PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Omaha 8 Dry Pots

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Omaha 8 Dry Pots

    Why does there not seem to be the same philosophy regarding dry pots in Omaha 8 that you see in Hold-em? It would seem that ganging up on the all-in player makes just as much sense in O8 as it does in HE.

  • #2
    in my opinon, dry pots are only worht checking once you are in or near the money. why not bet if you have a great hand or the nuts? why not bet if you have the current nuts, but there is a flush draw that would beat you if it hits? should uyou not still make the person pay to draw? also, is it truly a dry pot? or is there a side pot, whether it is a small pot or a large one? if you are at the final two tables, and the pot is truly a dry pot, but it is a 20k pot, which would put you in a great position to make the final table with a nice stack, is it not worth it to bet? i guess it all depends on how you look at different situations.......i personally have to look at all factors, but i also will not let someone draw to a higher hand for free. i think there are many opinions on this subject, all of which have been debated in the past. the only part that i think is an absolute mistake, is to bluff a dry pot when you know the all in player has a hand. there is absolutely no point in that bet.......just my opinion....

    Comment


    • #3


      It does apply in O/8, but it is a situational play. :wink:

      Normally it only applies late in a tourny when there is a significant benefit to eliminating the short players ( when a ladder move can help all remaining players). Early in a tournament, there is nearly no reason to check down a dry pot. :roll:

      It may not be the benefit of one of the shorter stacks if he thinks he can push another player out who might outdraw him/her. His/her concern might be to win the pot for survival. :idea:

      In any case, it is not a universally accepted practice. It may not be a part of some players repetoire of plays.

      Comment


      • #4
        Muzzey is right. The actual game being played is irrelevant. A dry pot is all about doing what is best for you, your own tourney ev, just like any other tournament situation. If the situation is such that the chips in the pot are worth more to you than eliminating a player, then protect your hand etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a difference in split-pot games ...

          e.g., there's an all-in player and a truly dry pot, plus you and another 'active' player who has chips. On the river you have nut or very strong high, but a modest low. By betting you may knock out a better (but non-nut) low who has no high at all. Now you stand to scoop the pot if the all-in has only a worse high hand or can't match your low. Sometimes you'll take 75% if you have identical lows, which is better than the 50% you would have taken without betting at the end.

          Additionally, if the other 'active' player has a better (or nut) low, the strategy costs you nothing. You split the extra bet. The all-in player is either bust or not bust. The bet cost nothing in terms of knocking anybody out.

          Of course if both your high and low are very vulnerable, the bet may cost both in terms of chips and allowing a player to survive.

          cheers

          Comment


          • #6
            I have mixed feelings about this....
            Overall my view is do what is best for you at the time so, I am agreeing with noodles and jmuzzey.

            But I also feel it is similar to chopping blinds in a live game. Once you chop a blind with someone you can't then decide to play another possible blind chop just because you have AA or KK or any other good hand. (against same player)

            So if you and another player simply check all the way against an all-in player, then you both are agreeing to not bet the 'dry pot situation'. If your opinion or situation is such that you intend to bet the dry pot no matter what. First your bet is announcing same, especially if that bet was on the flop. But if the bet comes on the end when the other player could have possibly eliminated you by betting the flop because of the strength of his hand. (Yet he has a no-bet dry pot opinion **unless a possible winning hand**), then I don't think you are playing kosher and you may have unfairly take advantage of the other player.

            To avoid this, you may simply announce, "I play dry-pots just like all other pots!", when the first 'dry pot' situation comes up. Now no-one can fault you and cry foul.

            But if you and another player have checked all the way on a previous dry pot, I don't think you can then bet the next dry pot, as a semi-bluff or bluff just because the pot size or your chip situation requires it. Again the other player may think you don't bet dry pots, unless you have a made hand, thus you are taking unfair advantage.

            If the objective is to eliminate the 'all-in' player, and that is more crucial than winning the hand, (provided you and the other caller win the hand) another factor enters the equation. First, will the other player involved in the hand be sharp enough to realize that eliminating the all-in is the most important factor, or does the other player desperately need to win a hand? At this point it gets too complicated, the best move is to play your hand and if the "all-in" gets lucky and still has best hand, "so-be-it"! Again, if you announce you play "dry pots" like any other hand, no-one should complain, although I am sure someone will if you don't have a real hand and there is a showdown.


            Personally in live tourney's I can't remember a situation where we didn't bet the "dry pots" just like any other, real money has a way of forcing you to play your hand to the max.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Everyone should play dry pots like any other hand. There is no such thing as a dry pot agreement. People act in their own self interest, and sometimes their interests coincide in some situations, where the highest ev play for each individual is eliminating an opponent.

