Discussion:
Edward Hutchison Omaha System
(too old to reply)
prep
2003-12-17 22:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Using the Hutchison points system(http://erh.homestead.com/omaha.html)
could someone explain to me how to total this hand? I get confused when
it comes to the straight draw points.. (step 3)

hand: Ad 3d 4c 5d

Step 1: +4 points
Step 2: +0 points
Step 3: +???? +8 points?

A 3 +1
A 4 +1
A 5 +1
3 4 +2
4 5 +2
5 3 +1
------
= 8 points

Any help would be much apreciated.

Thanks.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-18 02:46:07 UTC
Permalink
You are not the first to raise this question, indicating the need for me to
rewrite this section so that it will be clearer. That task is already on my
"to do" list.

Recall, though, that the system is set up to identify only hands that have a
15% probability of winning in a ten handed game where everyone plays to the
end. The points that are earned under the system are a very close
approximation of the actual win percentage. In other words, a hand that earns
20 points will win about 20% of the time.

A hand like the one you describe does not come close to the required 15%
standard, and when one acquires experience with the system, hands such as this
would just be quickly discarded, and no exact calculation would be made.

Thanks for pointing out the need for clarification.


Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Al Mirpuri
2003-12-19 20:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Edward,

I just thought to post and acknowledge that you have done a great
service to Omaha in particular and Poker in general with your point
count system.

Yours,

Al Mirpuri
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-20 02:31:36 UTC
Permalink
COPY:

Dear Edward,

I just thought to post and acknowledge that you have done a great service to
Omaha in particular and Poker in general with your point count system.

Yours,

Al Mirpuri


Thanks very much for the kind comments. It really must be getting close to
Christmas.

Best wishes.





Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Vince lepore
2003-12-20 03:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
You are not the first to raise this question, indicating the need for me to
rewrite this section so that it will be clearer. That task is already on my
"to do" list.
Recall, though, that the system is set up to identify only hands that have a
15% probability of winning in a ten handed game where everyone plays to the
end.
Against, random hands, right?

Vince
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-20 16:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Yes.

The system is designed to point out hands that have a 15% chance (or better) of
winning against nine other players. It is assumed that each player gets a
random hand and plays it to the river.

Obviously, this is an unrealistic assumption as not even the softest game will
include nine people willing to play every hand to the finish. But, in the
absence of any detailed knowledge of your opponent's starting standards,
willingness to play a drawing hand after the flop, and other variables, no
other assumption is possible.


Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Garycarson1
2003-12-20 17:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
no
other assumption is possible.
I've seen dumber statements. I just can't remember one right off hand.

Gary Carson
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-20 19:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Oh, come on now. I'm sure that I have said a lot of things that were dumber.



Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Freddie
2003-12-20 20:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Personally , I started using his sytem a year ago just as an aid to valuing
hands. Personally I think it is invaluable to the newbie and combined with
Ray Zee's book I have consistently won at (Low Limit) Omaha.

Thanks Ed
Post by Edward Hutchison
Oh, come on now. I'm sure that I have said a lot of things that were dumber.
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Zeem Jr.
2003-12-20 21:38:09 UTC
Permalink
I've found the high-low version worthwhile as a starting point. The idea is
you don't want to get hurt too badly while you learn the game.

The high only version makes me a bit dizzy.

Zeem
Freddie
2003-12-20 22:13:08 UTC
Permalink
sorry I meant Hi Lo --
agree with you
Post by Freddie
Personally , I started using his sytem a year ago just as an aid to valuing
hands. Personally I think it is invaluable to the newbie and combined with
Ray Zee's book I have consistently won at (Low Limit) Omaha.
Thanks Ed
Post by Edward Hutchison
Oh, come on now. I'm sure that I have said a lot of things that were
dumber.
Post by Edward Hutchison
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Garycarson1
2003-12-21 07:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
Oh, come on now. I'm sure that I have said a lot of things that were dumber.
Oh, I'm sure of that too. But, I just can't remember any of them right now.


Gary Carson
Vince lepore
2003-12-21 04:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garycarson1
Post by Edward Hutchison
no
other assumption is possible.
I've seen dumber statements. I just can't remember one right off hand.
Gary Carson
Read Gary Carson's book, I'm sure that's where you've seen dumber
stuff. By the way, you as a wanna be author, should realize how
unfair it is to criticize without offering a non dumb countering
statement. Or are you just a mean spirited snob?

