Posted by Johnnymac 1:34 PM
We played 0.50/1.00 PL Omaha 8 in the garage last Thursday and as always it was a lot of fun. That game is starting to become fairly popular among the players, too, which is nice because it's definitely my favorite game and now it's fairly easy to get a game going. Canonico was a HUGE winner, a couple of other guys won a little bit, nearly everyone else lost just a little bit, and your humble blogger ended up close to being the biggest loser. Why? Because I didn't scoop any big pots - my big hi hands kept getting outdrawn (like the one where I flopped Broadway, bet the pot three times in a row, and lost to the 2-outer on the river) and my nut low hands kept getting counterfeited and quartered. In PL Omaha, you have to at least split a few big pots just to stay even and then you have to scoop a few big pots if you want any kind of a substantial win. Sometimes my problem at Omaha is that I play too tight and am not willing to gamble enough (ie I don't properly consider the implied odds that I am being offered for a relatively cheap call), but I don't think that was my problem. Sometimes, you just need good luck and I didn't have any on Thursday.

But it's still my favorite game.

4 Comment(s):

Posted by  Anonymous, at 7:16 AM, April 11, 2006  

Will you please explain the hand in which you flopped the nut straight. I am curious as to how you can lose to a two-outer with your hand. Obviously 'hero' would have flushed or filled up. In either case, he would have had multiple outs before the river (if not on the flop). If he had two pair and filled, then he would have had four outs. Just curious about the senario. I am guessing you had some of his outs. It sounds like an interesting hand and I am just fishing for some more details. Thanks.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Johnnymac, at 3:48 PM, April 11, 2006  

To answer the original query, I miscounted the outs, so you are correct. Revised math is below. Just saying "2 outs" is lazy thinking on my part.

To respond to BillyZabka's post ("LaRusso's going to fight?"), I didn't realize he had the flush draw so it seems that I totally misread the hand even worse than I originally thought I had.

(BTW, my holding was JsTsKx9x, which isn't a great Omaha HiLo hand, but it's not bad, either, because it can make a whole lot of high-only scoop-possible hands)

The first point is that he is correct, he was sitting to my left in a Pot Limit game and thus he had a huge advantage with regard to drawing odds. I misplayed the hand in the sense that with two hearts on the board and a player left behind me, I probably shouldn't have even continued bettting after he called my first bet on the flop and I should have folded to any sign of strength. But I was probably tilting a little bit and was chasing a big pot.

I guess the most important point is that I put the other player on the flush draw and Billy on four low cards with top pair (AA) on the flop, so my betting was an attempt to run off the other player and in the worst case split the pot with Billy's low hand and in the best case scoop it all. As Junell preaches, I made a guess at their hands and then played it out consistently with that assumption.

I guessed wrong because the flush didn't come and neither did the low hand, but running fours filled him up. When Billy raised me after the second 4 came on 5th street, I was pretty sure he had filled up, but I thought it was with AA and not KK, which was consistent with my earlier read of A234 or A456 or A245 or something like that.

And yes, I miscounted the outs on the full house, too. At the time, I noted to myself that I had the other K, so with two pair (K4) he would have had 3 outs to the boat (which is what I meant to say) instead of all 4. Not that it mattered because I didn't think he had a K and so that line of thought wasn't relevant to my play. Counting those outs was just a passing thought when the hand was done. When I reconstructed the hand I didn't remember him having the Q for three pair, nor did I remember his having a flush draw, so that would have made the total outs to fill up 6-1=5 instead of 4-1=3.

Lots of mistakes there, both on the hand and in my post. Yowza.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Johnnymac, at 3:50 PM, April 11, 2006  

Couple of more thoughts, too:

1.) Pini-errrrr, billyzabka is a very good poker player and thus I should have given him more credit in my recollection of the hand. He certainly good enough not to call big bets chasing 4 outers to fill up (or even a 6 outer as he thought at the time) and I should have realized that he probably had a flush draw in addition to the two (actually, three) pair before I reconstructed the hand and wrote the original post. My apologies if that comment was taken as a swipe at him, because it wasn't meant that way. I obviously gave him credit during the hand because I assumed he was playing a low hand and thus had plenty of outs and reasons for staying in the pot.

2.) The little-mentioned 3rd player in the hand was in first position and checked the flop and 4th street, hence my belief he was the one drawing to the flush. Like Billy on my left, I had position on Player #3 and I tried to take advantage of it by gunning at him.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 3:53 PM, April 14, 2006  

I think this is what makes O/8 so hard...a guy is betting/calling with one part of his hand, but another part of his hand is what he makes. The more common example is sticking around for the low with A2 or A3 and accidently getting runner runner flush.

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment