Basic Backgammon Strategy

Some basic concepts: distribution, exposure, blocking and priming, hitting, and anchoring.

Building an Online Poker Bankroll for Free

I was quite suspicious of this at first, but it actually seems to have some clever ideas in it. I'd be interested in knowing whether or not anybody has tried (and proven) any of these.

3 Starting Hand Strategies for Holdem

1. Lou Krieger's Start Hand

(from Hold'Em Excellence, From Beginner to Winner)

Lou Krieger's Start Chart is a graphical representation of which hands can be played based on position. Early position is about the first four seats after the button, middle position is the next 3 or so and late position is one or two off the button plus the button. Below is an abridged version of Lou Krieger's Start Chart (tabular format).

Read more on Lou Krieger's Starting Hand Strategy here.

Playable Hands in Early Position

Pairs: Aces through Sevens
Suited: Ace with a King, Queen, Jack, or 10
King with a Queen, Jack, or 10
Queen with a Jack or 10
Jack with a 10 or 9
10 with a 9
Unsuited: Aces with a King, Queen, Jack, or 10
King with a Queen or Jack

Playable Hands in Middle Position

All hands in Early Position PLUS:
Pairs: Sixes and Fives
Suited: Ace with a 9, 8, 7, or 6
King with a 9
Queen with a 9 or 8
Jack with an 8
10 with an 8
9 with an 8
Unsuited: King with a 10
Queen with a Jack or 10
Jack with a 10

Playable Hands in Late Position

All hands in Early and Middle Position PLUS:
Pairs: Fours, Threes, and Twos
Suited: Ace with a 5, 4, 3, or 2
King with an 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2
Jack with a 7
10 with a 7
9 with a 7 or 6
8 with a 7 or 6
7 with a 6 or 5
6 with a 5
5 with a 4
Unsuited: King with a 9
Queen with a 9
Jack with a 9 or 8
10 with a 9 or 8
9 with an 8 or 7
8 with a 7

2. Sklansky & Malmuth's Starting Hand Groups

David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth took the approach of grouping the starting hands based on strength. This allows the player the freedom to choose what strength is needed for what situation and position. In their book they go into detail on what circumstances call for which group. For simplicity, remember that Groups 1-2 are powerful hands (high pairs, high suited cards), Groups 3-5 are medium hands (medium pairs) and Groups 6-8 are weaker hands.

See here for the actual Starting Hands Groups

3. The Bill Chen Formula

(from Hold'em Excellence)

The formula below was developed by Bill Chen. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any information regarding Bill Chen on the Internet, otherwise I would include more information. Basically he developed a mathematical formula to determine if a hand is playable based on giving the cards certain values. For the most part, the formula works well and we used it in our Starting Hand Quiz.

Determine your highest card and score as follows: (only use your lower card for gap and suited analysis)

* Ace = 10 points
* King = 8 points
* Queen = 7 points
* Jack = 6 points
* 10 through 2 = half of face value (i.e. 10 = 5, 9 = 4.5)
* Pairs, multiply score by 2 (i.e. KK = 16), minimum score for a pair is 5 (so pairs of 2 through 4 get a 5 score)
* Suited cards, add two points to highest card score
* Connectors add 1 point (i.e. KQ)
* One gap, subtract 1 point (i.e. T8)
* Two gap, subtract 2 points (i.e. AJ)
* Three gap, subtract 4 points (i.e. J7)
* Four or more gap, subtract 5 points (i.e. A4)

Sample scores
AA = 20 points
98s = 7.5 points
K9s = 6 points

The information below is not strictly from the Chen formula as he believed the system only told you what to play, not when to come in for a raise. There are too many factors in determining when to raise, call or fold. The scores below can be used as a general rule of thumb.

Early Position

* Raise = Score is 9 or higher
* Call = Score is 8 or higher
* Fold = Score is lower than 8

Middle Position

* Raise = Score is 9 or higher
* Call = Score is 7 or higher
* Fold = Score is lower than 7

Late Position

* Raise = Score is 9 or higher
* Call = Score is 6 or higher
* Fold = Score is lower than 6

More Names for Starting Hands

AA Rockets; Bullets; American Airlines
KK Cowboys
QQ Canadian Rockets; Canadian Aces; Siegfried & Roy
JJ Fishhooks; hooks
88 Snowmen; Doggie Balls; Frog Eyes
77 Sunset Strip
66 Route 66
55 Presto; Speed Limit
44 Canadian Presto
33 Crabs
22 Ducks

AK Big Slick
AQ Big Chick; Walking Back to Houston
KQ suited Marriage
KQ offsuit Mixed Marriage
KJ Kojak
K9 Fido; What a Dog
K3 Commander Crab; King Crab
Q7 Computer hand
Q3 Gay Waiter (queen with a tray)
J5 Motown; Jackson Five
T8 Golden Dan
T5 F&W Woolworth's; Five and Dime
T4 Broderick Crawford; Convoy; Good Buddy
T2 Texas Dolly
98 Oldsmobile
96 Big Lick; Dinner for Two
95 Dolly Parton
92 Montana Banana
83 Most feared hand in Holdem
7T Split
76 Union Oil

On Pocket Pairs

From this article on pocket pairs:

"How could something so bad, darling,
come from something that was so good"
-- Bruce Springsteen

The starting hand fetish that many weaker players fixate on as a central aspect of their games directly leads to a corresponding lack of ability to lose well. Players look at AK or QQ in Texas Holdem and think "wow, what a great hand" and start counting the money they will be raking in. The game is not that easy however.

Take the confrontation of AsKc versus QhJh suited. This is about a 60/40 confrontation when both hands go to the showdown. A three to two advantage should be solidly profitable of course, but it should not surprise anyone when the 40% wins a hand. But it is not even this simple. News flash, there is betting in poker. How these hands are played can very significantly alter how much money changes hands. It's even very likely that an excellent player in position with the QJ will have a better expectation than a weak player holding the AK. The weaker player might chase or pay off far too liberally while the excellent player might be able to get away from their hands before the bigger betting rounds.

Manipulation of the betting is a key concept in itself, but the focus here is on the specific situation of something that looks "so good" ending up being played "so bad".

One of the most common errors in Holdem, much more so than other games, is to cling to hands that look good long after they turn bad. (And then of course, tell bad beat stories about how these "great hands" lost.)

One of the clearest signs of a player who will never rise above the mediocre is the inability to laydown pocket pairs after the flop -- and more specifically, hands like QQ on an AT9 flop. You see it all the time, players calling off all their chips with only a prayer and the worst straightforward draw in poker -- trying to spike an underpair two-outer. In limit Hold'em this is sin enough, but in No Limit it borders on lunacy. Still, spend fifteen minutes observing the one or two table mini-tournaments available online at the various cardrooms and you likely will see this exact phenomenon happen at least once.

And the funny thing is, many of these same people will be able to lay down KJ on an AJ8 flop but will call all their money with QQ. When facing a bet, the difference in current value between these two hands in miniscule, but the somehow the prettier QQ gets players to act like dopes. It's just "so good" looking. Frankly, I prefer the prettiness of how good chips look in front of me in contrast to how they look being pushed to my opponent.

You don't get any "pretty points" bonuses in poker. What you get is an opportunity to manipulate the mathematical expectation of variable situations. Better players often beat weaker players for a lot of chips even though the better player is holding worse cards than the weaker player. In a way, this is the idea of most of the game. Sure, better players playing better cards will beat weaker players when they play (too often) their weaker cards, but a much more critical divide between the better players and the weaker ones is the ability to transform what should be negative situations into positive ones. The combination of factors at work are the better player's skills, and the weaker player's anti-skills.

Another way to put it is: giving a weak player a good starting hand is like giving him a rope to hang himself with.

