[teddyfist]

I'm a limit Omaha/8 player recently taking the plunge into the game that seems to be taking over: no limit hold'em. I've never played it before.

Played at Taj Mahal the other night and I'm going to describe a hand I played and my thinking on it and want input from more experienced players. Don't worry about educating me. I play mostly in home games in Kentucky.

Here's the hand: It's the little $1 and $2 blind game with $300 max buyin. Someone makes it $20 (which I call)and the button reraises to $50. There are five callers of the $50 before it gets to me, with no one to act behind me. I have 8-8. Obviously the five players in the pot (with me to make six)is unusual. I had the big stack at the table, with about $1500.

Again I'm very inexperienced at the game. Actually, I'm just pure raw green at it. It occurred to me that no one except the button could have aces or kings, since no one re-raised him. I re-raised it $700, which covered everyone at the table.

My thinking, which may be a very dangerous tack, was "How in the hell can they call?" I have to have aces or kings to be doing this, right? To make things better, I had just had a 90 minute run of garbage and had scarcely put a chip in the pot in that 90 minutes other than the blinds, which made me look like a nut player.

I got one call and the flop came 8-5-2, and I won a big pot. Had I not re-raised everyone out, I would have flopped set-over-set. A-K suited folded, two nines folded, two deuces folded, etc.

Anyway, my thinking on the hand had almost nothing to do with how powerful two eights were and everything to do with what I thought I could get away with. I was critiqued later by a player I respect who said I way overplayed the two eights. Did I or didn't I?

[johnf]

The very reason who pushed all in was to thin down the field, you had to of known that at best you were in a race sitution and at worst a 80-20 loser. Your table image definitly helped. I dont fault your play at all, and when you were called you must of believed you were beat, what did the player call you with. As far as overplaying your hand, remember you need a bigger hand to "call" an all-in then push all-in.

[teddyfist]

I realize that the race situation is often what it comes down to, but I didn't think so here.

More of my thinking when I moved in was this: By just calling a six handed pot with 8-8 I estimated maybe a 15 or 20 % chance of winning the pot. By raising all-in right there, because of the circumstances, I estimated a 75% chance or better that the raise would take the pot down uncontested. If I did get a call by two overcards, I now had a 54% chance to win it as opposed to the original 15% chance. Strong arguments for the play.

It was one of those situations where several people were just dying to see a multi-way flop, but I trumped it with the benefit of having the big stack and what I was pretty sure was the best hand.

The caller was a good player on tilt who called all-in $400 with A-9 suited. It was odd, but I had no doubt that I had him beat. I thought 9-9, 10-10, and maybe even J-J would fold, and I was just so sure no one but the button could have aces, kings, or queens.

What I really want comment on is "Is the all-in bet just because you figure no one can call" strategy effective? Is such a play advanced or just reckless?

[pritz]

Hi teddy.It depends, what was the pot size when you made the raise (sorry i'm too lazy to add it up). Once you have that you just multiply the percentage that each situation will occur, by the resulting money won/lost... .75*pot size (since you think they'll fold roughly 75 percent of the time)+.54*.4*.25*(pot+1400)+.2*.6*.25*(pot+1400)

Kinda confusing so let me reexplain...

.75 since they fold that often and you take the pot right away.

.54*.4*.25*(pot+1400) because 25 percent of the time you'll get a call, and about 40 percent of those calls (.4) will be 2 overcards and your two 8's will win 54 percent of the time.

The 40 percent comes because im assuming if you get a call it will be AK AQ AA KK or QQ 2 out of the 5 are overcard hands, this is just a crude way of estimating to come out with expected value of the play.

.2*.6*.25*(pot+1400) because 25 percent of the time you'll get a call, and about 60 percent of those calls (.6) will be an overpair and your two 8's will win about 20 percent of the time.

.75*pot size +.54*.4*.25*(pot+1400)+.2*.6*.25*(pot+1400)

When you simplify this and combine terms you get your expected value to be .834*pot size+117.6. You risked 700 dollars for this so if .834*pot+117.6>=700 it was a good play. So if the pot was larger than $698.32 then it was a good move.

The pot obviously wasnt that large, but your raise covered everyone at the table so if the button, the only person who could call, had less than 700 it mightve been a good play. Now i have to add up the pot to see if it was...ok pot was roughly $312 so if the button had less than $500, it would be a good play. I probably screwed up the math somewhere so someone step in and correct it if its messed up. In most situations EV is easier to figure out.

[johnf]

here's a more simple way to think of it...

you don't want to make a large bet where the only way they'll call is if you're beat...

now... it's true that you can drive out a lot of better hands with your big bet... (pair of 9s up to to pair of Queens) and you might very well get called with a hand that you have an advantage over... (A-K)

BUT... with that much strength at the table... you almost had to assume that SOMEBODY had kings or aces...

the only percentages I would worry about in that situation is how sure I was that someone had Aces or Kings... (I would have to assume 60-80 percent sure they were there somewhere...) and the percentage of time they would call my bet... (nearly 100 percent... the only chance that kings would lay down is if they assumed you had aces... and even then....)

and then I would worry about someone with a higher pair than me (but not kings or aces) making a loose call... I'm still screwed if that happens...

it worked out... and the play you made served it's purpose... but I'm not sure I would have done that...

[norshvind]

I'm not sure I like this play. Not saying it's wrong, just that I wouldn't do it. There's too many ways it could go wrong. With all the action in front of you, you are either up against a bigger pair, and you are a 4:1 dog, or you are up against two overcards, making you slightly better than a coin flip to win. I think you certainly overplayed your cards. If you get called and miss your set, there's too many cards that could flop that would make you sick to your stomach.

