why DS says PLO is easy?

[skillzilla]

in his book "poker, gaming and life" David Sklansky ranks pot limit omaha as an easy game to play(even easier than 5 card draw)
why is this so, what makes PLO so easy?
does he have ring games in mind with small stacks?
surely shorthanded deepstacked PLO isnt that easy to play?

[soon2bepro]

I guess it's because you play so many hands PF as long as you're not paying much and then don't continue playing without the nuts or a draw to a better nuts than the one possible in the board. It's very mathematical but also simple.

I wouldn't say it's simpler than 5 card draw or razz, but DS must have his reasons. I didn't read that book but I'll see if I can buy it sometime soon.

[sh58]

he probably thinks it is easier cos you can nuts peddle in PLO.
in omaha you can think, 'do i have the nuts or the nuts draw'
wheras in NLHE you hardly ever have the nuts, leaving more scope for subjective play.

i don't agree with this that much tho, as i think PLO offers many complexities not found in NLHE

[Troll_Inc]

If you are peddling the nuts in PLO then you are making a first order Fundamental Theorem of Poker mistake.

[formula72]

cause he is smarter than his PLO opponents usually

[AaronBrown]

I'm also not sure why he said this, I have not read this one of his books.

It's true that you can't go far wrong playing almost any hand preflop in Omaha high, and there are simple rules to tell you when to play. It's also true that you can count on nuts or near-nuts winning. Both of these make the card play pretty mechanical.

On the other hand, pot limit makes it tricky. In my opinion, pot limit is the interesting part of Omaha high. Whether you are a winner or loser for the night can be easily determined by one small pre-flop bet on one hand.

I play a lot of pot-limit Omaha in London and wouldn't recommend anyone try playing with specialists before some serious study and practice.

[baboon]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that you can't go far wrong playing almost any hand preflop in Omaha high, and there are simple rules to tell you when to play. It's also true that you can count on nuts or near-nuts winning. Both of these make the card play pretty mechanical.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think here is a contradiction first you say you cant be wrong playing almost every hand (probably cause preflop match ups are relatively close) and second you say play after the flop is mechanical if you play nut hands. the problem is that you will almost never have the nut hand with low suited cards low pairs or low straight card and you will seldom flop full houses an you will almost never get paid of for them if you do. so i think the approach seeing a lot of flop and continue if you floped the nuts is -EV and doesnt make the game easy.

[AaronBrown]

Okay, I exaggerated a bit. Still, if you are loose about your starting hands, when you do get nuts, they can pay off big; while if you're tight about your starting hands, you'll get nuts a lot (but probably not make so much when you do get them).

I didn't mean it's entirely mechanical, but I think there is a wider range of reasonable play than with other forms of poker.