Playing a Mixed Bag

During the October 2010 world championship bridge tournament in Philadelphia, a large number of bridge players frequented the Atlantic City casinos, which are less than an hour away by car. I spent most of my time in Atlantic City playing $5-$10 Omaha high-low with a “full kill” (the limit doubles when the previous pot was scooped).

As the big blind ($5) in a kill pot, I picked up the 8♥ 4♥ 8♦ 2♦. There were three callers in front of me. I crawled in for the extra $5 kill. The flop came Q♥ 5♠ 3♥, which gave me an open-end straight draw, a low flush draw, and a third-nut low draw — not great, but a hand that just might win in either direction. Since I now probably belonged in this pot, I made a probative $10 bet to see who else wanted to play. Another possible benefit of grabbing the initiative here is that everyone might fold.

Perhaps you are asking if it is sound to lead-bet here with a third-nut low draw and some mediocre high draws. Omaha high-low is certainly not an exact science. Sure, you can show a profit simply by playing only sound holdings, but all good Omaha high-low players know that you can make a lot more per hour if you gamble a little. And one high-percentage gambling hand is what I call a “mixed hand” — aka a “mixed bag” — in which you have at least medium-strength holdings in both directions.

Note that if you are 50 percent likely to win in both directions, your win expectation is higher than if 90 percent in just one direction. And also note that you often improve your odds considerably when you play some poker with these two-way hands (as opposed to just sitting there and hoping to back in).

In flop games, the first bet after the flop serves as a tactical screening device. There is a presumption (although, as in law, it’s “rebuttable”) that each player who puts in more money actually has something. And you can often figure out what a tight player is probably holding. In Omaha high-low, when there are two low cards in the flop, it is usually right to make a tactical lead-bet with any decent two-way holding. If your lead-bet narrows the field down to one or two loose opponents, you usually will have a good chance of backing into at least half the pot.

In this hand, there was a raise on my left, a fold, and a call, back to me. Since I had noticed that the raiser had been aggressively raising before the flop every time that he held an A-2, I suspected that he was now most likely pushing a set. The caller was not a tight player. I called. Note that if the raise had occurred on my right and I had detected weakness in the caller behind me, it usually would be right to reraise, to fold the player behind me and go heads up with the raiser with my two-way hand.

In three-way action, the J♥ turned, giving me a small flush. Should I bet the $20 here? How likely is it that there might be a higher flush present? I later wrote a BASIC program to simulate this situation. Admittedly, I made some assumptions as to which hands might be played before the flop, but my overall conclusion was that a higher flush would be present about one-third of the time.

While that possibility was an acceptable risk, there were several other reasons for betting into the raiser. Since mediocre two-way hands play best against one opponent, one good reason for pressure-betting here is that the presence of the possible flush on the board (especially when a low is still possible) might intimidate a lesser high hand (such as two pair) into folding.

Another good reason for betting again with mediocre holdings is that if the other players observe you driving mediocre holdings, they will be more likely to call you later when you actually have the goods. Very tight players often lose much of their potential action if most of the other players catch on that they have the nuts whenever they bet. So, I bet the $20 into the raiser, but both opponents called. I had hoped that at least one of them would fold, but I was somewhat encouraged that there was no raise.

The 6♠ rivered, giving me the third-nut low (I’d lose to A-2 or A-4). Although it was fairly likely that one of the two callers was playing an A-2 draw, I think it is still tactically correct to make a “show of strength” bet here. Not only might I have the best high hand, but even if I happen to be beat both ways, if I bet, the nut low might think that I am betting a nut low and therefore not raise because of fear of getting quartered (tied for the nut low, thus getting only one-quarter of the pot). If I check (showing weakness), there might well be a bet and a raise.

One player folded and one called, holding a straight and the same low as mine. So, I won high, tied for low, and won three-quarters of the pot — not bad for a mediocre starting hand and two second-rate holdings. But here’s a warning: Although bullying with a mixed bag usually has a positive expectation, if there is a tight player involved in the pot (who will often win in at least one direction), your expectation may then be negative.

As I thought about this hand, I noted that it also illustrated many of the different reasons for the bets that we make after each round. ♠

Formerly a career lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, Mike Cappelletti has written numerous books on poker and bridge, and is considered to be one of the leading authorities on Omaha. Mike has also represented the U.S. in international bridge competition, and he and his wife were featured in a four-page Couples Section in People magazine. His books include Cappelletti on Omaha, Poker at the Millennium (with Mike Caro), and Omaha High Low Poker.