|
|
#62
09-25-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Townsend drops Hold\'em vs Omaha shocker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] when fish play omaha they are much worse than when they play nlh. [/ QUOTE ] There are plenty of positives for omaha. This is not one. [/ QUOTE ] Yes it is fool. [/ QUOTE ] Games where fish bust quickly are not good games. 
|
|
#63
09-25-2007, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Townsend drops Hold\'em vs Omaha shocker
PLO is the game of the future, and it always will be
|
|
#64
09-25-2007, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Townsend drops Hold\'em vs Omaha shocker
Having also played a lot of NLH and PLO, I disagree. Each game has its merits and I think overall NLH is better simply because its easier for beginners to learn.
|
|
#65
09-25-2007, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Townsend drops Hold\'em vs Omaha shocker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] flopmaha seems ok, but pales to DOUBLE OMAHA (2 flops, 2 turns, 2 rivers) [/ QUOTE ] That's what we play. Two full boards. [/ QUOTE ] Two full boards playing independently of one another doesn't seem to be that bad of an idea fwiw. [/ QUOTE ] Right, it's a split pot game. Unless you scoop.
|
|
#66
09-29-2007, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Townsend drops Hold\'em vs Omaha shocker
If we define "suckout" as hitting a 4-outer or less, then it seems that there are actually fewer suckouts in PLO than HE... I think the expert return on time is greater in PLO simply because people can play more hands per hour, and that weak players can make many more mistakes post-flop. (I've seen PLO players with a 20 VPIP and they're still losers because of horrible post-flop play.) This is especially true when the money is deep, as is often the case in high stakes games where the same players are at the table for long periods. In deep money situations, trying to draw out as a slight under dog can be too expensive. Also, since PLO is a more positional game, a superior player can better exploit the fish's positional ignorance. Of course PLO has more variance, but we're talking about average returns here. On the other hand, it's harder to isolate a single fish in PLO than in NLHE. So if you plan on the bulk of your profits coming from a single fish at your table, maybe NLHE is better for you. PLO is a tough sell for beginners who have already learned HE -- Girls complain that there are too many cards, and guys complain that you can't blast someone out of the water with a manly overbet. Both boys and girls get confused with the "exactly two cards" rule -- if they don't get punished severely for this, they at least find it a constant annoyance. Finally, newbies to poker get killed in PLO, and fast. There is zero beginners luck in this game simply because the number of bad calls far exceed the suckouts... at least from what I've seen at my home game (where we play HA). On top of this, PLO isn't on TV regularly, and probably never will be because there are just too many cards to digest, even for an experienced player. I suspect HE has already overtaken PLO in popularily in Europe simply because the TV exposure and the EPT, WSOPE, etc. Anyone know if this is true??? I'm sure this will be yet another example of American cultural imperialism stamping out a beautiful, indigenous culture.... PLO is a great game, but it's probably something that will remain the domain of true poker afficianados/degenerates/high-rollers. For the masses it's probably Hold'em forever -- I don't see a "next" game that has the same facade of simplicity, the TV friendliness, and the flexibility to be playable in limit, pot-limit, and no-limit stuctures. Plus, in NLHE you get to say, "all-in!" and that's really cool...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