Just because something starts out fine doesn't mean it will end that way. Starting hands are merely that, a start. Good starting hands are merely a good start. Clinging to good starting hands (that miss the flop) for too long, specifically putting in a bet on the bigger betting round on the turn, is an enormous hole in most people's play -- and it just so happens that it critically afflicts the type of person whom it hurts the worst, players who rely on the most straightforward starting hands, particularly pocket pairs.

There is nothing wrong with pretty hands. Just don't be seduced to the point that "pretty" turns into "pretty ugly."

Best Holdem Starting Hands

Yet another page on starting hands.

Deeper Look at Starting Hands

Here is a deeper look at starting hands in various situations.

Texas Holdem Starting Hands, A Deeper Look At

Before reading this little article, review the starting hand table here. It is obvious that AA is a better starting hand then A2 but why are some hands strong in certain situations and why are some hands not? Extremes are always easy but most the game is spent in the muggy middle. Let's try to clear it up some.

For example, would you be surprised if your pocket aces lost when 9 other people were against you? What you prefer another hand, like a suited connector in that situation like 89s? Why is it that K7s is not a very good hand but something like 87s is? If you have already played holdem for sometime then these answers may pop right out; it isn't obvious though to a beginner and it is funny that many people who have been playing for decades still can't seem to get it straight. Certain hands perform better in certain situations then they would in others.

Why do hands like K7s, J4s, J7s, Q7s, T6s suck?

The reason a hand like K7s sucks is because it has very little chance to win (obviously! you are probably thinking, but the question is why). The ways it can win are either very unlikely to happen, or you won't be able to play with much strength when they do. What exactly are you trying to catch when you play a hand like K7s? If you catch your King, then most likely your 7 kicker will be beaten. If you catch your 7 as top pair, you will most likely lose to overcards hitting on the turn or river. Remember the odds of catching a flush draw on the flop aren't high either (check the probabilities table here). This hand also can't make a straight unless it is only one card. To catch two pair with it or to make trips in a weird way is also very unlikely. So the bottom line is, these hands don't make money unless you get lucky and luck doesn't pan out often (or it wouldn't be called luck). So with these kinds of crappy cards you really want to watch out. Either avoid them completely or only play them out of your blinds when it is very cheap.

Why do I not play anything below AT offsuit? Why do I prefer playing A5s and below or ATs and above over something in the middle like A8s?

Any Ace unsuited hand below AT is in my book a trouble hand. Some people might even consider AT and AJ trouble hands too but for the games you are going to be playing in they are adequate starting hands. The reason A8, A7, A5 all suck is because you really can't hit much to win. Take A8 for example. Your kicker isn't that great, the 8, and you have no chance of hitting any straights or flushes. The only way you can win really is to hope that they have a weaker Ace then you do and you catch one. Like I mentioned in another article on here, playing poker well is like investing. You want to put your money in good opportunities that have a chance for a nice return and A8 off isn't that. Now to answer the question of ATs and above and A5s and below versus A9s A8s A7s A6s, I like the first ones because you can also make a straight with them. I would take A5s over A8s because the A and the 5 can work together to make a straight, unlike the A8s. When you play weak Aces though like A5s, you have to be extra cautious if you catch an Ace on the flop. You won't be sure if your kicker is good or not so you'll have to use some more thinking. Playing these only in later positions can help you make better decisions because people will check most likely if they don't have the A or that hand beat.

Why do hands like AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ like fewer opponents?

Remember the scenario above when you were in the big blind, everyone is in the hand so far, and you look down and see two beautiful black Aces looking up at you? My heart usually starts going a mile a minute and then I look up to see that everyone has already called and my chances to win are slim. Big hands like this rarely win when there are that many people calling preflop. The reason is that it is very hard for AA to improve to anything more then just one pair. And in those big multi-way pots usually two pair or greater drags the chips. In that situation I may actually try to check raise on the flop instead of betting right now. The idea would be to try to cut off some people in the middle and make them fold. Limiting the field increases my chances to win with that hand.

Why do hands like JTs, 89s, QJs, KTs, 79s, 46s prefer lots of opponents?

