Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

[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

[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!

[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

[Dynasty]

Frank Jerome is easily the Magazine's most reliable and prolific writer. But, I'd still like to see others in the O/8 forum contributing to the Magazine.

Frank has two articles in the April issue.

Priming the Pump in Omaha 8 or Better

Some Pre-flop Raising Considerations in Omaha 8 or Better

[Dynasty]

Frank's article this month is more general and somehwat applicable to hold 'em as well.

Completing From the Small Blind- Deceptive Odds

Frank has a big three-part series in the works.

[wiseheart]

Dynasty, Im curious, when you originally posted this
message, I sent something in, then some drama happened
or you quit or something and only response I got was we
have no editor this month, now you are back? So, what
is the deal, do you want submissions (asides from buzz's
which are quite good usually)

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, Im curious, when you originally posted this
message, I sent something in, then some drama happened
or you quit or something and only response I got was we
have no editor this month, now you are back? So, what
is the deal, do you want submissions (asides from buzz's
which are quite good usually)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was never in any drama and there was never any discussion of me quitting. I've been the editor since the 09/06 issue and everything has been stable since then.

I definitely want quality submissions from as many people as possible, including you.

If you sent something in, I'm not aware of it. E-mail the submission again and make sure I confirm receipt.

The original post was mad eon 08/03/06 (you can see the date in the post).