![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWell, one thing you can guarantee about Pot Limit Omaha that you cannot about limit hold 'em; you will usually have several hands to talk about! Played for another hour and a half tonight. Two "exciting" hands appeared and one "interesting" one. First, the exciting ones:
Birks is at seat 3 with $45.25.
Punter 1 is at seat 4 with $52.20.
Fish 1 is at seat 8 with $13.05.
The button is at seat 8.
Birks: 6h Jc 6s Jd
Pre-flop:
Birks calls. Punter 1 O calls. Punter 2 calls.
Fish 1 calls. Punter 3 (SB) calls. Big Blind checks.
Flop (board: 8c Js Kc):
So, here we are again. Middle set. Let's play it the BDD way!
SB checks. BB checks. Birks checks. Punter 1 bets $3. Punter 2 folds. Fish 1 calls. SB folds. BB folds. Birks raises to $15. Punter 1 calls. Fish 1 goes all-in for $12.55.
Turn (board: 8c Js Kc Qs):
Well, if T9 or AT is out there I am now an outsider, but I'm willing to bet here in case they aren't. Actually, looking at this, I wasn't aware that I was only getting just over 5 to 2 for my money if there IS a hand beating me out there. I thought that I had less in my back pocket and that there was more in the pot already. Lesson 1 here. Pause before going all in! Then again, I probably would still have done it.
Birks goes all-in for $29.75. Punter 1 calls.
River (board: 8c Js Kc Qs 9d):
(no action in this round)
Showdown:
Birks shows 6h Jc 6s Jd for three jacks
Punter 1 shows 3c Ac Ts 4c for a straight, ace high.
Fish 1 shows 9s Td 2h Kd for a straight, king high.
Punter 1 wins the main pot $38.65 with straight, ace high.
Punter 1 wins the side pot $63.40 with straight, ace high.
Clearly the only debatable plays here are whether I should call pre-flop (it had been a very passive game, so I wasn't as uncomfortable about this as I would be in an aggressive game, and what I should do on the turn. Pokercalc shows me as being 53.7% on the flop. As BDD said, one player drastically overrated his nut-flush draw, while the other called all-in with top pair and a 4-card straight that was half-drawing dead. On the turn I am a 25% shot, so a bet of $29 to win $111 is only marginally negative EV even as the cards lie. Since there's a good chance that I am still in front, I don't see how I can do anything but go all-in.
So, even though I ended up rebuying after this hand, I wasn't unhappy about it. I think that I played the hand far less badly than my opponents!
This table broke soon after and I found myself at a new table that was equally passive. My view is that as long as I am against passive opponents pre-flop (and I am willing to raise) I must have a long-term positive EV unless I play like a total twat post-flop (eminently possible, of course). But at least I have a non self-weighting strategy.
The next hand could be something out of Ciaffone. In fact, it's almost poetic, and not just because I win!
Fool 1 is at seat 3 with $20.65.
Fool 2 is at seat 4 with $40.10.
Birks is at seat 7 with $54.55.
The button is at seat 1.
Fool 1 posts the small blind of $.25.
Fool 2 posts the big blind of $.50.
Birks: 5h 6s 7s 7h
I like this hand already - the kind that Americans dislike and the English don't
Pre-flop:
Shrewd Player 1 raises to $1. Birks
calls. Punter 1 calls. Fool 1 (SB) calls.
Fool 2 (BB) calls.
Flop (board: 3s 4c 2s):
This is about as good as it gets. I have the nuts. I have protection against a 5 or a six falling, and I have a 4-flush. But I think that I can get these guys all-in when I am an even bigger favourite. So after the small blind bets, I decide to just call.
Fool 1 bets $5. Fool 2 calls. Shrewd player folds.
Birks calls. Punter 1 folds
Turn (board: 3s 4c 2s Jc):
This is just the card that I want to see. I am last to bet and I think I know already what is going to happen. And, sure enough, it does.
Fool 1 goes all-in for $14.65. Fool 2 calls. Birks goes all-in for $48.55. Fool 2 goes
all-in for $34.10. Birks is returned $14.45
River (board: 3s 4c 2s Jc Ks):
Showdown:
Birks shows 5h 6s 7s 7h for a flush, king high.