I love little suited connectors in low limit holdem. The reason is that I rarely get into trouble with them. When I hit something, it is usually really strong and when I miss it is an easy fold. This untrue for hands like AA and KK. With those you are pretty much married to the pot unless someone really makes it apparent that you are the loser. A hand like JTs and 89s are ideal for playing against big multi-action. The best situation would be if you are on the button or even in the big blind and every person calls before you. I would even raise there a lot of the time to just get more money in the pot. The reason these play well and favor large pots is because they are drawing to flushes and straights. They need lots of people in the hand to justify the cost of playing them. And they do well in that situation because when they make their hand they are hard to beat.

Odds of Holdem Pre-Flop Hands

Taken from this page:

Big Pairs:

* Big pair versus smaller pair: AA vs KK ----- 80% to 20%
* Big pair versus very small pair: KK vs 55 ----- 80% to 20%
* Big pair versus suited connector: AA vs 78s, 56s, 9Ts ----- ~80% to 20%
* there can be a slide of around a few percent depending on whether or not the two smaller cards are competing for the same straight or flush. Having 78s versus AA is actually better than having KQs versus AA, since the 78s can make a straight without using the Aces. Example: AsAd against 7c8c is 77% to 33% while having AsAd versus KcQc is only 83/17.

* Big pair versus unsuited connector: AA vs 78off ----- ~80% to 20% Still around the same as above... One thing of note is that for competing battles, the offsuit gets hurt even more. For example, if you have AdAh versus KdQh, it isn't 80/20, it is 88% to 12%. The "offsuitedness" combined with the competition for the same straight (A-K-Q-J-T) cripples the KQ. You would much prefer the 65 or 89. Another example is TT versus 56off, it is still 80/20.

* Big pair versus two unsuited smaller cards: AA vs 95 or KK vs J4 ----- ~85% to 15% You get a few percent if the cards can make a straight, if they have a suite that the other doesn't, or if they aren't competiting for the same straights; T-7 has a little better chance, few percent, to beat KK than 72 does.

* Big pair versus two suited smaller cards: AA vs 95s or KK vs J4s ----- ~85% to 15% Again, if you the suite you have isn't in the other player's hand, you get a few more percent: KsKd against Js4s. The spade in the KK hand cripples the Js4s even more. If the cards are even big gappers like 8h4h against KdKs, it gains some because of the straight potentional (even though it isn't a connector): 81% to 19% (favoring the Kings of course).

* Big pair versus unsuited dominated cards: AA vs AK or AA vs AT or KK vs KJ or JJ vs J9 ----- ~90 to 10% The AA vs smaller Ace is especially bad: 92% to 8%. The smaller the pair gets, the better chance it has: 77 vs 75 is 88/12. Jacks and up are all about the same 92 to 8%.

* Big pair versus suited donimated cards: AA vs AKs or AA vs ATs or KK vs KJs or JJ vs J9s ----- ~86% to 14% You get a little more help if your hand can make a straight too, or if the big pair isn't quite as large. The TT vs T7 has a better chance than KK vs KQ does.

Overcards versus pair:

* Two big suited cards versus smaller pair: KQs vs JJ or AKs vs JJ or KJs vs TT ----- 52% to 48% for the pair. It isn't quite a 50/50 because the two big suited cards need to catch one of the other cards to make a straight (which kills a couple percent).
* Two big unsuited cards versus smaller pair: KQ vs JJ or AK vs TT or KJ vs 99 ----- 56% to 44%.
* Two big suited cards versus very small pair (maybe 55 and below): AKs versus 55 or KQs versus 44 or 89s versus 44 ---- 48% to 52% (the lead for the pocket pair). What is interesting is that AKs doesn't do as well against small pocket pairs as a hand like 89s or JTs, which can make more straights. AKs versus 55 will win only 48% of the time, but T9s versus the 55 will win 52% of the time, making it the favorite.