The way I play low pocket pairs is for set value. Either I set it, or I forget it, except in the case of TT,JJ, and QQ. They can be overpairs to the board even if you miss your set. My rule of thumb is to call a raise with a PP from any position for no more than 10% of my stack, or 10% of my opponent's stack-whichever is smaller. The odds of hitting your set are about 7.5:1, so if you call 10% of his stack, you are getting 10:1 implied odds on your call.

I may be wrong here since I didn't add up the pot, and you didn't say the stack sizes of your opponents, but I think you may have missed some EV here by betting your opponents right out of the pot before the flop. If you let them all in and you flop a set, you might have been able to build a HUGE pot, especially since you said one of your opponents had 22. I'm assuming the button had AK. If you check top set to him on a non threatening board, I'm sure he would have bet. It could have been a real action flop.

The more I think about this play, the less I like it. From a strict EV perspecitve, I think that if you played the scenario (or variations of it) over and over, it would be negative EV. You will win a few small pots by stealing the money off the table some of the time. If the initail raiser has AK, which is more likely than a big pair since there are 16 ways to make AK and only 4 ways to make any pair, he will outrun you at least 40% of the time if he decides to call. If you get called by a bigger pair-usually AA,KK, or QQ, you will lose 80% of the time. Even if some moron decides he wants to gamble with some crap like JT or QT, he not only can win by making a draw, but he has two overcards to your pair, so he can beat you two ways. In summary, without doing the math, I think the money you win from either stealing the pot or winning when called will be less than the money you lose here when you are called by a better hand, or run down by two overcards.

I would like to make one final point. My criticizm of your play might be way off because you left out some key info here-stack sizes. If the guy with AK had only $25 left, go ahead and put him all in or try to isolate him, but if there's a good amount of money on the table, it's my opinion that you are risking far too much in a marginal situation. Just my opinion.


Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but there have been plenty of times I have had AA,KK or QQ against a player who pushed too hard with a low pocket pair. A few times they hit their set, but most times I double up against them and send them packing.

[teddyfist]

Thanks for input.

I may be oversimplifying, but it seemed impossible to me for anyone to have aces, kings, or queens. (If that assumption is accurate, the play becomes much stronger.) The pot had already been raised twice and no one flew over the top like they would if they had any of those big pairs. Do you sometimes not re-raise with those top three hands before the flop? The button who had re-raised had aces the very previous deal, so I discounted the possibilty that he had them, and since no one re-raised him in what was shaping up as the best pot of the night, how could they have them?

I just think that by raising I went from about a 15% chance of winning the pot to about a 70% chance, all things considered. Not bad, in my book. It was a situational play that I very much surprised myself with. LIke I said, I would probably only do it about 5% of the time. I would probably fold the eights more often than I would move all in against five players in an already double-raised pot. But again, my no limit hold'em book is only one page long (LOL).

[jorpot]

I'm sure you know that his having been dealt aces on the previous hand in no way changes the odds of him having them in this hand. His play certainly could have indicated aces again, so you shouldn't have discounted that possibility.

By the way, you must have had a heck of a run before your 90 minutes of garbage to have a $1,500 stack at a $300 max table the first time you ever played. Congrats!

Oh, and not to take anything away from CTBob's answer, but there are 6 ways to make any pair.

[norshvind]

Norshvind got to it first. The law of independent trials. Last night I was dealt AdTd. On the very next hand I got AdTd again. Unlikely, but possible. I also got two different pocket pairs on two consecutive hands and flopped sets with them both times.

What I'm trying to drive home is that your faulty logic will get you into trouble in most situations like this. I have been there, and I have used the same sort of logic to talk myself into calling a big bet when there is only one single card in the entire deck that can beat my hand, and although the odds are WAY against it, all the signs are telling me he has the goods-and I have found out the hard way that I should have folded.

So what did the guy who called you have?? I'm thinking most of the time when you are called here you won't be too happy to see what your opponent has. Since this is a $1/$2 game, I would not put queens,jacks, or even tens out of the realm of possible hands a player will call an all-in bet with, and if a good portion of his money is already in before you raise, he's almost correct to call you.

On the other hand, there is a specific situation where I actually like this play, even though it's not really good poker, and that's as an advertising play. When you show down the 8's, some observant players will be thinking: "Look at this idiot who raised $700 with 8's." When you do get the aces, raise all-in again, and you just might get all kinds of loose action from players who think you are raising a low pair again. If they were sure you had aces, they would be fools to call, but if they suspect you have deuces, they might be foolish enough to call with tens or jacks. However don't pay more for advertising than it's worth. I would also advise against bluffing or overplaying a hand like this again after your opponents have seen what you had at showdown.

[teddyfist]

Lots of good advice. As I said, the caller had A-9 suited and was just gambling. 99 times out of 100 when I make that play I will have aces, kings, or queens. It just looked like an opportunity to me. One of those hands where everyone was tickled to be getting multi-way action, so I rocked their playhouse a little bit. Had one player not been on tilt, I would have gotten no calls.

I fully realize the player with the aces in the previous deal was a completely independent trial, but if he has them again, he's just gonna have to show me. He folded A-K suited.

[ThomasR]

Has anyone got much more information on this game? I've heard that it's up and coming but I still hear a lot of talk that is not dissimilar from hold'em.

Maybe I've just read far too many poker posts for my own good, but it would be nice if someone could lay down the basics for me. I see so many variations when I try googling that I wouldn't know where to start.