Fool 1 shows Qd 5c 6c 8d for a straight, six high.
Fool 2 shows Kh 6d 5d 4s for a straight, six high.
Birks wins the main pot $60.95 with flush, king high.
Birks wins the side pot $38.90 with flush, king high.
This is a classic example of players overrating a straight with no redraws. Fool 1 actually picks up a flush draw on the turn. Fool 2 has no right to be in the same country. But by not raising the flop I make it look like I might have 2-pair or a low set looking to pair up. The bet from Fool 1 on the turn (actually not that bad) lulls Fool 2 in (after all, he still has the nuts!) when his equity is so bad that it is unspeakable. As Iain wrote, it's a game when bad players often don't realize what trouble they are in.
God bless pokercalc. Here's the actual equity on the flop and on the turn:
On flop: Birks 60.36%, Fool 1 22.22%, Fool 2 17.42% My chance of not at least tying is a mere 10%, by the way, while Fool 2 has only a 2% chance of winning outright.
On turn: Birks 41.67%, Fool 1 41.67%, Fool 2 16.67%.
This understates Fool 2's dire position. He has absolutely no winning outs. A tie is his best hope (50% chance of 33% of the pot). Since Fool 1 is already all in, my raise on the turn is against a player who is drawing dead.
Of course, the hands between the two might be the other way round, but then it is just a 50:50 bet for the side pot and the main pot.
I'll be honest, I loved this hand. It showed so many things about Omaha. My only worry is that Fool 2 might learn from it!
The last hand was much smaller. I got AAJ8 single-suited under the gun. I raised pot and got one caller - a conservative player. By this time my stake is at about $124 against his $30. The flop came 833 rainbow. I bet 2/3rds of the pot. He raised me the pot. Could he have a three? I decided that he was more likely to have a big pair. Since I was by now playing quite fast and had been seen to raise with stuff like QJT5 double-suited, I liked my Aces in this situation (not least because I suspect that he would have flat-called me with a three). I reraised him the pot and he thought for about three seconds before folding.
Was this the right play? Well, it worked. The risk-to-reward ratio is such that I guess I have to be right here 75% of the time for me to win (unless the guy calls me with an overpair).
Birks is at seat 3 with $45.25.
Punter 1 is at seat 4 with $52.20.
Fish 1 is at seat 8 with $13.05.
The button is at seat 8.
Birks: 6h Jc 6s Jd
Pre-flop:
Birks calls. Punter 1 O calls. Punter 2 calls.
Fish 1 calls. Punter 3 (SB) calls. Big Blind checks.
Flop (board: 8c Js Kc):
So, here we are again. Middle set. Let's play it the BDD way!
SB checks. BB checks. Birks checks. Punter 1 bets $3. Punter 2 folds. Fish 1 calls. SB folds. BB folds. Birks raises to $15. Punter 1 calls. Fish 1 goes all-in for $12.55.
Turn (board: 8c Js Kc Qs):
Well, if T9 or AT is out there I am now an outsider, but I'm willing to bet here in case they aren't. Actually, looking at this, I wasn't aware that I was only getting just over 5 to 2 for my money if there IS a hand beating me out there. I thought that I had less in my back pocket and that there was more in the pot already. Lesson 1 here. Pause before going all in! Then again, I probably would still have done it.
Birks goes all-in for $29.75. Punter 1 calls.
River (board: 8c Js Kc Qs 9d):
(no action in this round)
Showdown:
Birks shows 6h Jc 6s Jd for three jacks
Punter 1 shows 3c Ac Ts 4c for a straight, ace high.
Fish 1 shows 9s Td 2h Kd for a straight, king high.
Punter 1 wins the main pot $38.65 with straight, ace high.
Punter 1 wins the side pot $63.40 with straight, ace high.
Clearly the only debatable plays here are whether I should call pre-flop (it had been a very passive game, so I wasn't as uncomfortable about this as I would be in an aggressive game, and what I should do on the turn. Pokercalc shows me as being 53.7% on the flop. As BDD said, one player drastically overrated his nut-flush draw, while the other called all-in with top pair and a 4-card straight that was half-drawing dead. On the turn I am a 25% shot, so a bet of $29 to win $111 is only marginally negative EV even as the cards lie. Since there's a good chance that I am still in front, I don't see how I can do anything but go all-in.
