Why does Mason hate Limit Omaha?

[Beavis68]

I say in one of his New Year articles that he had predicted that Omaha limit high would die.

I would like to hear from him why.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
I say in one of his New Year articles that he had predicted that Omaha limit high would die.

I would like to hear from him why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see the article, but I think he talked about it in one of his essay books. As I remember, he didn't say that he didn't like it, but that it would never be popular because experts have a huge edge over poor and even good players. So eventually, the cash would dry up as non-experts found games where they could do better.

Cappelletti says the same thing in one of his old articles. He says that in Omaha high, expert players have a big edge over good players, while good player only have a small edge over poor players. On the other hand, in Omaha/8, experts have little edge over good players, and good players have a large edge over poor players.

Mason predicted the same thing about NL HE for the same reason: the experts quickly win all the money. That was written before the TV boom and the introduction of capped buy-in NL games.

[Packard]

I have been bonus clearing playing Limit Omaha High. It is definately much looser than Limit Hold em at the same two levels that I played.

It is a very uncomplicated game. Either get a set on the flop, a 4 flush or a straight and push the nuts when people call with 2nd best hands like low flushes, two pairs low straights. I can see how this game can get old fast while playing it-too uninteresting compared to Hold Em.

I actually like the game and I have seen some live Omaha High 15-30 that was full of fish good game to play if you can find it.

[Zele]

I think Mason's point was that in Limit Omaha High no one has any significant advantage over anyone else that has played the game for more than a short while. The luck/skill balance is tilted way too far toward luck. This was the opposite of his feeling about NLHE.

[mornelth]

Omaha Hi/Lo is the answer, I think.

[smoothraise]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Mason's point was that in Limit Omaha High no one has any significant advantage over anyone else that has played the game for more than a short while. The luck/skill balance is tilted way too far toward luck. This was the opposite of his feeling about NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

His main point was that Omaha limit strategy was very basic. He believed(and rightly so) that good poker games cannot exist when optimal strategy is very easy to obtain. This leads to "luck" being the factor for winning since no one has edge over another. Eventually "luck" factor evens out and winnings and losses balance. No reasonable person would play this game given these factors since winrate=0, bb/hour=0. Any rake/tips at all and its a -ev game. Completely reasonable to think this game has little future.

The only way this game could exist is to think that some people would play it horribly. I am sure it happens but, one of his points was that this was SURELY NOT the "game of the future." Some, at that point in time had apparently claimed this to be the case.

It takes alot of suboptimal play to make this a +ev game. Since this would be a rare occurance, growing interest in this game seems very unlikely.

It seems the man was right.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I say in one of his New Year articles that he had predicted that Omaha limit high would die.

I would like to hear from him why.

[/ QUOTE ]


For more information on this topic, go to your local poker room. When you get there, go to the front desk and ask, "Hello, what limits of Omaha High are you spreading today?"

[cpk]

For that matter, most small cardrooom managers I know hate all forms of Omaha. The pigeons go broke much more quickly than they do in Hold 'em, and it siphons money out of the Hold 'em games.

[mosquito]

Yet, there is a regular limit Omaha High game (low limit) in Vegas at one of the Staion Casinos (fogot which). I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in years.

[Clarkmeister]

Boulder