|
dalecooper
|
09-07-2005, 03:06 PM
Post subject: Stupid question - lowball
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
This is going to seem like a dumb question, but this situation has actually never occurred in the lowball games I've played (usually Omaha 8 or stud hi-lo) and I can't find a definitive explanation. In lowball according to Robert's rules of poker, the lowest hand (worst conventional poker hand?) wins the pot. In most lowball games A2345 is the nuts, because straights are disregarded. Makes sense. Here's my stupid question though.
Which of these is the winning lowball hand:
A2348
23456
Does the ace vs. the deuce give player 1 a lower low, or does the six vs. the eight determine the hand value? In other words do you start with the lowest card in the hand, or the highest?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,333
|
|
6 high is the better A-5 lowball hand.
|
|
|
|
dalecooper
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
Gracias, fnord. Typically this doesn't even come up because you just don't see competing lowball hands with two different cards that much, especially in Omaha, which is what I've played the most of out of hi-lo games. Usually the low players are playing the same three board cards and one of the same hole cards, which tends to be the lowest non-board (ace or deuce).
So I take it that an Omaha hand like 2344 is actually a competitive low hand despite the lack of an ace? If I catch an ace as part of a viable low the hand is of course good for half the pot, but even if I don't I might beat out a player holding something like A4 with a board of, let's say, 568XX? Or better yet if a two comes down vs. a player I know probably holds ace-deuce-x-x, so the board is 268XX, I can play 23468 vs. his A2X68 (where X is probably a 5 or 7)? That's interesting, and it kind of changes my impression of non-ace lowball hands. Although obviously you'd still want as many low cards as possible, and the lower the better.
|
|
|
|
DaNutsInYoEye
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,921
|
|
It may help you to think by counting down (5,4,3...) as oppossed to up (3,4,5...). Start with the highest card of a low hand and then continue down with each subsequent one.
Ex. 8654A and 86532
Both hands have an 8 as their highest card and are thus the same in that respect. You then go to the next card, and again they both share a 6. The next card in both hands is 5 so both hands are indentical to this point. The next card in one hand is a 4 and in the other it is a 3. The 3 is the lower card making 86532 a better low than 8654A. The fact that the other hand has an A is irrelevant at this point.
Quote:
|
So I take it that an Omaha hand like 2344 is actually a competitive low hand despite the lack of an ace?
|
Yes, it is. A good low starting hand does not necessarily need to have an A. In Hi/Lo games though having an ace is preferable because it gives you more Hi hand potential.
Quote:
|
Or better yet if a two comes down vs. a player I know probably holds ace-deuce-x-x, so the board is 268XX, I can play 23468 vs. his A2X68 (where X is probably a 5 or 7)?
|
Definately, and you'd be a big favorite. At this point you have a better low hand made (86432 vs. 8652A at best). After the flop he is drawing to only 3 outs to beat you(one of the remaing 4's).
|
|
TheXianti: (Triptanes) why are you not a thinking person?
|
|
dalecooper
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
Thanks. I'm sure this all seems kind of obvious, but because I was thinking about lowball rules backwards-like, I had previously been folding a lot of hands that were decent low draws because they lacked an ace. I didn't really appreciate that it was more important to have an assortment of low cards than to have that one ace.
|
|
|
|
TLR
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,007
|
|
Generally speaking, playing hands that have low potential only is not a good practice unless you play a very loose game.
You want hands that cal scoop the pot, and playing good high only hands can also work, because there are a lot of times when a low does not qualify.
A hand like 2334 will usually win you 1/2 a pot only, and you need an A to hit the board, so it is not a ver y good starting hand
|
|
|
|
dalecooper
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,107
|
|
That's true, I was referring more to post-flop decisions. Like if I had any hand with 34 in it and the flop came 28K, I was often folding this hand assuming I'd be beaten by an ace, when in fact the only hand I would need to worry about on the low is A3. I wouldn't typically bother playing 2234, just using it as an example of a hand with greater low potential than it appeared to my misunderstanding eyes. Now, 2345 - I might play that. Especially in a loose game. Low straight potential like that is very promising in a game with lots of callers.
|
|
|
|
TLR
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,007
|
|
2345 comes to 25 points under hutchison, and 2344 comes to 22
Both are in the playable range but I would still not play them
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