So, even though I ended up rebuying after this hand, I wasn't unhappy about it. I think that I played the hand far less badly than my opponents!
This table broke soon after and I found myself at a new table that was equally passive. My view is that as long as I am against passive opponents pre-flop (and I am willing to raise) I must have a long-term positive EV unless I play like a total twat post-flop (eminently possible, of course). But at least I have a non self-weighting strategy.
The next hand could be something out of Ciaffone. In fact, it's almost poetic, and not just because I win!
Fool 1 is at seat 3 with $20.65.
Fool 2 is at seat 4 with $40.10.
Birks is at seat 7 with $54.55.
The button is at seat 1.
Fool 1 posts the small blind of $.25.
Fool 2 posts the big blind of $.50.
Birks: 5h 6s 7s 7h
I like this hand already - the kind that Americans dislike and the English don't
Pre-flop:
Shrewd Player 1 raises to $1. Birks
calls. Punter 1 calls. Fool 1 (SB) calls.
Fool 2 (BB) calls.
Flop (board: 3s 4c 2s):
This is about as good as it gets. I have the nuts. I have protection against a 5 or a six falling, and I have a 4-flush. But I think that I can get these guys all-in when I am an even bigger favourite. So after the small blind bets, I decide to just call.
Fool 1 bets $5. Fool 2 calls. Shrewd player folds.
Birks calls. Punter 1 folds
Turn (board: 3s 4c 2s Jc):
This is just the card that I want to see. I am last to bet and I think I know already what is going to happen. And, sure enough, it does.
Fool 1 goes all-in for $14.65. Fool 2 calls. Birks goes all-in for $48.55. Fool 2 goes
all-in for $34.10. Birks is returned $14.45
River (board: 3s 4c 2s Jc Ks):
Showdown:
Birks shows 5h 6s 7s 7h for a flush, king high.
Fool 1 shows Qd 5c 6c 8d for a straight, six high.
Fool 2 shows Kh 6d 5d 4s for a straight, six high.
Birks wins the main pot $60.95 with flush, king high.
Birks wins the side pot $38.90 with flush, king high.
This is a classic example of players overrating a straight with no redraws. Fool 1 actually picks up a flush draw on the turn. Fool 2 has no right to be in the same country. But by not raising the flop I make it look like I might have 2-pair or a low set looking to pair up. The bet from Fool 1 on the turn (actually not that bad) lulls Fool 2 in (after all, he still has the nuts!) when his equity is so bad that it is unspeakable. As Iain wrote, it's a game when bad players often don't realize what trouble they are in.
God bless pokercalc. Here's the actual equity on the flop and on the turn:
On flop: Birks 60.36%, Fool 1 22.22%, Fool 2 17.42% My chance of not at least tying is a mere 10%, by the way, while Fool 2 has only a 2% chance of winning outright.
On turn: Birks 41.67%, Fool 1 41.67%, Fool 2 16.67%.
This understates Fool 2's dire position. He has absolutely no winning outs. A tie is his best hope (50% chance of 33% of the pot). Since Fool 1 is already all in, my raise on the turn is against a player who is drawing dead.
Of course, the hands between the two might be the other way round, but then it is just a 50:50 bet for the side pot and the main pot.
I'll be honest, I loved this hand. It showed so many things about Omaha. My only worry is that Fool 2 might learn from it!
The last hand was much smaller. I got AAJ8 single-suited under the gun. I raised pot and got one caller - a conservative player. By this time my stake is at about $124 against his $30. The flop came 833 rainbow. I bet 2/3rds of the pot. He raised me the pot. Could he have a three? I decided that he was more likely to have a big pair. Since I was by now playing quite fast and had been seen to raise with stuff like QJT5 double-suited, I liked my Aces in this situation (not least because I suspect that he would have flat-called me with a three). I reraised him the pot and he thought for about three seconds before folding.
