Any comments?

7 Card Stud High-Low ($3/$6), Ante $0.25, Bring-In $1 (converter)

3rd Street - (0.67 SB)

Hero: A:diamond: 4 2 :spade:___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 8 :spade:___calls
Seat 3: xx xx 3 :club:___folds
Seat 4: xx xx A :heart:___folds
Seat 5: xx xx 6 :club:___calls
Seat 6: xx xx 2 :diamond:___brings-in
Seat 7: xx xx 2 :heart:___calls
Seat 8: xx xx J :club:___folds

4th Street - (2.33 SB)

Hero: A:diamond: 4 2 Q :spade:___checks
Seat 2: xx xx 8 J :diamond:___checks
Seat 5: xx xx 6 T :spade:___checks
Seat 6: xx xx 2 T :diamond:___checks
Seat 7: xx xx 2 K :heart:___checks

5th Street - (1.17 BB)

Hero: A:diamond: 4 2 Q 6 :heart:___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 8 J 8 :heart:___checks___calls
Seat 5: xx xx 6 T 8 :club:___checks___calls
Seat 6: xx xx 2 T 2:club:___bets
Seat 7: xx xx 2 K 5 :spade:___calls

6th Street - (6.17 BB)

Hero: A:diamond: 4:club: 2:spade: Q:spade: 6:heart: A:club:___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 8:spade: J:diamond: 8:heart: 6:diamond:___checks___folds
Seat 5: xx xx 6:club: T:spade: 8:club: 7:spade:___bets
Seat 6: xx xx 2:diamond: T:diamond: 2:club: 7:heart:___calls
Seat 7: xx xx 2:heart: K:heart: 5:spade: 9:spade:___calls

River - (10.17 BB)

Hero: A:diamond: 4:club: 2:spade: Q:spade: 6:heart: A:club: 3:heart:___checks___raises
Seat 5: xx xx 6:club: T:spade: 8:club: 7:spade: xx___bets___calls
Seat 6: xx xx 2:diamond: T:diamond: 2:club: 7:heart: xx___checks___calls___calls
Seat 7: xx xx 2:heart: K:heart: 5:spade: 9:spade: xx___checks___folds

Total pot: (16.17 BB)

I don't think I do anything different, until maybe the river. You need to be very sure that seat 5 is going to bet in order to go for the check raise. And it seems likely that he would, looking at his probable straight. So in the end it worked out perfect.

nh, but I'm probably folding 5th. Hard to scoop here, and I don't chase low with only 3BB in the pot.

Thats the part I was wondering about, if it was HU it would not have been worth it.

I might have completed third...but with all the low cards showing, this could weaken your hand a bit and this isnt a bad multiway hand anyway. As for 5th, the call for the low draw might be light, but your opponents are playing so weak, I think you still have some scooping potential. I dont believe the bettor has trips.

i complete 3rd every time. the 2 deuces showing actually help our hand, we shouldn't be afraid of the 8 at all, and the other guy is behind us with a six.

i also don't understand why we're folding 5th when we're ahead on a low draw about 95% of the time in a very multiway pot.

6th and 7th play themselves. nh.

Um, with absolutely no information given as to players, i don't see how 2 players in can be described as 'very multiway'. How do we know there'll be callers behind? Results-oriented thinking??
It's not a good idea to chase low in these situations when you can't easily scoop.

i missed that 4th checked around and that the pot was thus very small. i still think i call here, since no aces are dead (and the weakness shown on previous streets implies that us hitting one is often good for high), and we're about 75-80% to make our low after 5th. moreover, with our board, we can catch a lot of cards that give us some bluffing equity (though from the action it seems as though this table is extremely loose/passive, so maybe that's not right), which is just as good as scooping equity at showdown.

also, this pot is pretty multiway--we know that 2 are in in front of us, and i can't imagine an 88 board is going to fold to 22 betting when one deuce is showing on someone else's board. that makes things 4 way, which means our low makes us a fair amount of money if we get there, and we do most of the time.

Sorry, but i can't let that post go unanswered, because it's riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies. Calling may be acceptable as a sort of optimal, edge-pushing play if we know why this might be so, but not for the reasons in the last post.

Very important to chase lows only when the pot's large enough.

Um, seat 4 folded an Ace on 3rd, and now you're optimistically chasing 2 outs(or runner-runner) for high. In fact, with optimistic cards allotted to our opponents, we still have the worst chance of winning high...

Pure optimism. Even with all opponents holding high cards in the pocket, we're only 70% to hit low(to get as high as 75%, we have to assume high cards folded on 3rd too). With no assumption of their holdings, we're more like 55% to win low. With some low cards scattered in their pockets, we can be as low as 45% to win low. Increase the lows in others' pockets and we can drop to seriously low chances like 30%. And there's some times we'll hit low and lose that half.

lol, make your mind up. With no clue as to the opponents' styles, playing a one-way hand is risky, and we probably need to hit. If we knew they were 'weak-tight experts', you could advocate raising as an 'expert play', but it's usually best to dump. Against loose-passives, we need strong hands. Whereas nits are probably folding here(thereby leaving us with not much of a 'very multiway' pot).


We don't make a fair amount at all. When we are rammed and jammed on 6th, we'll leak like crazy, and maybe lose back any profit we make on the times we hit and extract a measly 4BB(from 5th) as we did here. There's a lot of groping in the dark about what will happen, because we haven't been given any info on opponents.

