$400 Worth it?

[nazz]

Hello,

I"m a lurker as u can tell from my post #, i prob could spend a few hours and use the search function but i know there are some plo players out there who don't mind answering ?'s from newbs.

K, i have $400 bucks i'm willing to start my omaha roll with, not much i know but that's what i'm working with. I've been playing on and off so i have a general idea of the game but still a lot of hours needed.
1. 10plo or 25plo?
2. PS or FTP+rb?

And yes i know most of you will either post "search" or "short stack a med stakes game" But honest responses are appreciated.

[TheRempel]

1. You don't say how much knowledge of the game you have. While you certainly can have a very low risk of ruin at $25 PLO with 16 buy-ins you should start at $10 until you build some confidence.

2. Neither is going to be a signifigant amount at those levels unless you are playing like 4000 hands a day, but RB on FTP will generate extra money for you faster than trying to get supernova or whatever on Stars will.

[Silent A]

Until you develop some confidence in your basic game I suggest you start at 10 PLO. Feel free to take some shots at PLO 25 because $400 is enough to bankroll a winning player there.

And as low as it sounds, PLO 5 can be almost as profitable as PLO 25 on a per hand basis because the players there are absolutely horrid, even by PLO 25 standards. Nut peddler's dream.

Can't comment on PS vs. FTP because I only play on Stars.

[Silent A]

LOL. Nice choice of words Rempel.

And I still type slow.

[nazz]

thanks rempel for the ninja quick response, much appreciated. I played maybe 1k hands at 10plo&25plo and i was 100% new to the game and did probably break even. I have been playing play money for a few weeks now to just get the grasp of the game and putting HH into the equity calculators to educate myself so i mean play money is play money so i am not saying that makes me triple sweet at all but i think i can play better than break even out the gate.

[slowhand5]

If you play aggresivly at PLO25 that 400 can be gone really quick. I used to 8 table PLO25 for a little bit and I had a couple 10 buy-in downswings. If you can get more money online then go for 25 but if this is all you got, build it up a bit at the 10 tables.

If you got RB for FTP stick with that for low limits. The FPP system at stars is much better for higher limits.

[Alchemist]

Is it still advisable to play the $10 tables at FTP over the $25s considering how they rake it there? At the $25+ tables it's 5% but at the $10s they take a sick 10%. I'm pretty new to PL games and I'm just learning myself, but I play on FTP for the rb but I still avoid the $10 tables just on principle.

[Aisthesis]

Nut-peddle at the $25 with full buy-in. It works fine.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You don't say how much knowledge of the game you have. While you certainly can have a very low risk of ruin at $25 PLO with 16 buy-ins you should start at $10 until you build some confidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely start at $10
You need to learn a lot about Omaha, such as not throwing 2 buyins away after losing 1 to a bad beat. We all do it, and you really don't want to be learning that technique at the higher limits.
Treat the game as a hobby that hopefully wont cost you any money, don't try to win too quickly.

[Aisthesis]

That's probably true. I know the PLO100 on Stars has gotten better lately, and maybe it's also trickled down further. But when I was playing 25, seriously, I just waited for the stone cold and potted like crazy, and it made for phenomenal win-rates. Just don't worry at all about having laid down the best hand a lot of the time. At least in those days, they were betting like complete fools, so that definitely happened.

I honestly can't imagine a genuinely aggro game working very well at all at the lower stakes. There's basically no fold equity ever--again, judging from the past, but it's certainly possible they've gotten better.