* Two big unsuited cards versus very small pair (maybe 55 and below): AK versus 44 or KQ vs 55 or T8 versus 44 ----- ~48% to 52% (the lead for the pocket pair). What is interesting to note again is the breaking point between what is exactly even money with smaller pocket pair and when it becomes the favorite again. If you have an opponent with 55, if you hold two offsuit cards above his that can make a straight below JT, you are 50/50 to win. As soon as you go to QJ and above, now he is a 52 to 48% favorite. The reason is that the QJ has a harder time making a straight than the T8 or JT do.

Dominated Hands:

* Unsuited versus unsuited dominated hand: AJ vs A9 or KQ vs KT or JT vs J8 ---- ~70% to 30% (give or take a few percent). The higher the cards, the worse off your are if you have a dominated hand: AK vs AJ is 75% to 25% while 98 to 96 is 66% to 33%). Note that also if you have two very small Ace hands, there is around a 5% chance of chopping the pots because the kickers won't play: A5 vs A2 for example, will split the pot some of the time.
* Suited versus suited dominated hand: AsKs vs Ac7c or KsQs vs KhJh or JsTs vs Jh9h ----- ~70% to 30%.
* Unsuited versus suited dominated hand: AKoff vs A7s or KQoff vs KJs etc ----- ~70% to 30% still, the flush possibility for the dominated hand doesn't help that much.
* Suited versus unsuited dominated hand: AKs vs A7off or AKs vs KJoff ----- ~75% to 25% There is a slide of a few percent with the smaller hands like we have seen above: a J9off versus a JTs will do a little better than an A7off will do against an AKs. The reason, again, is that the big cards like AK and KQ can make fewer straights.

Misc:
* these are just some whacky hands...
* K4 vs J9 ----- 56% to 44%
* Q4 vs 72 ----- 64% to 35%
* AK vs 72 ----- 70% to 30%
* 74 vs J3 ----- 42% to 58%
* Q5 vs T8 ----- 56% to 44%
* 98 vs A4 ----- 45% to 55%
* K2 vs 56 ----- 55% vs 45%

What can we learn from looking at these numbers? The first thing that should stand out to you is the fact that holdem is a game of small edges. That is a good thing actually because in this subtlety there is confusion. Without approaching the game using a well-thought-out strategy based on the underlying fundamentals of the game, it is easy to lose yourself, and have no rhyme or reason for what is happening to you each day. You go in and lose sometimes, win sometimes and are content that that is how things go. You can make sense of things if you try. After you spend some real time studying the game, little surprises you anymore. Everything seems predictable and logical. And when you have a realistic perspective of the game, it takes the pressure off and you feel confident when you play. You take your bad beats in stride because you know they can't happen all the time, or enough to make you lose. Secondly, what is important about these numbers is that we see how much of a factor being dominated is. When you compete for the same cards as the person against you who has a slightly better hand, you are a huge underdog. It is much better to play hands that are either ahead of the competitors or if hit a flop will have a strong hand, not middle cards that aren't good at either. Lastly, numbers are important but you can't have a winning strategy based on these only. I wouldn't want anyone to look at this page and think they know how to play now. Odds only come into play when we don't think we already have the winner. And part of good poker is being able to eventually have a sense for when we are on top or not; a chart won't teach you that.

Suited Connector Myth

From the article I linked to in the previous post:

When we add the next highest ranking 8 cards to the Sweet 16 [Skansky Group 1 Hands: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs], we reach what we consider to be the smallest playable subset of starting hands.

In doing so, however, we encounter what we have chosen to call the "Medium Suited Connector myth." Like most myths, it contains some elements of truth. But the truth has been blown way out of proportion.

*T9s KQ 88 QTs *98s *J9s AJ *KTs

There are four hands in S&M's Group 4 that do not belong. In the case of one of these, KTs, it got moved up to Group 3 and was replaced by JTs, which was demoted from Group 3. This was a relatively minor adjustment in hand rankings.

But we are left with 3 suited connectors (T9s, 98s and J9s), the valiues of which keep being rediscovered every year or so, but whose true values have not been put in perspective in practical terms for the regular hold'em poker player.

