four, the number of unseen cards remains the same for HE or Omaha. Duh.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but if you can't subtract 7 from 52 and get a different answer from 52 - 5; I think you have a problem.

[ QUOTE ]

In the example you've given you have 9 flush outs and 8 OESD outs, all of which are tainted by the paired board. Not even close to 30 outs here.


[/ QUOTE ]
No there's 2 str8flush outs, 6 flush outs, 6 str8 outs, 6 pair outs, 3 + 2 = 5 countefeiting outs.

[ QUOTE ]

A "good" player would not even consider the OESD outs.. and would be very, very pessimistic about hitting a second nut flush with a paired board.

Again.. logic is a beautiful thing. You should try using it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually a good player may have a very good idea of what he's up against from the betting pattern. Deducing 'unseen' cards and adjusting the odds accordingly is part of the skilled players game.


So now look at the rule of 4. You may decide in a wooly way that the tainting of the paired board, is cancelled out by the pair outs on the flop.

So you estimate, your hand is worth 15 outs. Then you multiply by 4 and get 60%.

But you know if you have overcards versus lower pair, that the turn card will be giving you more outs, so long as opponent doesn't fill up.

Buzz's method which you dismissed would take account of all this, the 'killer' cards for your opponent, and all the turn card possibilities, and weigh how helpful they are.

That's in Hold'em, a game without split pot possibilities and fewer re-draws.

Just stick to your rote play, it'll make a lot of ppl happy.

[TheCount212]

"I ever learned that you never bet a low draw, then your opponents will be able to read you like a comic book. Getting quartered ain't so bad in a big pot. "
----
Exactly right. When we bet on the come with a nut low draw we're building a pot so large that quartering becomes far less of a consideration. There are too many bad players out there who'll call you down with second or third nut lows, so when you hit it you hit it big.

[TheCount212]

http://casinogambling.about.com/libr...y/aa050103.htm
http://pokerhomey.wordpress.com/2007...le-of-4-and-2/

Here's a couple links I found re: the rule of 4 and 2. It's definitely "accurate" but not necessarily "precise." But if you consider your outs conservatively (I always do) and use implied odds as a final counterpoint to help make a decision, it's a good measuring tool.

[TheCount212]

You, sir, are blind. Buzz's method and "the rule" reach the same numerical conclusion. So dismissing the rule is completely nonsensical on your part. And overcards in Omaha aren't really worth counting as outs if the board is coordinated in any way.

I never dismissed Buzz's method... I said there was an easier way to arrive at the same result.

You dismissed "mine," and Buzz's calculations completely bear out the validity of my approach. So I'm really not sure why you're still arguing something that cannot logically be challenged, except perhaps that you are mighty bored at work.

And I do very well at my live 3/6 Omaha/8 game sir. You are welcome at my table anytime.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are blind. Buzz's method and "the rule" reach the same numerical conclusion. So dismissing the rule is completely nonsensical on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you are blind to your mistakes.

If you apply a rule erroneously, then you will get the answer you want. Especially if you are not able to subtract correctly or apply basic arithmetic and logic to problems.

As I said before, the "Rule of 2 & 4" is good enough for NLHE Tourney players, but definitely isn't for FLHE cash.

It is not applicable to Omaha8 for all the many reasons explained to you in this thread. It's not been dismissed, it's just been pointed out to you that it doesn't stand up to inspection.

Furthermore you belittled Buzz's excellent explanation, and later his advice, in such a way to suggest to forum regulars that you might be an idiot.

Now you are personally criticising me, so I am actually quite happy, because I am in very good company.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense buzz, there is no need to lead at this pot with that hand, you are on a DRAW to only half the pot, don't listen to buzz i have no idea why he is telling you to lead, then call then maybe cap??? You are behind so many hands and by continuing to bet you are creating a bigger pot to which you might be getting quartered. If you are going to play this hand use pot control and keep the pot small as you can only win half of it unless a 4 comes and that still might not be good, My advice do not play this hand check the flop, and get away if someone bets. Play hands in which you can win both sides, when you start playing omaha 8 to win just one side that is when you will start loosing alot of money

[/ QUOTE ]


This thread is both frustrating and funny at the same time. I feel for you Buzz. Seriously.

And to the OP I quoted and the other joker in this thread, type less, read more. That's not an insult, it's good advice.


Fwiw leading out with the nut low draw here is +EV and it's not even close.


WTF @ this thread!!!!!


I think it's hilarious when an unknown poster shows up in this forum and starts countering some of the excellent advice given here in both an arrogant and non-productive manner. Let's see....should you listen to someone who cant provide analysis or evidence for his far fetched claims that criticize others more than anything else; or should you listen to the advice of.....nevermind, just use your ignore function unless you need a good laugh.


-Tex