Using Suits to randomize your play - Omaha

[jipster]

anyone have any good ideas for the same theory in omaha?
re:
( http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...e=0#Post6194490 )

thanks

[huggybear96]

I'm sorry, but I think using suits to randomize your play is kinda stupid. You should be changing it up for a reason, not just for the hell of it.

[trentk268]

Most people I know that do this are new at the game. Maybe they read about it somewhere or something.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I think using suits to randomize your play is kinda stupid. You should be changing it up for a reason, not just for the hell of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Against observant opponents your play should always have some random element to it, and using external sources is a good way to prevent players from picking up a pattern on you. Dan Harrington discusses this in "Harrington on Hold'Em", where he uses the second hand on his watch to determine if he is going to raise or just call PF. Using card suits can be just as good, so long as you pick the holding carefully so your ratio of potential actions is appropriate (Mostly raise, but sometimes call with strong holdings: Mostly call, but sometime raise not so-strong holdings). I think that would be pretty difficult in Omaha, though, because of the wide range of starting hands.

[wazz]

Why do you need external factors to randomise your play? Do you find it so difficult to just decide 'hey, i'm gonna call this instead of raising' once in a while? You have a RNG of sorts in your brain, use it instead of glancing at your watch every time you play a hand.

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you need external factors to randomise your play? Do you find it so difficult to just decide 'hey, i'm gonna call this instead of raising' once in a while? You have a RNG of sorts in your brain, use it instead of glancing at your watch every time you play a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there may be external factors at each individual decision that make them not random. The watch, or suits, are completely random.

[huggybear96]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you need external factors to randomise your play? Do you find it so difficult to just decide 'hey, i'm gonna call this instead of raising' once in a while? You have a RNG of sorts in your brain, use it instead of glancing at your watch every time you play a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


Because there may be external factors at each individual decision that make them not random. The watch, or suits, are completely random.

[/ QUOTE ]


Play your hand blind....that's random!

[huggybear96]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I think using suits to randomize your play is kinda stupid. You should be changing it up for a reason, not just for the hell of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Against observant opponents your play should always have some random element to it, and using external sources is a good way to prevent players from picking up a pattern on you. Dan Harrington discusses this in "Harrington on Hold'Em", where he uses the second hand on his watch to determine if he is going to raise or just call PF. Using card suits can be just as good, so long as you pick the holding carefully so your ratio of potential actions is appropriate (Mostly raise, but sometimes call with strong holdings: Mostly call, but sometime raise not so-strong holdings). I think that would be pretty difficult in Omaha, though, because of the wide range of starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not saying it's stupid to randomize your play...I just think it's stupid to use your suit to decide it for you. I might limp w/ AA, w/ a LAG player behind me hoping he raises...not cause my Ace was a spade. I might raise big w/ AA from an EP with a LAG image, hoping a player thinks I'm stealing...not because my Ace was a heart. It's not like you get the same hand in the same position so many times that you have to use an external object to randomize your play. If you want to randomize so bad...just play your hand blind!

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

Against observant opponents your play should always have some random element to it, and using external sources is a good way to prevent players from picking up a pattern on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who thinks this aspect of the game is overemphasized -- VASTLY overemphasized -- in strategy books and forums?

Has anyone published an analyzable poker variant in which frequent random varying of your play is correct? Or an argument that strongly suggests it is likely to be correct in the full game?

See, for instance, Alex Selby's classic article on the optimal strategy of "heads-up preflop holdem" (betting before the flop, then all five cards are dealt with no further action) -- where it is proven the small blind should use a mixed strategy on only four of his starting hands, and the big blind on only two or three.

I think it is extremely questionable advice to even *mention* any randomization of play except for river bluffing frequencies to people who aren't already good enough to be making a living at the game. They will just confuse themselves, and give up money by failing to get chips in with their good hands when they mix it up too much.

I am sure better players than I will disagree.... but my experience from reading and my own simulations is that it's extremely rare for mixed strategies on the early streets to be wanted or needed.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I think using suits to randomize your play is kinda stupid. You should be changing it up for a reason, not just for the hell of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make what you choose to randomize your play? Random is random.