We need to consider here the overall context, to look at all of the medium suited connecotrs together, to gain some perspective.

Figure (not shown here) shows the rank for each medium (and small) suited connector, starting with T9s and working down through 54s. The mean rank of these hands is shown for each of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

You will note that the classic 10-player showdown results (T5) show a very simple, linear deterioration in the relative rank order of these starting suited connectors as the value of the top card gets smaller. This was discovered sometime around 1972.

A few years later several people discovered that some of the smaller suited connectors (such as 87s and 76s) sometimes played better than their larger cousins (such as T9s). This reversal of the 10-player showdown results was both surprising, and held as a professional holdem players' trade secret by many. This U-Shaped effect is clearly visible in the HE Table 1 results shown in Figure____.

The problem is that playing in the extremely tight games, such as those we characterize here by HE Table 1, it is difficult to make any money: the pots are small (which is the natural consequence of tight players), and these medium suited connectors, even though they improve dramatically, never rise to the level of being powerhouse starting hands.

In fact, as the games become looser there is a clear trend visible in Table ___ for the showdown linearities to dominate. Even if you think you're playing under the ideal conditions for medium suited connectors, if one player leaves or a new player joins the game your assumption may suddenly no longer be correct and intertia could easily lead you to end up playing what are just relatively weak hands.

Another thing that is potentially dangerous is to rely on various "probe" software packages common available today that allow you to pit one hand against another to a showdown, seeing which of them is better.

These would be fine, and the results reliable, so long as there do not exist any underlying non-linearities of the type visible in Figure __ for medium suited connectors. But we DO know that assjmption is incorrect, and it has been known to be incorrect in the poker literatures for decades. We recommend that, unless you already know the answers to the questions you're seeking and simply want to be precise, you do NOT use isolated one-on-one type simulations at all (the U-Shaped function we've already discussed is not the only one in the underlying fabric of Texas hold'em).

Turning back now to the Sklansky Group 4 hands, we need to replace the 4 deviant hands by better ones.(A8s, A9s, JTs and AT). Because the T4 and T5 HE Table conditions still have positive power ratings two of these (J9s and T9s) have a high enough overall power index to just be demoted to Group 5 while the third (98s) slips down to Group 6.

Holdem Starting Hands

Yet another link on Holdem starting hands. Lots of interesting gems there.

Starting Hands in Omaha

Taken from this website:

Texas holdem players taking up Omaha usually have these feelings about their ability to adjust to the game; "I know how to play all right once the flop is dealt, but I'm not sure what to look for in a starting hand." They may or may not be right about their competency from flop to finish, but the uncertainty over what constitutes a desirable starting hand is nearly universal. Good judgment before the flop is harder to acquire at Omaha, although quite important. "What you sow is what you reap" is an excellent adage when applied to Omaha. Before we discuss the correct evaluation method for starting hands, let us look at a couple of incorrect views widespread among newcomers used to holdem.

(1) "A four-card hand that contains a good starting hand for holdem within it is a good Omaha hand." This view is not proclaimed out loud, but seems to be the criterion initially adopted by holdem players. They evaluate J© J§ 6¨ 2ª as being almost equal to a pair of jacks in holdem. I don't claim the hand is unplayable in all situations, but is nowhere near as good as the beginning Omaha player imagines. Any hand with two useless-looking cards in it cannot be a premium hand at Omaha.

(2) "Two decent holdem hands in one four-card holding are going to make a good Omaha hand." This is the next level of sophistication past the beginner view, but it is also wrong. Take a look at this hand; Aª Q© 7¨ 7§. These are two decent holdem hands that compose it; ace-queen offsuit and two sevens. Yet this hand is a definite piglet at Omaha. The reason is the holdem player is only looking at two of the six possible card combinations present in the hand. He is forgetting about the other four poorly coordinated combinations of Aª-7¨, Aª-7§, Q©-7¨, and Q©-7§. The ace is not suited, which is a serious drawback. This hand is actually worse than the two jacks in our previous example, in my opinion.

