Omaha winrates vs Holdem winrates

[Nitilism]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you're paying <7 PTBB/100 of rake, of course you can't make 20 PTBB/100. You're not playing aggressively enough and getting in enough pots. The way to make a really high winrate is to play a LAGgy style, try to take down a lot of pots and then tilt your opponents. Nut-peddling doesn't do it. For example, with my style, I paid an average of 11.3 PTBB/100 in rake at 0.25/0.50.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me or are you retarded? Because the way I read this, you're saying it's easier to beat the players for 31PTBB/100 than it is 20PTBB/100. LOLOLOLOL.

Regardless, I am calling B.S.

[iggymcfly]

Read it again. I'm just saying that at low stakes, playing a loose-aggressive style wins more than a tight nut-peddling style and that if you're paying <7 PTBB/100 at 0.10/0.25, it usually means that you're playing very tight and not paying a lot of rake because you're not winning very many pots. You do realize that the rake you pay is directly correlated to how many pots you win, right?

[RoundTower]

not to be a nit but at low stakes it is much more strongly correlated with the total volume of pots you win, not the total number.

[Nitilism]

[ QUOTE ]
Read it again. I'm just saying that at low stakes, playing a loose-aggressive style wins more than a tight nut-peddling style and that if you're paying <7 PTBB/100 at 0.10/0.25, it usually means that you're playing very tight and not paying a lot of rake because you're not winning very many pots. You do realize that the rake you pay is directly correlated to how many pots you win, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if we are the same page, and I shouldn't have called you a name, low class on my part but here's the way I see it, Iggy...

If you win 10 pots in y hands, you pay x rake, if you win 20 pots playing a LAG style, then you pay 2x in y hands. So yeah I get winning more hands means paying more rake.

Where you are losing me is that you need to play a lot more hands, and take a lot more marginal hands further to win 20 pots in y hands than the nit who wins 10 pots in y hands does.

So to be more profitable, the value of the 10 extra hands you win less the additional rake you pay has to greatly exceed the value of the additional others you will necessarily have to fold or lose with, i.e., you are crushing in the battle of mistakes. And what I am saying is that I don't think its possible to win the battle of mistakes to the tune of 30PTBB/100.

[iggymcfly]

It totally is though. 30 PT BB/100 is only 3/5 of a buy-in. So if I get one guy to get all-in for 1 BI in a bad spot where I'm 80/20 every 100 hands and play exactly breakeven the rest of the time, that gets the job done. And with a full table full of people who think the fact that you pushed a draw once means they should never fold AA or two pair for the rest of the session, situations like that really aren't that hard to find.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people are used to holdem hand values (AA = AWSOME!!!, King-high flush = AWSOME!!!, etc.) and cannot adjust to the PLO hand values. I've had a ton of people raise the pot on the river with a poor full house when I'm holding the nut full house.

People are much looser preflop in PLO and bad cards lead to bad decisions later on in the hand.

[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.

[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.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people are used to holdem hand values (AA = AWSOME!!!, King-high flush = AWSOME!!!, etc.) and cannot adjust to the PLO hand values. I've had a ton of people raise the pot on the river with a poor full house when I'm holding the nut full house.

People are much looser preflop in PLO and bad cards lead to bad decisions later on in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is why low stakes PLO games are so good. (People using HE hand values, basically.)

But even at higher stakes where people have gotten over this disability, the games are still softer than comparable NL games. So I think there is more to it than that.

[Nitilism]

[ QUOTE ]
It totally is though. 30 PT BB/100 is only 3/5 of a buy-in. So if I get one guy to get all-in for 1 BI in a bad spot where I'm 80/20 every 100 hands and play exactly breakeven the rest of the time, that gets the job done. And with a full table full of people who think the fact that you pushed a draw once means they should never fold AA or two pair for the rest of the session, situations like that really aren't that hard to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can get a guy to go in as bad as 80/20 every 100 hands, you're going to be very rich very soon. The truth is those spots are pretty far between and you know it, and you'll be taking a lot more 60/40 and 53/47 flips playing LAG or TAG.

If some one has a datamine of a player with a real sample taking the games at 20PTBB/100 I would be interested in seeing it.