A Simple textbook Omaha Hi hand, or....?
Nicholas Cheung
Omaha table, but I took advantage of this and really put the screws on
the unfortunate chaser.
Should I have slowed down at any point in this hand, or did I do this
perfectly?
I am sitting on Seat 5 in this table.
Nick
PokerStars Game #30971332: Omaha Pot Limit ($1/$2) - 2002/12/06 -
15:05:52 (EST)
Table 'Megrez' Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1 ($162.25 in chips)
Seat 2 ($200 in chips)
Seat 3 ($227.50 in chips)
Seat 4 ($40 in chips)
Seat 5 ($89.95 in chips)
Seat 7 ($205.90 in chips)
Seat 8 ($169 in chips)
Seat 9 ($251.35 in chips)
Seat 7 posts small blind $1
Seat 8 posts big blind $2
Seat 2 posts big blind $2
Seat 4 posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Seat 5 [Ad Jc Kd Ah]
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 raises $4 to $6
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 calls $6
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 raises $25 to $31
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
Seat 1 calls $25
someone joins the table at seat #6
Seat 3 calls $25
*** FLOP *** [8s 3c Kh]
Seat 1 checks
Seat 3 checks
Seat 5 bets $58.95 and is all-in
Seat 1 calls $58.95
Seat 5 folds
*** TURN *** [8s 3c Kh] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [8s 3c Kh 3d] [6c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 1 shows [9h 8h Js Qd] (two pair, Eights and Threes)
Seat 5 shows [Ad Jc Kd Ah] (two pair, Aces and Threes)
Seat 5 collected $214.90 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $217.90 | Rake $3
Board [8s 3c Kh 3d 6c]
Seat 1 showed [9h 8h Js Qd] and lost with two pair, Eights and Threes
Seat 2 folded before Flop
Seat 3 folded on the Flop
Seat 4 folded before Flop
Seat 5 (button) showed [Ad Jc Kd Ah] and won ($214.90) with two pair,
Aces and Threes
Seat 7 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Remove all CAPITAL letters to reply by e-mail.
PacPalBuzz
From: TRASHgo...@fastdial.netTHISSPAM (Nicholas Cheung)
Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2002 12:53 PM
Message-id: <3df10c88...@news-east.giganews.com> >>
Nick - An interesting flop. Nobody is likely to have much of a fit with a flop
of Kh8s3c. The cards on the flop are so widespread that nobody playing a
coordinated hand could have caught more than one card. No flush or straight
draws against you, except runner-runners. No two pairs against you.
Therefore it seems a good spot to try to buy the pot with your pair of aces. A
bold move by you that makes sense! The only person who should possibly be
facing you after you bet this flop is someone who has made a set on the flop.
The king in your hand makes it less likely for an opponent to have started with
KKXX, and someone would have to be playing a hand with a pair of eights or a
pair of threes to make a set other than kings on this flop. Fairly remote
chance of that.
Therefore you made a very nice (and opportunistic) post-flop play! You would
seem to be getting about three to one for your money with your all-in post flop
raise. The odds are much greater than three to one that neither of your two
active opponents has a fit with this flop. Thus your bet is an excellent odds
on bet. In other words you have very favorable odds to bet here. As it turns
out, Seat #1 calls and you get about four to one for your money instead of the
expected three to one. Even better!
You have to wonder why Seat #1 calls your $58.95 post flop bet. There is only
$155.95 in the pot at that point, so that Seat #1 is only getting about 2.6 to
1 for his/her money, calling a flop of 8s3cKh while holding 9h8hJsQd and with
no chance (since you are all in) to make more if he/she miraculously makes
something here. Looks like really a bad post-flop play on the part of Seat #1.
It would even be a bad play in a limit game, but seems much worse in pot limit
play. Seat #1 must have put you on a pure bluff to call. Whatever.
Nicely played! Textbook! Thanks for sharing.
Buzz
MSA1213
>Date: 12/7/02 7:24 PM
Buzz
I am much less convinced than you are that, once at this point, calling an
all-in bettor for $58.95 with $155.95 in the pot was "really bad".
> Looks like really a bad post-flop play on the part of Seat #1.