The correct view is, "A good Omaha hand has all four cards coordinate with each other." This statement is the only one that appeals to common sense, once you think about it. A hand with six working card-combinations is a super hand. For example, look at this hand: Qª J§ 10ª 9§. Every card has working value with all the other cards in the hand. It is easy to imagine some real powerhouse flops to a mountain like this one. If you flop two pair, you will also have an open-end straight-draw or a straight made. There are many flops that will yield a thirteen way or seventeen way straight-draw. If we can turn a flush-draw in addition on these flops, so much the better. Starting hands like this one are the most likely to produce a multiway hand on the flop, and the multiway hand is what we are really hoping for at Omaha.

I think the following hands are close in value: Qª J§ 10ª 9§, Qª Q§ J§ 10ª, and Qª Q§ Jª J§. I will leave it up to the computer experts to give us their exact order of ranking. The important thing is the nice way the cards coordinate with each other. Naturally, the hand of Qª J§ 10ª 9§ is worth more than 8ª 7§ 6ª 5§, but the second hand is also a good hand even though the cards are lower-ranking than in the first hand. I want to take the flop with almost any hand composed of four-in-a-row double-suited if the price isn't too much.

Another premium hand is two aces combined with cards that coordinate with them. The best type of coordination here is to be of the same suit. Two aces double-suited is a great hand. Compare these two hands, Aª A© 7§ 2¨, and Aª A§ 10ª 9§. The former hand needs to buy another ace to stay in contention; the latter hand has two nut flush-draws and some straight-draws to lend additional value to the aces themselves. Of course, if you can get heads-up against someone when you have two junky-looking aces, I like your chances. However, to raise the pot on a hand that probably needs to turn a set in order to win is not good poker. It is nearly impossible to ram a pair of aces through in a limit Omaha game, and often difficult at pot-limit also. Only at no-limit are two unsupported aces a big hand, and no-limit Omaha games are rare.

Sometimes a hand is very likely marked with two aces because of heavy preflop betting. This is especially true at pot-limit play when a solid player puts in a reraise of the maximum amount. In these cases an opponent will usually back with his whole stack any hand that has out-flopped two aces, or has a good chance to beat them. When the aces have managed to flop a big hand with the other two cards, the opponent is going to get a rude surprise. It's really sweet when you flop a set or a straight with them. Obviously, it is much easier to flop a big hand if your sidecards are paired or a useful-looking combination like J-10 than if they are unrelated. Being suited can also have surprise value. When the aces flop a flush-draw, this can be instrumental in misleading an opponent into playing for all his money in an adverse situation. You should look closely at the two supporting cards in evaluating an Omaha hand with two aces (or any big pair). Omaha is definitely a four-card poker game.

It would be nice if we could pick up lots of hands with two double-suited aces or four-in-a-row in every Omaha session. However, these hands are hard to come by, so we must bend a little in our requirements. Otherwise we will be in the same category as the holdem player who only enters the pot with A-A, K-K, Q-Q, or A-K. In other words, we are liable to ante off all our money and not get played with when we bet. Four-in-a-row is nice, but suppose there is a gap in the hand somewhere. Which one of these hands is the most valuable: J-10-9-7, J-10-8-7, or J-9-8-7? The answer is they are listed in descending order of value, because if a card on the board hits in the gap, we would like to have more of our cards higher-ranking than lower-ranking. I think J-10-9-6 may well be a better hand-pattern than J-9-8-7 for this reason, despite having a notch wider gap in the rank of the cards.

Sometimes a hand with only three working cards can be reasonably decent and worth playing. The best three-card hands are those that have a fairly large pair in conjunction with a potential nut flush-draw. Naturally, you would like to flop both a set and the nut flush-draw. This is easier to do if the ace is of the same suit as your otherwise non-working fourth card, rather than being suited with one of the cards used in the pair.

