Omaha winrates vs Holdem winrates

[Borys313]

Its common knowledge that Omaha at the same limits as holdem is a bigger game with larger swings. Does it mean that a good omaha player can achieve a bigger winrate then a holdem player at the same level?
Anyone cares to post his stats?

[CrushinFelt]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone cares to use the search function?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ribbo]

The bigger winrate comes from the lack of information available for omaha vs holdem.
Someone who is the best player in the world at Omaha has a greater edge vs the field compared to the best holdem player in the world IMHO.
Omaha is a lot tougher of a game to be great in, due to the on the spot math you have to do plus as previously stated, the reduced information available. But it's extremely rewarding once you get there.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Omaha is a lot tougher of a game to be great in, due to the on the spot math you have to do plus as previously stated, the reduced information available. But it's extremely rewarding once you get there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always thought Omaha has a pretty low intellectual requirement, and is far easier to master than holdem. The benefit of Omaha is basically table selection - more players coming through who have no idea that 2 pair isn't a good hand.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Omaha is a lot tougher of a game to be great in, due to the on the spot math you have to do plus as previously stated, the reduced information available. But it's extremely rewarding once you get there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always thought Omaha has a pretty low intellectual requirement, and is far easier to master than holdem. The benefit of Omaha is basically table selection - more players coming through who have no idea that 2 pair isn't a good hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Omaha is far easier to _think_ you have it mastered than NLHE. Just look at some of the high stakes players PLO results.

There exist PLO situations that are much more difficult to calculate than NLHE. Even longtime players can't frame the math questions correctly.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]

Omaha is far easier to _think_ you have it mastered than NLHE. Just look at some of the high stakes players PLO results.

There exist PLO situations that are much more difficult to calculate than NLHE. Even longtime players can't frame the math questions correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very very true, both points.

[Aisthesis]

I think the math is absolutely impossible to do on the spot in some situations. I think it comes with lots of experience (having run various hands through 2dimes) that you just kind of "know" what shape you're likely to be in.

Just counting outs on the spot isn't completely trivial, then if you try to get into stuff like "well, I think he has AA with flush draw 40% of the time, a wrap 30% and top set 30%, so can I really call/raise with middle set?" all I know is that it's probably near marginal without doing a REALLY elaborate calculation.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

I've always thought Omaha has a pretty low intellectual requirement, and is far easier to master than holdem. The benefit of Omaha is basically table selection - more players coming through who have no idea that 2 pair isn't a good hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is pretty easy to become decent at omaha and crush the small stakes games by playing only ABC poker. Push your good hands and fold if you get a lot of heat with a decent, but not great hand.

Table selection is HUGE.

[morphball]

The average player loses at both. Pick one and stick to it until you learn it. Then branch out. You usually win the most in the game you like the most, so why worry about what other people can do. You're playing for yourself not them.

[Micturition Man]

PLO games are definitely softer than NL games at the same limit based on my experience and all PT data I have ever seen.

It's not a function of variance though, at least not directly. It's just that people play PLO worse.

I'm not entirely sure why so many people play PLO badly... I think a big part of it is that the close hand values and high variance of PLO lead people to think that they should play looser than is actually correct.

I would say 80+% of PLO players at the 25/50 level or higher play looser than what I personally think is correct. (Of course I could just be too tight.)

Another thing is that I think people's c-betting frequencies in PLO are heavily influenced by their experience with NLHE, and this leads them c-bet far too much in PLO (again, imo).

Some PLO players seem to play this style well (Ilari comes to mind), but I think it's because they are exploiting their opponents and their opponents are failing to exploit them.