A Few Omaha Simulations - Part 1

Professional poker players work hard to maintain – or increase – their edge in the game. There are hardly any serious professionals who don't use any kind of computer software to improve their game. I have used Wilson Software for hold'em and Omaha for quite some time, other commercial software for hold'em tournaments and high-low games, and special noncommercial programs that focus on big-bet play.

Software programs like Wilson's Turbo Texas Hold'em for Windows are good for relatively inexperienced players, and excellent for professional players wanting to improve on specific things, such as their shorthanded skills. There are quite a few professionals who don't get to play shorthanded poker a lot, since there are almost always full ring games available to them – games that they may view as more profitable and/or less risky than those with five or fewer players.

Now, by using this software and analyzing situations for these types of games, they may suddenly find that shorthanded play might be as, or even more, profitable to them than the full games in which they usually play. Also, playing on the computer against tough opponents (in full ring ames) might be good practice for serious players wanting to move up to higher-limit games. Most software programs are an advisor option, whereby you can ask the computer for the best course of action (raise, call, fold, and so on) for a specific situation. Especially in the most recent updated versions, in which semibluffing and even check-raise semibluffing are part of the advice given, this is a very useful tool.

The game in which I think software programs might be of most help is Omaha – either straight high or high-low.



Wilson's Turbo Omaha for Windows software is excellent for players wanting to become proficient in this game, since they can decide whether or not to play their hands by using one of the point-count systems the program offers, and because they can easily see the proper decisions on every street. There are many additional options (zip the hand, peek at cards, replay the hand) that make the software consumer-friendly, and the statistics section of the hands played is truly impressive. In Omaha, things are not always as clear-cut as they are in hold'em.



After a session of Omaha, you'll often wonder: Did I make the right decisions in playing my hand the way I did, or did I make any kind of mistake? The automatic test capability the program offers will enable you to analyze your decisions and to simulate 100,000 or more hands in just a few minutes. In this column, I will take a look at a few interesting Omaha hands I've played over the past few years, and the sometimes surprising statistical data I found when using this computer software.

HAND NO. 1 (POT-LIMIT OMAHA): 10. 9. 8. 5.; ALL IN ON A FLOP OF 7. 6. 2. AGAINST A. J. 9. 8. (wraparound straight draw and flush draw vs. open-end straight draw and high cards)

At the time this hand took place, in 2001, I was known as a superrock (I had just started playing pot-limit Omaha after being a typical limit hold'em grinder), inasmuch as I played only the nuts or close to it. However, in this hand, I decided to go all in on the flop when all I had was a draw. I had read my opponents to be rather weak, and thought I might be able to win the pot right away by making a semibluff all-in raise. I got criticized, though, for playing my hand the way that I did, not just by the guy who lost the pot to me, but also by a few other players in the game, who claimed I had been very lucky to win. I had raised all in against two opponents, figuring one of them for a set or perhaps two pair, and the other for some kind of draw (probably a higher flush draw or some straight draw). By doing this, I tried to get the draw out and play heads up against the made hand, in which case my hand would probably be the favorite. In fact, I figured it was not unlikely that by raising, I could win the pot there and then by making my opponents fold hands that were currently better than mine. For instance, if they were in there with something like a small set or two pair, they could think they were drawing dead against one of my most probable hands (top set), and out of fear for that, it was entirely possible that I might get them to lay down even fairly strong hands. As it turned out, there was no set out there and my raise got called by a mere open-end straight draw (with no flush possible).



High-speed simulations on Wilson's Omaha software show that my hand will win a whopping 69.9 percent of the time – not bad when all I have is a draw – as opposed to 30.1 percent for my opponent. However, when making my decision, I didn't know I would be able to play my hand all in against just an open-end straight draw; I expected to be up against a far stronger hand than that. (Remember, people must figure me for having a very good hand, considering my image.) I used Wilson's program to play my hand heads up against either top set or the nut-flush draw, two of the most likely hands for one of my opponents to hold – especially since my raise got called. To be specific, I did the following simulations:

Simulation A: 10. 9. 8. 5. VS. J. 10. 7. 7. (my hand up against top set; my opponent has one of the

cards I need for a straight in his hand)

Simulation B: 10. 9. 8. 5. VS. A. K. 5. 3. (my hand up against the nut-flush draw; I also gave my opponent an inside-straight draw)

Simulation A shows that my hand is indeed a small favorite against top set: 53.8 percent vs. 46.2 percent. Analysis shows that for the times that I win, the winning hand will be a flush 54 percent of the time and a straight 45 percent of the time; my opponent's wins come from a full house (69 percent), trips (18 percent), four of a kind (11 percent), and straight (2 percent). This data also shows that if my opponent doesn't improve (that is, if his hand remains trips), he will win only 8.3 percent of the time (0.18 × 46.2 percent). He therefore will need to improve to win, and it is for this reason that my hand – which, to people who are new to Omaha, may seem rather weak – is a favorite over his, the temporary nuts. Simulation B shows that my hand is in trouble when up against a higher flush draw: My opponent is a 56.7 percent to 43.3 percent favorite here. However, the dead money in the pot still gives my hand a positive expectation, meaning that if I play the hand time after time, I will still make money despite being an underdog.

SOME FINAL WORDS

In Omaha high, it is very important to know the exact odds and percentages, especially when playing pot-limit. It is important to know exactly where you stand in a hand in order not to overestimate your cards (which is rather common for people who are relatively new to Omaha), and also not to underestimate them, as you might not recognize situations

that are potentially profitable.



In Part II of this column, I will dig into this matter a little deeper by analyzing three more common matchups taken from live play.