High-Low Blind Defense

While I was assembling material for my new book Winning Strategies at Omaha High-Low (coming out this fall, Cardoza Publishing), I discovered that a column I had written many years ago had somehow slipped through the cracks and was never published. Back in the '90s, before we all switched to e-mail, I usually submitted my columns by snail mail. If you're interested in human error stats, that has happened twice in 14 years (26 column submissions per year), which is "acceptable" even when using the robotics .54 percent (three standard deviations).

Playing sixhanded in a tight-aggressive $25-$50 Omaha high-low game, I picked up the 9 8 4 3 in the big blind. A rather aggressive player raised it to $50 before the flop, and everyone folded around to me. Would you defend your blind with my cards?

In the early '90s when I was working with various Omaha high-low computer analyses, in order to determine whether or not a computer-simulated player should defend a blind with a not-so-good starting hand, I formulated the following "blind-calling point count" approach (not to be confused with my Cappelletti Point Count for Omaha High starting hands). Obviously, you would also defend your blind by calling or raising if you had a good starting hand; that is, a normal Omaha high-low calling hand (for example, a hand containing an A-2 or A-3, or four high cards 9 or higher).

2 points for any two prime (A-5 or better) low cards

1 point for a third low card (8 or lower)

1 point for a fourth low card (8 or lower)

2 points for a pocket pair of nines or higher

1 point for a pocket pair of eights or lower

1 point for two cards of the same suit

1 point for two cards that are touching or once removed ("one-hole")

1 point for an ace

If you have a not-so-good four-card starting hand that adds up to five or more of the above points, tests have indicated that there will be more than enough high-low winning potential to show a long-run profit by defending your big blind. In a recent column, I pointed out that another factor in defending your blind is whether or not the preflop raiser will tend to pay you off (having betting momentum) when you hit.

Since the given hand (9-8-4-3) contained seven of the above points, even though I didn't particularly like the hand, I chose to defend. "Think red," I thought to myself. The flop came K 7 6. It was not great, but it gave me a flush draw (albeit low – but OK for heads up), an open-end straight draw, and a not-so-good low draw (for low, I would have much preferred an ace or a deuce in the flop). I checked, and he bet, as expected. I called. Note that I was now rooting for the A, the 2, or a 5 or 10 straight card. The 9 turned, somewhat counterfeiting my nut-straight draw, but giving me a pair of nines, which, heads up, might well be significant toward winning high.

Again, I checked, and he bet the $50. I called. The 10 hit the river, giving me a straight. But a Q-J or J-8 would make a higher straight than mine, and there were many hands that would tie me. But at this point I was happy there was no low, since he probably had a better low draw than mine. Would you come out betting with my cards?

I have noted this situation many times, and firmly believe that you have much more going with a "trap" check-call. If he happens to have you beat (although unlikely), you save the raise, since you would have to call. If you bet, looking at that board, he probably would fold if he did not have a straight. Perhaps the biggest payoff in checking is that you might draw him in for yet another bet, which you would simply call and probably win.

Oh, yes, I checked. He bet his nothing, and I called and won.