>It would even be a bad play in a limit game, but seems much worse in pot
>limit
>play. Seat #1 must have put you on a pure bluff to call. Whatever.
>
He was getting almost 3:1 on his call of the all-in bettor and thus could go
the rest of the way to the river free (assume that the third player will fold
when there is a bet and a call; although a raise might better ensure that it
ends up one-on-one).
First look at the actual situation:
Flop Kh8s3c
His hand QJ9h8h
Bettor AAdKdJ
Yes he is behind with his pair of 8s to the As. We would all prefer the AA hand
here. But at what odds would you buy it?
With an 8,9 or J in the next 2 cards, and no card helping the bettor, he'll
win. There are also a number of runner-runner hands with which he can
win:straights (with a T and several cards),a flush, etc.
It would be interesting if someone has Poker Probe or some other simulator, to
see what the real odds are.
It is also possible that he is facing a bluff. Or facing a bit lesser hand (eg
The bettor having the K paired and duplicating his J hurts his chances of
winning with 2 pair noticeably; but if he had AAKx or AAxxds he might still
have bet the same and the caller's odds could go up noticeably).
If he has correctly read the bettor as betting a pair of aces (and not have the
much less likely set of Ks),then even if he did not call correctly, he probably
gets back in value most of his cost in calling an all-in here one-on-one.
IMO the bettor being all-in makes his call better, not worse, even if he cannot
win further money from him. This is true because he gets to see and call the
river FREE.
marc (msa)
Shawn Nelsen
Since the pot was laying 2.6-1 it was an "easy" and"correct" call.
Shawn Nelsen
"MSA1213" <msa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021208160041...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Shawn Nelsen
"bad" call. But if you didn't put him on a set, then it was a
mathematically correct call all the way, and folding would have been a
pretty big mistake, EV wise.
Shawn Nelsen
"MSA1213" <msa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021208160041...@mb-fp.aol.com...
PacPalBuzz
From: msa...@aol.com (MSA1213)
Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2002 1:00 PM
Message-id: <20021208160041...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>>
Hi Marc - If I understand correctly, you and Shawn are saying (writing), that
as the cards lie, seat #1 has favorable odds to call Nick’s all-in bet. I'll
accept that.
However, seat #1 cannot see Nick's hand! Seat #1 cannot know how the cards
lie!
For all seat #1 knows when calling the all-in bet, Nick has flopped a set of
kings, and in that case, seat #1 is way, way behind! After all, isn't Nick
representing a set of kings with his all-in bet after the flop? In actuality
Nick is making a semi-bluff, but seat #1 cannot know that!
Nick could have had a number of other hands with which he would have bet the
same, before and after this flop, and which would fit this flop better than his
actual hand does. For example, Nick could hold AAKK, AA88s, AA33ds, or AAK3ds,
to cite just a few.
In my humble opinion, Nick makes a bold but astute bet here. This is a rare
flop because there are no two cards that fit together, no pairs, no
two-straights, no two-flushes, truly an unusual situation. K83, K82, K72, and
Q72 rainbows are the only flops that fit in this category. If I have done the
math correctly, from the viewpoint of someone on the rail, there are only 96
out of a possible 22100 flops that fit in this category. Odds against it are
about 229 to 1. Anyone playing a matched set of four cards cannot have anything
working with more than one of these flop cards.
As an Omaha player, I like to have my hand working with two (or all) of the
flop cards to continue to a bet after the flop. I like to have four cards to
the nut flush or four cards to the nut straight, or trips, or top two pair or
better to continue after the flop. Barring that, if my hand only fits with one
card on the flop, I like to have made top set on the flop.
QJ9h8h has none of these after a flop of Kh8s3c.
Although I might bet this QdJs9h8h/Kh8s3c hand/flop myself, especially with
only one or two active opponents, to just call an opponent here, I would need
some semblance of a fit. However, QdJs9h8h simply doesn’t fit well with Kh8s3c.
The pair of eights is pure crap in Omaha-high while the runner-runner straight
and flush draws, AT, QT, JT, T7, and HH total only 97 two-card combinations
(out of 990 possible).