Vince
Vince's Mother's Spirit
2003-12-21 00:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Vincent,

The mean spirited snob is the face you see when you look in the mirror.
That's why I'm still stuck in limbo. Please, Vinny, let me go rest in
peace. Stop being so mean and rude so I can go to my final resting place.

-- The Spirit of Vince's Tormentent Mother
Post by Vince lepore
Post by Garycarson1
Post by Edward Hutchison
no
other assumption is possible.
I've seen dumber statements. I just can't remember one right off hand.
Gary Carson
Read Gary Carson's book, I'm sure that's where you've seen dumber
stuff. By the way, you as a wanna be author, should realize how
unfair it is to criticize without offering a non dumb countering
statement. Or are you just a mean spirited snob?
Vince
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Phat Mack
2003-12-21 03:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
When you ran the hold 'em hi-lo sims, did you stipulate an eight
qualifier for low?
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-21 15:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Yes, all the sims did specify an eight low to qualify.

The Omaha/8 system further assumes that you will have nine opponents, all of
whom play every hand to the finish. This is, of course, an unreasonable
assumption as few games are this soft. However, without knowledge of your
opponents and how they play, no other assumption is possible.

It would go far beyond this simple system if one were to try an introduce other
variables such as your opponent's starting hand requirements, how often they
play a drawing hand after the flop, what are their pre-flop raising
requirments, how often they bluff on the river, etc.

Since none of these important variables can be known and incorporated into this
system, knowledge of it is, of necessity, not the only requirement for becoming
an expert Omaha player. However, if the comments of dozens--perhaps, hundreds,
by now--of players are to be trusted, the system has proven helpful in its
limited role of helping new players determine which starting hands are most
likely to be worthwhile.

NOT INCIDENTALLY, IF ANYONE TRIES THE SYSTEM AND DOES NOT LIKE IT OR FEELS THAT
IT DOES NOT DO WHAT I SAID IT WILL, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO AN IMMEDIATE REFUND OF
TEN TIMES THE PURCHASE PRICE.

Merry Christmas.




Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Phat Mack
2003-12-22 12:57:47 UTC
Permalink
The omaha section suggests playing starting hands with a score of 15 or
higher. Do you have any data on what percentage of starting hands score
15 or higher?
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-22 21:19:21 UTC
Permalink
I can't tell you precisely but I would guesstimate that only about 10 to 15% of
all hands will meet this standard.


Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Edward Hutchison
2003-12-22 21:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Gary Carson recently wrote that I was "dumb."

I had thought that this fact was so well established that it hardly needed
repeating. But then, considering the source, I decided that it represented
Gary's effort to express a sentiment appropriate to the Season.

Therefore, I hasten to respond: "Merry Christmas to you, too., Gary."


Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS

Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
Garycarson1
2003-12-29 07:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
Gary Carson recently wrote that I was "dumb."
No, I didn't.

Gary Carson
Iceman
2003-12-29 15:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Hutchison
Yes, all the sims did specify an eight low to qualify.
The Omaha/8 system further assumes that you will have nine opponents, all of
whom play every hand to the finish. This is, of course, an unreasonable
assumption as few games are this soft. However, without knowledge of your
opponents and how they play, no other assumption is possible.
It would go far beyond this simple system if one were to try an introduce other
variables such as your opponent's starting hand requirements, how often they
play a drawing hand after the flop, what are their pre-flop raising
requirments, how often they bluff on the river, etc.
Since none of these important variables can be known and incorporated into this
system, knowledge of it is, of necessity, not the only requirement for becoming
an expert Omaha player. However, if the comments of dozens--perhaps, hundreds,
by now--of players are to be trusted, the system has proven helpful in its
limited role of helping new players determine which starting hands are most
likely to be worthwhile.
NOT INCIDENTALLY, IF ANYONE TRIES THE SYSTEM AND DOES NOT LIKE IT OR FEELS THAT
IT DOES NOT DO WHAT I SAID IT WILL, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO AN IMMEDIATE REFUND OF
TEN TIMES THE PURCHASE PRICE.
Merry Christmas.
Edward Hutchison
Disregard Carson's rude response. You deserve credit for developing
this system and sharing it with the community. It has helped many
players get started in a game that appears far more complex than it
is.

