Playing Against an A-2

After several hours of playing in a not-as-loose-as-I-would-like-it $10-$20 Omaha high-low game at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, I had noticed that the player three seats to my right had raised before the flop seven or eight times, and each time we were able to see his raising hand, he had held an A-2. And he had raised with his A-2 holdings from both early and late positions. Also, he had not raised before the flop when holding pocket aces under the gun.

In the small blind, I picked up an unimpressive 10-6-4-2 with two hearts. From middle position, that same opponent raised before the flop, and everyone folded around to me. Since there was a good chance that I knew half of his hand, I raised, hoping to get the big blind out. The big blind folded, leaving just the two of us. Was my assumed knowledge of his hand a sufficient enough advantage to justify playing a "mixed junk" hand?

The flop came Q 9 3. It was pretty useless except for the flush draw. But it probably looked bad to my opponent, also. Since I thought I knew two of his cards, he rated to have only a pair at best. Note that having the flush draw, which would probably win high if it hit (it hits about one time in three), provided additional justification for playing the hand aggressively.

I thought about betting, but that might get him into calling mode (I had watched him stubbornly call down other opponents on two prior occasions). So, I went with the two-way check (either get a free card or bluff a check-raise). Note that the two-way check is a ploy that I use more frequently after the fourth card (the turn) in hold'em.

He bet, and I check-raised. I had a tight image, and I knew he didn't like it, but he called. If he was capable of putting me on a hand, he probably thought I had top two pair or trips.

The turn card was the 5. This was actually a good card for me, as it gave me 17 outs for a straight. But even more important, if my opponent made his low (and hence would call my next bet), every low-making card but an 8 would give me a straight for probably half of the pot (and an ace or deuce would probably give me a scoop).

Obviously I had to bet to preserve my illusion of having a high hand in case the river was a high card, in which case I would have to bet since he might well fold (and it would be my only chance of winning).

The last card was a 10. So, there was no low. I thought about betting, but he might well call if he had my pair of tens beat. And now that I had this pair of tens, I no longer had to make the desperation bet to fold his ace high (which, prior to my pair of tens, would have beat my no-pair hand if we checked).

So, I checked. He thought for a moment and checked, also. He had a 9 (which gave him a pair of nines) with his expected A-2. My pair of tens won the pot – another game of inches.

Thus, the operation was successful, and the patient lived. However, if some other high card had hit the river instead of the 10, it is not clear whether or not he would have called my bet with a pair of nines.

The bottom line is that sometimes, even in wild and woolly Omaha high-low games, you can acquire very valuable information about opponents' tendencies that provides a basis for various maneuvers. Having information that is probably accurate in Omaha high-low is often sufficient to prevail against what might otherwise be superior cards.