As the cards lie, you can add some other two card combos, including QQ, JJ, 99,
88, QJ, Q9, Q8, J9, J8, and 98. Those additional combos are what give seat #1
favorable odds to play the hand - but that is only because of the way the cards
lie - only because Nick does not actually have a set or two pair after the
flop.
In summary, I don't think seat #1 should call the bet after the flop.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
PacPalBuzz
Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2002 8:02 PM
Message-id: <LBUI9.37346$Ec.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"EV is .651 vs. .349, or the AAKJ is a 1.865-1 favorite over the 89JQ. Since
the pot was laying 2.6-1 it was an "easy" and"correct" call.">>
Hi Shawn - Thanks for the work. Much appreciated. I would not have guessed, as
the cards lie, that it was that close.
However, seat #1 cannot know that Nick is semi-bluffing. In other words, seat
#1 cannot know that Nick does not have AAKK, or something of the sort. And if
Nick holds AAKK, or even a lesser fit with the flop like, for example, AAK8,
then seat #1 is more of an underdog.
Therefore, I respectfully disagree that the call was "correct," even though, as
the cards actually lie, it was.
But it is interesting to see that, as the cards lie, seat #1 made a "correct"
call.
I don't know about the 'easy" part. It wouldn't be easy for me to call a large
bet with no decent fit with the flop and with only a queen high hand when there
is a king on the flop.
Makes me vulnerable to being bluffed after the flop. But the alternative,
chasing with no fit and without even an overcard is abhorrent.
89JQ seems a playable hand, pre-flop in pot limit Omaha-high, but not a great
hand by any means. I think to call the post-flop bet you need a better flop fit
than seat #1 got.
In other words, I don't think you can successfully play this game by assuming
your opponent has bluffed all-in and chasing without a decent hand/flop fit
yourself.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
PacPalBuzz
From: "Shawn Nelsen" shawn....@verizon.net
Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2002 8:04 PM
Message-id: <BDUI9.37363$Ec.2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"So, in closing, if you thought he had a set of K's, 8's or 3's then it was a
"bad" call. But if you didn't put him on a set, then it was a mathematically
correct call all the way, and folding would have been a pretty big mistake, EV
wise.">>
If you think he is bluffing, it seems you have shown that folding is a big
mistake. Thanks for that.
However, he is betting like he has a set. You don't know if he is lying or not.
There is not all that much lying in Omaha, at least compared to Texas hold 'em.
In this particular case, he was sort of lying, but not purely lying because he
still figured to have the best hand after the flop.
I don't know of a way to factor all that together, the chance of a bluff, a
semi-bluff, and a legitimate hand, (a set or top two pair). Because of the
pre-flop raise, you strongly suspect a pair of aces. but you don't want to
become married to the belief that he has to have a pair of aces.
I think if he bets correctly, with no knowledge of your chasing tendencies, he
bluffs some of the time, semi-bluffs some of the time, but has the goods most
of the time. Here you have caught him in a semi-bluff. But if you always chase
your opponents after the flop in Omaha, assuming they are bluffing, you're
going to learn an expensive lesson about how often an opponent actually holds
the goods (which is usually). You want something decent yourself to chase.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Shawn Nelsen
did he?
If not, then it would be harder to put him on KKK, at least for me.
In addition, he gains in later hands by calling here, making it harder for
his opponents to bet aggressively, or bluff later in the game.
Shawn Nelsen
"PacPalBuzz" <pacpa...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021209024307...@mb-ct.aol.com...
PacPalBuzz
Message-id: <kBkJ9.2446$QJ4....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>
"The one thing you keep over looking is that he didn't raise before the flop,
did he?">>
Shawn - He *did* raise before the flop!
Buzz
Here's the post that started this thread:
Subject: A Simple textbook Omaha Hi hand, or....?
From: <A HREF="mailto:TRASHgo...@fastdial.netTHISSPAM
">TRASHgo...@fastdial.netTHISSPAM </A> (Nicholas Cheung)
Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2002 12:53 PM
Message-id: <3df10c88...@news-east.giganews.com>
OK, so I got dealt a hand that I've wanted for about 20 minutes in the
Shawn Nelsen
Shawn Nelsen
"PacPalBuzz" <pacpa...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021210095537...@mb-cc.aol.com...