Is plo really worth it?

[Vammakala]

Omaha was for long, one of the most played games in europe before the hold'em boom. If you can find enough games, the players are really horrible and there's lot of money to be made (at least in the low stakes ^^ heh don't go well with "lot of money"). The average omaha player on these levels seems like a bad hold'em player, they go broke with AAxx on QJTT9 board etc. (Yea this did happen for over 100 BB stacks at PLO100). Mmkay.

[Big Dave D]

I think he is only right in the FT big games.

gl

dd

[guilt_trip]

Yes. I think a skilled, disciplined Omaha player is likely to make more than NLHE per 100 hands at the same limit. There is some truely woeful play at the lower limits of PLO and this can be profitable.

The volatility is bigger in PLO (due to the nature of the game) but if you can control the downswings then the upswings make up for it plus some.

[Riddick]

One thing that bites is that playing 4-5 full tables of PLO I only get in about 200-250 hands per hour, while my friend the 6max NLHEer gets in over 400 per hour playing 3-4 tables. This amplifies both the winrate return and, just as important, the rakeback.

[RoundTower]

This post makes no sense: first you are comparing 9 handed PLO to 6 max NL, then you are complaining about paying less rake.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is only right in the FT big games.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to point out the obvious, but wouldn’t this be more dependent on how many people you are better than? Or are you saying that the fewer people you have, then skill becomes less important because you have to play more hands? It seems like shorthanded, your variance would go up, but isn’t shorthanded PLO harder? And therefore, more skill equals higher total winrate?

As if I didn’t already ask enough questions, I was sweating that big FT game last night, and it seemed awfully nitty. Does that happen at the highest levels when there are no fish in the tank?

[Riddick]

Let me walk you through this.

[ QUOTE ]
first you are comparing 9 handed PLO to 6 max NL

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm, thats because...

[ QUOTE ]
With all the terrible play occuring holdem ring games is omaha really worth it? I'd imagine there is much more money to be made playing holdem. Dicuss?


[/ QUOTE ]

to which I responded

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that bites is that playing 4-5 full tables of PLO I only get in about 200-250 hands per hour, while my friend the 6max NLHEer gets in over 400 per hour playing 3-4 tables. This amplifies both the winrate return

[/ QUOTE ]

quite clearly indicating that given equivalent winrates at PLO and NLHE, more $$$ can be made playing 6 max NLHE in the same amount of time played.

Did you have supernatural insight into the exact forms and sizes of the games "omaha" and "holdem" that the OP referred to? Or, is there some specific game called "omaha" or "holdem" that Im not aware of?

[ QUOTE ]
, then you are complaining about paying less rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where was I complaining about paying less rake?

In layman's terms here:

More hands in same time = more rake = more rakeback.

Did I make sense this time to you?

[RoundTower]

OK I'd prefer not to get in a flame war here but:

you say you are playing 250 hands/hour playing 9 handed PLO, while your buddy plays 400/hr at 6 max NL. If you played 6 max PLO and he played full ring NL, probably you would get more hands than him.

The rakeback question I leave as an exercise to the reader.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
OK I'd prefer not to get in a flame war here but:

you say you are playing 250 hands/hour playing 9 handed PLO, while your buddy plays 400/hr at 6 max NL. If you played 6 max PLO and he played full ring NL, probably you would get more hands than him.

The rakeback question I leave as an exercise to the reader.

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpret Riddick's statements to mean that NL offers 6-max while PLO doesn't, and that inherent advantage means 6-max has higher # hands/hr but also that winrates are higher.

I also take his comments to mean he is including rake in the winrate # to start with, so his "you get more rakeback" is really another way of saying "yeah, you pay more rake, but the winrate is more than enough higher to offset this".

I agree its not clear from his comments tho. And if he doesn't mean that, then his comments make much less sense.

-g

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]

I interpret Riddick's statements to mean that NL offers 6-max while PLO doesn't

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought he meant this too, but it's clearly untrue.