Calling may not be a massive mistake due to the fact that low draw is possibly best, but hoping that seat 6 is betting with 1-pair, and that seat 7 is calling with a rubbish draw is optimistic.
I'd advise people to remember Todd Brunson's 'Platinum Rule':
PLAY TO SCOOP!!

I've been a specialist at this game for quite a number of years and I agree with Brunson when he said that many will break even or lose even though they start very well, because they don't play to scoop. 7stud8 is a scooping game.
Strong 1-way hands are playable with the right conditions, and it's not a given here.

asohang, you're probably a better stud8 player than me, since i hardly specialize in the game, and i totally understand that you're advocating a very solid style. that's fine, and honestly it's probably better advice to give to players who are learning the game.

but i'm not joking when i say that a very aggressive style works EXTREMELY well against players who have a basic idea of starting hands but play relatively poorly post-third, and by that i mean overly tight. i think that most of where we're disagreeing is stylistic--i mean, i understand your points completely, but i think that hands like these, where multiple villains pair low door cards, are IDEAL pots to pick up with the worst hand (and, relative to the field here, we're barely behind, if at all). if we call here, and catch a wheel card or a six, a raise and bet on the end takes down the WHOLE pot a LOT of the time against players you'll find at 3/6. i've watched my coach play at 30/60+, and that doesn't work up there, but i do promise that it does at lower limits.

one other point, though: it's not a good idea to talk about "only chasing lows when the pot's large enough" with respect to stud8. people overplaying highs without the necessary hand reading skill to do so get absolutely annihilated playing split pot games. the idea, rather, is to freeroll a low and make a high occasionally that will allow you scoop in rare occasions, while using the half pots you win to keep you afloat or winning very, very slowly. at 3/6, and in pots where 5 people and some 8s are going to see 4th, half pots are plenty good enough. we are ahead for the low here, and if the 3rd street play is any indication, there is no reason to think we're going to see everyone behind us fold 5th for one bet (the bluff equity comment implied calling here to raise a straight card 6th rather than raising here and limiting the field--that would be a dumb thing to do if we were in fact drawing to an oesd-6 or some such thing). and even if we brick, it ain't going to be expensive to go further--3/6 players will NEVER ram and jam 6th as you're afraid of unless they really do have a monster or lock high. promise.

Ok, so then i guess in knowing the level of Stars 3/6, you know something i don't. That's the information which OP needs to convey if he's familiar with this Stars level.
To be honest, I remember playing Stars low stakes, and it was tight, tight, tight.
If aucu or someone else can confirm the play here, I might deposit some money and play. I'm not playing stud8 much now after Paradise, Pacific and Party lost the player bases.

If the players are so weak as to not be completing and raising, folding rivers and so on, then I accept continuing can be +EV. I said as much in my post. But it's risky and I'm inclined to fold with no reason to believe that we can reasonably scoop. I'm aware of everything you said in the last paragraph about ¹/₂ pots etc, but i can't call if I think they have 2-pair+ and low draw and there'll be folding behind. But if we stop arguing about continuing on 5th and accept the continue option, shouldn't we start errors earlier in the hand by betting 4th??

Btw, I'm finding it hard to believe the play as seen here and described by checkymcfold. I definitely fold in the types of games I see on Stars, but maybe the tables get silly after 1am GMT(2000 EST).

I don't need more than 5 hrs sleep, so this could be worth changing sleeping patterns for(I've done this and played 1900-0100 EST before, and made good profits before the bans).
Does $5/$10 get silly? That's the highest I can play right now, although this could be stepped up to $10/$20, not $30/$60 though.

i've only logged about 10k hands of stud8 on stars over the last year or so at 3/6-10/20, mostly to fix leaks i was noticing in my horse tourney game, but what my notes tell me is that the 3/6 and 5/10 players are generally MUCH tighter than this--i've never seen multiple players see 4th with an 8 door when so many low cards are out. most of my notes say "run over this guy when you catch scare cards" or something similar. at 10/20, people will adapt to aggression and start going 3 on you with 2p, etc., but that won't happen at 3/6 and 5/10 unless they hold a str8 7 or something.

also, at tighter games, i'd bet 4th almost every time when everyone bricks. but if the game's LP, i don't know that we have a straight up equity edge relative to the field to bet for value. but that's the sort of marginal thing i still haven't figured out completely about stud8. does anyone have the resources to run the #s on 4th assuming most villains have shitty low draws?

We really have no idea how they play unless we've got notes or been sitting down for a while. Playing straightforwardly would be my choice.

Running the numbers suggests we have no real edge on 4th. I'm not crazy about betting 4th, but if they are weird, passive, sub-optimal players, then my bet on 4th is to:
i) fold a couple so that a bluff is more likely to work later(bluffs are harder to run thru' many players - basic Poker Theory).
ii) initiate deception by betting on a brick(everybody bricked so there's no vastly superior low draw to worry about).
We want high hands out(now or later), since we are unlikely to develop a 'real' high hand.

The later aggressive play is usually better if we can knock out high hands and compete with fellow lows(especially when we have an Ace). If we knock out high hands, we have better chance of collecting if we fail to develop a real hand(high or low). High hands may improve or call down, whatever the betting.
Low hands, however have to get there, and developing a low pair might not be enough for then to call down with on 7th. Also, we prefer low hands to chase the pot, since we are less easily scooped by them - or at least we have more visibility that they're improving against us!!