PokerStars.com Poker Stars Pokerstars.net

Omaha After the Flop

Rec.Gambling.Poker Posts

Big Pairs Playing Head-Up Omaha8
Stephen Jacobs wrote...
> In general, high card hands play better against fewer people (especially
> high pairs with high side cards like KKQT or the like). Strong low hands
> with high potential play well against a full field (think AA23 double-suited).
> The reasons you'd prefer fewer opponents for your high cards include the
> possibility that random cards that you could have pushed out before the
> flop might make straights or small flushes that beat your big trips or 2 pairs.

KKQT is one of the last hands I want short-handed and one of the first hands I want at a full table. KKQT would love to play against everybody but is dogmeat against crap hands as bad as 8642. High pairs are very limited hands, but when they make something they make very strong hands. Playing KKQT against one player is suicide (unless you are the one defending your blind).

> I don't completely follow you. If 8642 has an advantage over KKQT,
> and an early raise has a chance to get 8642 to fold before the flop,
> it seems I'd want to do that.

Most any hand of four unpaired babies will have the edge over KKQT, but three or four of them all hurt each other. KKQT loves playing against eight players playing 8642 muck. It doesn't like just one opponent with that.

> The big advantage in having a lot of opponents is that with a good flop
> you'll have a monster, and know you have one. In the games I play,
> unfortunately, it's pretty rare for people to pay much after a high flop.

Then it's not as good as it could be under other circumstances.

> Concretely: if it's passed to you pre-flop, do you call or raise
> with KKQT (say the QT are suited)?

I'd normally call. I might raise or fold, but I'd still like to get four way action or better, including the blinds.

> If you're right behind a pre-flop raiser, do you call, raise or fold?

I would almost never raise, and would normally call. I want players, and I want to see the flop as cheaply as I can.

> On an A69 (one of your suit) flop, what are you inclined to do?

Go back to vacuuming.

> It seems to me that the damage to the crepe hands (actually, the benefit
> to you) is in the cards being out, not in their being in play against each
> other. People who play such stuff may call along chasing low-only, but they
> don't much raise or call raises unless the flop slams into them. No??

No. Assume a random distribution of cards. The KKQT is a dog to one hand of low cards like 2468 (and worse to one with an ace like A357), but, well a bad Holdem example... AK may be a puny dog to 22, but add in a player with 66 and now the AK is a money favorite while 22 becomes crap. A239 doesn't get mutilated by the 2468 being in play, but the 2468 suffers terribly by the A239 playing.
###

A Crap Hand in the Omaha Blind
ADB Ploink wrote...
> 2) Neither Jerrod not I ever said that this was a hugely +ev
> hand to play. I stated that it was only playable if you flopped huge,
> and only if you could get away from your hand if you didn't.

Which is why the hand is an easy fold. It "flops big" almost never, and when it does it is an action killing flop (like KKJ). The point of playing weak, speculative hands in multiway pots is that when they hit they are bettable in a high action situation. For instance if you play an awful hand like 2379 in this situation, you can drive the betting on flops like A85 and expect to get significant, profitable action. KJs72s offers almost no such opportunities. It does offer plenty of opportunities to draw slim or dead even on "good" flops. If you called all-in getting 19-1 on your money, that would probably be slightly better than folding, but if you have money for post-flop betting, and if there is any chance for a reraise before the flop, it's a disastrous call.

This is why pre-flop raising is so important in Omaha. Hands like this KJ72 will probably be money losers in most players hands if they get a *free ride* in the big blind, let alone calling a raise and facing many opponents.

PacPalBuzz wrote...
> > Steve Badger wrote: "This is why pre-flop raising is so important in Omaha."
> Steve - I don't see the connection between this statement and what you wrote
> in the preceding paragraph. ("Which is why the hand is an easy fold. It "flops
> big" almost never, and when it does it is an action killing flop (like KKJ).
> The point of playing weak, speculative hands in multiway pots is that when they
> hit they are bettable in a high action situation. For instance if you play an
> awful hand like 2379 in this situation, you can drive the betting on flops like
> A85 and expect to get significant, profitable action. KJs72s offers almost no
> such opportunities. It does offer plenty of opportunities to draw slim or dead
> even on "good" flops. If you called all-in getting 19-1 on your money, that
> would probably be slightly better than folding, but if you have money for
> post-flop betting, and if there is any chance for a reraise before the flop,
> it's a disastrous call.")