Was this the right play? Well, it worked. The risk-to-reward ratio is such that I guess I have to be right here 75% of the time for me to win (unless the guy calls me with an overpair).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-10 12:16 am (UTC)Number of board cards given is 3, and they are: 3S 4C 2S
Number of hands specified is 3, and they are:
Hand 1: 5H 6S 7S 7H
Hand 2: QD 5C 6C 8D
Hand 3: KH 6D 5D 4S
666 boards are possible.
Winnings per hand are:
Hand Fair Outright At least Outright
No Equity Odds wins split Losses
-- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
01 57.1572% 1.3341:1 45.0450% 81.3814% 18.6186%
02 19.0190% 0.2349:1 6.9069% 43.2432% 56.7568%
03 23.8238% 0.3127:1 11.7117% 48.0480% 51.9520%
Number of board cards given is 4, and they are: 3S 4C 2S JC
Number of hands specified is 3, and they are:
Hand 1: 5H 6S 7S 7H
Hand 2: QD 5C 6C 8D
Hand 3: KH 6D 5D 4S
36 boards are possible.
Winnings per hand are:
Hand Fair Outright At least Outright
No Equity Odds wins split Losses
-- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
01 39.8148% 0.6615:1 25.0000% 69.4444% 30.5556%
02 39.8148% 0.6615:1 25.0000% 69.4444% 30.5556%
03 20.3704% 0.2558:1 5.5556% 50.0000% 50.0000%
?
Iain.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-10 12:40 am (UTC)twodimes agrees with Pete and pokercalc
Omaha Hi: 666 enumerated boards containing 3s 2s 4c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
7s 6s 7h 5h 300 45.05 60 9.01 306 45.95 0.604
6c 5c Qd 8d 46 6.91 314 47.15 306 45.95 0.222
4s 6d 5d Kh 14 2.10 346 51.95 306 45.95 0.174
Tanita lives
Date: 2005-03-10 06:29 am (UTC)It would be interesting if she'd do an album of other people's songs. She's a better singer than songwriter.
Jonathan, near Barcelona
no subject
Date: 2005-03-10 09:26 am (UTC)Out of interest, would you mind if I posted these hands on my blog? I feel that the way you would play them would be different in a bigger game and that might be quite interesting. I would also hype your blog, fwiw, although I understand that might not be what you want!
gl
Dave D
Feel Free
Date: 2005-03-10 10:01 am (UTC)I thought you would like these! Feel free to reprint. The idea behind the "non-publicity" is to see how the blog develops through viral marketing rather than outright plugs. I am not trying to keep it a secret!
As to how I would play them differently at a higher stakes game -- well, the stakes are irrelevant. I assume you mean how I would act, assuming that the other players act differently! I would have to think about this, but at first glance, I would probably either raise or fold the JJ66, rather than limp. And I lean towards a fold, because it's a rainbow hand. Double-suited, I would raise it.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-10 11:01 am (UTC)The second hand looks like the Omaha equivalent of, oh, 76s in Hold'em. See a cheap flop, easy to get away fron, win-big-lose-small kind of thing.
In between loasing huge (for me) piles of money with mediocre play of worse hands, I've been continuing to dabble with low-limit OHL8, recalling my fondness for 7-stud high-low from donkey's years ago. There seem to be two big pluses: every hand gets raked, which is good for the bonus whoring and there appear to be at least 3 players on every table who aren't shooting for the low at the outset. I'm sure I'm playing over-conservatively, but it's fine low-cost poker-tainment.
Jacks and sixes
Date: 2005-03-10 09:24 pm (UTC)Joe Malloy
Re: Jacks and sixes
Date: 2005-03-11 05:05 am (UTC)Re: Jacks and sixes
Date: 2005-03-23 07:59 pm (UTC)You are right that players can overate two pair - but a lot of beginners equally underate the hand.
With two pair you are only 2-1 to make trips by the river (in an all in scenario). Your odds of flopping trips are far better obviously than the 7-1 holding just a single pair. And while you may not want to face a raise against an aggressive player, folding seems a bit too tight - especially if by aggressive you mean someone who is frequently raising, that is, on low standards. It depends too on if other players are likely to call the button's raise.
Joe