Texas Holtem Poker

I’m sure it has been discussed at length, but I am in a ridiculously heated argument about the chances of winning a freeze out event, such as a satellite
if you have half the chips and one opponent as opposed to having half the chips and four opponents. Assume each player is of equal skill. I think the chances of winning by the player with 50% is roughly the same in each case.

Answer 1:

There might be a slightly worse chance against many opponents, because they can go all-in and win some pots where they might otherwise have folded. But the factor isn’t significant. My guess is that the other side of the argument is just the opposite — that the small stacks have less of a chance than they would if they combined their assets. That would be wrong.

Answer 2:

You don’t have to beat three opponents to beat three opponents. You can wait and just beat one.  But, since you don’t have to wait, you can pick them off when the opportunities arise, it must be easier to beat 3 than to beat 1.

Answer 3:

I know it sometimes seems that way, but the chances cannot become worse no matter how many ways you divide the same amount of money among equally skilled players. And the chances cannot improve if you consolidate that money in the hands of just one player. That comment is aimed at a winner-take-all tournament, but is also true of proportional payoff tournaments where — in fact — dividing the money equally among many players would improve your expectation of profit, often significantly.

The only local card room that I have time to play at on a regular basis only offers low limit hold’em at 2-4 and 3-6. Despite listening to every detail mentioned by Lee Jones in his book (that Mike Caro endorses) about how to beat the low-limit players who see to many flops, call too many bets cold, and in general make way too many wild draws, I can’t beat the 2-4 game. At 3-6 I come out ahead a lot, usually at least 150% of what I start with, but only if the best players are at a different table. If an extremely tough game hits at 3-6, the best I’ve done is break even. The card room has a fairly large 40k jackpot that they rake for, plus it is an ‘Indian gaming’ casino so they rake a few cents extra for that. Can a solid, disciplined tight but aggressive player ever beat 2-4 hold’em?

Answer 1:

There are very few winners in low limit Poker. The overhead is just to hi. I play low limit for the fun of it. I have to win $12,000.00 a year just to break even this is based on playing about 100 hours per month or 20 hours per week.

Answer 2:

Game selection is all important in situations like this. IMO games with more them 3 maniacs are really hard to beat if more than 3 you might as well play roulette. This goes for ANY limit. My ideal game has 1 or 2 maniacs, some but not a lot of pre flop raising and some good players who can fold a good hand.  If the mix is right I WILL WIN unless the run of the cards is really against me. Be selective and begin to recognize when a good game turns bad it doesn’t take much to turn the tide one or two player changes can turn a
table upside down.

Answer 3:

If you don’t want to play with 9 maniacs you might re-examine your notions of whether there is such a thing as superior play. Variance may rise but ev will rise faster as more players playing poorly enter the lineup. Long term in roulette is totally shot-less but in poker the more maniacs the more like “the house” you become.

I’m sure this is a common question, but I couldn’t find the answer. What percentage of the time in an Omaha hi-lo game is a low hand possible? That is, what percentage of the time are there at least 3 different cards of 8 or less on the board?
Answer 1:
About 60% of the time.
Answer 2:
It depends on how tight or lose the game is. The looser the game, the more low hands there are, at about 61% for very loose hands. The tighter the game, the fewer, at as low as 39%.
Answer 3:
The answer to your question is: 1,561,728/2,598,960 = 0.6009 = probability low is made possible by the cards on the board. Or, as Andrew Prock has pointed out, about 60% of the time the cards on the board enable a low. In other words, the odds are about 3 to 2 in favor of a low. That is if you haven’t seen your cards. However, if you are sitting in a game looking at the four cards in your hand, the odds of low are no longer 3 to 2. For example, if you are looking at KQJT in your hand, then the odds of more low cards appearing on the board increase a bit, to 1,174,656/1,712,304 = 0.6860, making it a little better than two to one that the board will enable low (alas, for one of your opponents). On the other hand, if you are holding A234, then the
odds (in favor of the cards on the board enabling low) drop. The reason is that instead of a 52 card deck with 32 low cards, the deck becomes a 48 card deck with only 28 low cards. The odds of your own hand (A234) making a low become about 11 to 9 (as I recall). If you are familiar with the pre-flop raising and calling tendencies of your opponents, and thus are able to put them on hands, or if someone flashes their cards, then this, combined with your knowledge of the four cards in your own hand, should cause your estimation of the probability of low to be modified. Perhaps that is what Chuck Humphrey meant. Of course, once the flop comes down, it is a whole other ball game. Thanks to fellow posters Barbara Yoon and David esJardins for helping with my probability education and to Steve Badger for helping with my Omaha education. The closest any Omaha book (and my wife thinks I have them all) comes to this answer, as far as I know, is at the bottom of page 54 in Bob Ciaffone’s Millennium edition of Omaha Holdem Poker.