A good poker player is not looking for a lot of opportunities to gamble; he is looking for an overlay. When the big pots are played, it is often a made hand against a drawing hand. In that circumstance there is a lot of luck in who takes the money. At Omaha the drawing hands run so big that the made hand will normally be only a small favorite when the big money goes in—or a small dog. However, a fair number of big pots have hands such as flush-over-flush and full-over-full, with the best hand having a lock or close to it. You want to be the person on top in these spots. The way to get the nuts is to build the nuts. The person who started with the bigger pair or bigger suited cards is the one that usually gets the big overlay when both players hit.

Omaha High Pot Limit

PlayWinningPoker.com has this article on Omaha Pot Limit:

"Philadelphia fans would boo funerals, an Easter egg hunt,
a parade of armless war vets, and the Liberty Bell."
-- Bo Belinsky

Rec.gambling.poker once had a discussion about Pot Limit Omaha High worth repeating here. Peter Lizak started it by writing: "I would rather play AKQJ over AA24. AA kinda sucks alone. It needs back up. Think of it like chess. The queen is powerful, but you don't shove her into enemy territory without support."

My view is that if a player would rather play AKQJ for all his chips head-up, then he needs to hit the lottery quick. Pot Limit Omaha is not about cards very much. It is first and foremost position, position, position. If the chips are deep, position renders everything else trivial. If the chips are not deep, you want to get all-in or close to it before the flop with AAxx. You are a significant dog to nothing, besides a dominating other AA hand, and a good favorite over most.

Raising first under the gun with AAxx is suicide, not because AAxx is bad, but because raising under the gun in PLO is foolish with any hand. Limp and reraise if the chips are short. If the chips are deep you should be limp/fold almost everything. The main reason to play hands out of position in PLO is to encourage other people to play out of position. That is really and truly the main reason. You want to limp and fold, while they limp and call your raises when you are in position.

One thing to keep in mind though is that PLO is the game most different in casinos compared to online. The online cardrooms have buy-in limits that prevent you from playing the normally sensible way -- buying yourself a big stack of chips. They have capped buy-in amounts and thus require you to play small stack PLO (until you win your way to a big stack). In that way, AAxx is a much better hand online than in a casino, since any pot size reraise will often be over half your stack.

But again, PLO is position and betting. A solid player who understands the game and has deep chips, can play 3579 in position and eat up AAKK, while also play AAKK in position to eat up 3579.

Most any hand can eat up a better hand that is out of position.

If someone wants to make a pot raise under the gun with AAKK or AAJT, I'll play the big majority of hands against them if we have deep chips. This is especially true if I can put the player on AA with great confidence. The player in position will generally lose small pots and win much bigger ones. This is why you can't get good PLO games with only good players. They become utterly pointless. You need players playing out of position for the game to exist.

Another person then wrote that in a multiplayer pot you can get more out of the AKQJ, and that such multiplayer pots weaken AA42 quite a lot.

I replied that this was not saying much, unless we know specific hands, and the position of those hands. AKQJ offsuit is a very lame hand multiway when AA is also out, and more so when you have other big card players in the pot. The Broadway straight is the #1 sucker hand of PLO where people get freerolled for all their chips. Also, a hand like AdKdQJ is not great because you have the key payoff card that you want in an opponent's hand, the K of diamonds.

AAxx should be looking to play pots headup, via a pot raise in position or a pot reraise out of position. If it can't manage one of these scenarios it should commonly be limped before the flop, then folded when the flop misses. If you do see a flop out of position for a limp multiway, AAxx is vastly superior to AKQJ because the way AA will hit the flop is either an Ace, or a nut flush draw with a small pot. In either case you are in fine shape. AKQJ hits sucker flops, two pair against sets, straights against the same straights with flush outs. Only very rarely will you have the best freeroll with the nut straight and top two pair, and that is only four outs. A suited ace, flopping the Broadway straight and having the nut flush draw, there you have a hand, and it comes along pretty rarely!

Like No Limit Hold'em, even more so, Pot Limit Omaha is a card game that is only a little about cards. Personalities, chip stack size and table position dictate play much more than the spots on the pasteboards.