People will call with this crap thinking they are getting pot odds, when they are taking the worst of it by a significant margin. If people will call raises with this junk, it is important to charge them that extra bet.

> Are you saying you would not play a hand where you are getting 17 to 1 on your
> investment and where the odds against facing a favorable flop are only 14.5 to 1
> and where RF's Poker Probe simulation results yielded independently
> determined similar odds of only 14.55-1 against?

I just stuck this hand in Poker Probe, against random hands, not including at least one quality raising hand, and the hand's showdown win rate is in the ballpark of breakeven (I did it 19-1 against nine opponents). This is why I said if you were all-in for the call that it wouldn't be nearly so bad a call compared to if there is betting. Betting destroys this hand. When it flops huge, there is little chance of significant action. When it flops hands where it will sometimes win (like Q74) it gets destroyed by the subsequent betting, even though it wins sometimes.

> You wrote, "Hands like this KJ72 will probably be money losers in most players
> hands if they get a *free ride* in the big blind." An idiot could lose money
> with the hand. But how can it be a money loser to someone who gets a free
> ride and exercises judgment after the flop? I don't see how Ploink or
> Ankenman or Fox or you or I or some of the other posters in this thread
> could lose money with the hand with a free ride in the blind.

I said most players. Good players should make some profit if given a free ride. Give that hand to a typical LA 6/12 player for free though, and they will lose money.

> I agree you don't like the pre-flop raise much holding this dog in the blind.
> However, you do need enough opponents to get favorable odds to call a
> single bet raise to play the hand. Are you saying you don't want many
> opponents, most of whom will be drawing dead when you do connect
> with the flop?

I can only see very limited times when the hand would be playable for a raise... head-up against a complete idiot in the small blind, head-up against a bad player if the small blind folds.

> "Any" seems extreme. "Disastrous" seems the wrong word. Losing
> a big pot you should have won or sharing a big pot you should have
> scooped might be considered "disastrous," but losing one additional
> small bet in a $6-$12 game...? "Disastrous"?? I wish that was the worst
> thing that happened to me playing Omaha-8. :o)

Calling this bet is extremely bad. In the best sort of scenario you put in $6 and there is no further betting and you take out $6.03 or whatever. This isn't a speculative hand like 99xx where you can easily, clearly hit a bettable flop. It's a hand that will usually either be ravaged by betting or win a piddly post-flop amount.
###

Flopping Trips in Omaha
Dennis Hong wrote...
> Basically, I'm figuring that if I can get the folks with random low flush draws
> and/or backdoor low draws (ie, maybe someone has A369 w/the 39 suited)
> to fold, that improves the chances of my trips holding up. I'm not
> expecting someone with a suited ace to fold to a bet, especially if they
> have the backdoor low. But then again, the suited ace may also not be
> out there. Thus, if I can get any low flush draws to fold, maybe...
> just maybe... I can get my trips to hold up even if the 3rd flush card
> *does* hit on the turn/river. My point is, my hand's going to be difficult
> to improve. My opponents' hands, like the A369 example, are longshot
> draws, but can improve more readily.

Why do you say that? You have ten cards to hit on the turn. You have ten cards again on the river. Given a flop of TT5, you also have a lot bricks since any combo of a card below a 5 and one above a ten will not make a straight (not counting aces). Also another five would not be a bad card.

You can't possibly think that it would be better to have A369 with a flush draw rather than JT72 on a TT5 flop.

You mentioned reverse implied odds. Your hand can catch cards that make the others drawing dead, and can re-out on draws that get there on the turn. The hand isn't a monster by any means, but you have the best of it against a few crap hands with crap draws.

> Put enough of them in there, and I might be in a whole lotta trouble.
> Therefore, I'd like to get them out while I'm still in the lead.
> Is that correct thinking?

Get them out, keep them in, you can't force them to do anything. But either way you should be thinking *they* are in more trouble than you.
###

Flopping Three of a Kind in Omaha HiLo
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips wrote...
> Is there any way to generalize about how to play a set you've flopped,
> or does it depend on the specific game situation, lineup of players, etc?
> (Assume loose, calling-all-the-way type players and mostly unthreatening,
> rainbow-type flops.)