              The only real rule about dry pots is that you do not bluff. Although you probably can, in certain situations, bluff the remaining players off a better hand if you think you probably still beat the all-in, and the pot is more important to you, in terms of tourney ev, than eliminating someone.

              If the pot is worth more than eliminating a player in terms of your tourney ev, then protect your hand and maximise your chances of winning it. If eliminating a player is worth more, then check it down and maximise the chances of that happening. That is the rule of dry pots, besides not bluffing into one when you can't beat the all-in. It's all about tourney ev.

              Comment


              • #8
                There is a difference in split-pot games ...
                I don't see any from your examples. They are playing to maximise their own ev, which is what I said. They are excellent examples by the way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Noodles
                  There is a difference in split-pot games ...
                  I don't see any from your examples.
                  I was probably a tad dogmatic, but hey - you knew the risks... :lol:

                  What I'm getting at is that in a split-pot game you may be assured of 50% of the pot with a nut high (you may also be confident of 50% with an "unusual" low like 34 on a A28 board, but that's a little more obscure) A tactical bet may blow away a better but not nut low and that can earn you another 25 or 50%.

                  In HE, betting on the end with a clearly vulnerable hand can result in the combination of losing 100% of the hand plus letting the all-in survive. It can also just plain lose the final bet when the better active hand calls and wins. In O8 that final bet with one end of the pot 'tied-up' cannot cost you chips.

                  A "no-lose" bet, as does sometimes occur in O8, strikes me as substantially different from the speculative bets one often sees in HE dry-pot situations,especially given that O8 is limit-oriented and the all-in is frequently forced on total garbage, whereas NLHE+PLHE allins often represent a 'stand' taken by choice on a plausible hand.

                  Obviously if you're far from the money it's all pretty academic in terms of knocking anybody out, but in terms of chips it may be important.

                  AAH, but I love arguing :lol:

                  cheers

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Excellent strategy point. I still think it is the same as what I said. Players acting in their own self interest according to ev. But what the heck. I concede. Nothing to argue about. You win.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree Noodles and especially with Rosita excellent strategy post.
                      Yet, there are some that will be critical of a bett, when the bett was based on a strong draw or Strong Ace for the reasons that I mentioned.

                      Personally you will find me playing my hand to suit my situation, not someone elses......

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yet, there are some that will be critical of a bett, when the bett was based on a strong draw or Strong Ace for the reasons that I mentioned.
                        Console yourself with the thought that it is these people that do not understand the dry pot rule. I suppose it is a case of a little knowledge....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Noodles
                          Excellent strategy point. I still think it is the same as what I said. Players acting in their own self interest according to ev. But what the heck. I concede. Nothing to argue about. You win.
                          No. I concede. You win. I will not have arguments subside that easily :lol:

                          Seriously tho - there's a certain natural cantankerousness in my point and I have a sneaking suspicion you might be right. Except that "tournament ev" is a pretty broad concept that might sometimes be better analysed specifically. In truth, at the table, a lot of stuff just kinda 'happens' because it 'seems right' :wink:

                          Long ago I asked a question along these lines over on r.g.p.. I'll have a look see what the replies were....

                          Later

                          Glenn

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rosita
                            Originally posted by Noodles
                            Excellent strategy point. I still think it is the same as what I said. Players acting in their own self interest according to ev. But what the heck. I concede. Nothing to argue about. You win.
                            No. I concede. You win. I will not have arguments subside that easily :lol:
                            I refuse to accept your concession. you win

                            Seriously tho - there's a certain natural cantankerousness in my point and I have a sneaking suspicion you might be right.
                            Right about what? We agree don't we? If I'm right, so are you :P

                            Man, I hate it when involved in an argument, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to be arguing about

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rosita
                              What I'm getting at is that in a split-pot game you may be assured of 50% of the pot with a nut high (you may also be confident of 50% with an "unusual" low like 34 on a A28 board, but that's a little more obscure) A tactical bet may blow away a better but not nut low and that can earn you another 25 or 50%.
                              Am I missing something on this example? Wouldn't 34 on a A28 board currently be the nut low. How can you blow away a better but not nut low? If a 3 or 4 comes on the the turn or river the opponent might make a better low, but it appears from your example the player is currently sitting on the nuts both ways. Did you mean a hand like 45 on a board of A28? Or am I just completely oblivious to something here?

                              Ricky Hard

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X