Constructive criticism: I agree that showdown simulations have limits
- when Sklansky and Malmuth did their holdem hand rankings, they may
have started with showdown simulations, but then made many adjustments
for factors like (1) how much a hand tends to win when it wins and
tends to lose when it loses, (2) how well it performs against hands
that opponents are more likely to play. A holdem example of (1) is
that small pairs will do much better than their showdown results would
indicate, while hands like ATo will do much worse. A holdem example
of (2) is that a hand like 76s will perform better in real games than
in showdowns, since people are rarely in there calling with hands like
Kxs and Qxs (or with hands that would make a higher two pair with a
seven or six). In Omaha-8, hands containing suited kings, pairs of
jacks or A4 lows will win a fair number of pots in showdown
simulations, but the hands they make can't be played strongly, and
they will be very expensive when they lose. Likewise, take a few of
the weakest hands out of the field, and those hands will do much
worse.

Iceman
PacPalBuzz
2003-12-29 21:30:56 UTC
Permalink
<< Subject: Re: Edward Hutchison Omaha System
From: ***@yahoo.com (Iceman)
Date: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 07:09
Message-id: <***@posting.google.com> >>


Ah Iceman - I dropped it over on 2+2, but feel inclined to answer you somewhere
since you persist.

"In Omaha-8, hands containing suited kings, pairs of
jacks or A4 lows will win a fair number of pots in showdown simulations, but
the hands they make can't be played strongly, and they will be very expensive
when they lose."

You have a bunch of stuff lumped together that may merit (does merit in my
humble opinion) separate treatment.

Let's just take suited kings. When you have a suited king in a nine handed
game, one of your opponents was dealt the suited ace roughly one third of the
time. Depending on when the board flushes (flop, turn or river), it should be
relatively easy for a skillful Omaha-8 player* to determine if an opponent has
the ace flush. Not always, but more often than not.

"Skill" in Omaha-8 involves putting your opponents on cards and playing
accordingly. (in my opinion)

In that way, Omaha-8 resembles bridge. There are two aspects to bridge, (1)
bidding and (2) play of the cards. Bidding properly is obviously very
important. You clearly have to bid correctly to stay out of trouble and to get
your due. However, "bidding" requires less skill than "the play of the cards."
To play a hand skillfully, whether declarer or defender, you place the key
cards, often after the first trick or two, and then play accordingly. Look at
it this way: many more bridge players can bid properly than can routinely pull
off a squeeze or end-play.

Similarly, in Omaha-8 you have to be reasonably astute at starting hand
selection, and in knowing when the cards in your hand fit with the cards in the
flop. But neither of these requires much "skill." The "proof" is that many more
Omaha-8 players are good at starting hand selection than are able to accurately
put their opponents on cards.

For those who lack "skill" at playing Omaha-8, king flushes have much less
value than ace flushes. However, skillful Omaha-8 players, though still
prefering the nuts, can often play 2nd nut flushes strongly and confidently.

Stated over-simplistically, the reason you usually can flush (sorry, I couldn't
resist) out the nut flush is that it behooves the player with the nut flush to
bet it strongly. Think about it; you can't slow play a nut flush and give
someone a free or cheap draw to beat you with a full house. (If you're up
against opponents who routinely slow play nut flushes on the turn, you should
plan on a profitable evening). Okay, let's say your opponents are tricky in
varying their play. Even so, they should usually not be coy with their nut
flushes on the turn.

Roughly half of the time when you make the second nut (or any) flush, you make
it on the river, and when that happens it's difficult to know whether a passive
opponent seated behind you has you beaten or not. In that case, you have to
figure that you'll lose one time out of three.

However, when the board flushes on the flop or the turn (and this happens
roughly the other half of the time), the player with the nut flush is more or
less forced to bet it strongly to protect his/her hand.

So okay, I'll agree that someone lacking in Omaha-8 playing skill cannot drive
the betting with a king flush - but if you can read your opponents well enough
to determine when one of them has an ace flush (or draw), then I think you
should be able to drive the betting with your 2nd nut flush almost as well as
though you held the nut flush.

Obviously if you can't tell when you're up against the nut flush going to get
burned one third of the time when you have the 2nd nut flush. But if you *can*
tell, then I think you reduce the burns to one sixth of the time or less. I'm
assuming sensible play.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

Loading...