Speaking generally is tough if you say "flopped trips". There is quite a difference between KKK on a K82 flop and 333 on a 345 flop. But lets assume it is KKK or QQQ, and you happen to have not much in the way of other draws (backdoor flush, straight, low...)

> Let's say you've got a pair of queens in your hand, and the flop comes
> Q-3-7 (rainbow). You should try to get as much money as possible in
> the pot, right?

Not necessarily. Getting a lot of money in the pot is fine, but winning Omaha comes from *dead* money, or not-very-alive money anyway. Ideally you want people to lay down hands that are a threat, and gets calls and reraises from hands that are no (or a tiny) threat. If you have KQQJ and your one opponent has 4568 double-suited, you don't want to get "as much" money in as you can. If your one opponent has A299 or Q973, you want billions in the pot. But those are unlikely scenarios. More likely...

> But what if you're in a loose game where 4 or 5 players are consistently calling,
> and nobody is folding as you continue to bet. You KNOW somebody is going to
>"run you down" by the river.

No, you know you have to make your draw to win. It's fairly simple math. You win when you pair the board, and don't get a low. You win a lot less when you pair the board and a low comes. You win sometimes when it comes some combination of 9, T, J, K and nobody makes the straight. You win a lot less sometimes when it comes low but nobody makes a straight. And so on.

Basically, you bet or raise when it comes to you, except maybe when it comes back to you reraised and you want to be sneaky and don't cap it. KKK and QQQ are going to be quite profitable as top set against four or five opponents, but you will lose a lot of the time.
###

Betting an Easily Tied Hand in Omaha8
Ken Kubey wrote...
> What is the reason [for not betting if not to be worried about being]?
> In this example, 9 cards pair the board and probably kill you. 5 cards
> (J's and T's) make higher straights possible possibly killing you.
> 4 cards are safe... the kings. The other 26 cards make a low possible
> and you will be quartered. I'd be pretty worried about pumping this
> pot up *unless* there are 5 or more active players left.

Just do the math on all the various situations. Getting quartered three-way or more runs the spectrum from minimally bad to minimally good. In anything like that, you don't want to put in a lot of money. It leads to a tiny win or a tiny loss when you "win" the pot, but three or four bets are a lot when you get scooped. Obviously putting in four bets just to break even is not great when you do break even, but it's awful when you lose. So again, you shouldn't be thinking in terms of concern about getting quartered, you should be thinking about the fact you will lose sometimes. And, you should gear your play with that in mind.

The other thing to be concerned about being freerolled, even if it is a tiny freeroll -- like one opponent has the straight and two pair, or the straight and any low draw. Once again, the concern should not be on the small loss you have when you are quartered, but on the fact you are drawing stone-cold dead on those bets. In this second case, it may just be a different way to emphasize the same point, but I think it addresses the issue of how to think about the hand.
###

Taking the Initiative in Omaha8
Lee Munzer wrote...
> taking the initiative works better in Holdem
> where you are rarely betting into the nuts.

Taking the initiative in Omaha is important (not the same as "works better") because players are afraid of their own shadows. How often do people think that when you have A3 that an A2 has been dealt to someone else in that same hand? How often do people think they need the A3 to win for not-folding the A3 on an 876 flop to be profitable? Omaha is a game of the nuts, but if some pixie allowed you to have the second nuts every hand, you would make a fortune.

> Since you cherish the deuce, why not try to optimize your chances of getting
> one cheaply by checking? The risk does not equal the reward in this case.

You bet because it makes it cheaper, freezing many/most players who have A2. Checking is more expensive. If your hand is good, you missed a bet. If your hand is a loser, you emboldened the opposition. That is very, very bad in Omaha8.

If A3 is good on this flop X% of the time, and a loser Y% of the time, if after 100% of the times you play it you win money then the actual percentages don't matter. Same with if you lose. The point tho is manipulating the cost (the betting) so that during the X times you maximize your profits, while during the Y times you minimize. Leading from early position on an 876 flop with A3KQ will often slow the action down. You may see the turn for one bet. That is a huge victory... first cause you are glad to see if it comes deuce, and second because if your hand is good you are glad to have gotten that one bet in there. If you get a couple callers and a raise, you can safely muck. The best defense with A3 often is a good offense.