Ciaffone on Omaha High

My copy of Bob Ciaffone's "Omaha Holdem Poker" just arrived, and I'm sure its reading will inspire a number of questions which I would like to explore with your help. Having read the section on starting hand selection for high only Omaha (about 7 pages of relevant info), I would like to start with a broad declaration of Mr. Ciaffone which surprised me; he wrote: “…there is more skill in the selection of starting hands at Omaha than at any other form of poker.” Do you agree? If the selection of starting hands is more complex in Omaha than in seven-card stud, then I’m missing something [which is entirely possible given my lack of expertise in both these games].

well just off the top of my head, since a starting hand in stud is 3 cards and it's 4 in omaha, it stands to reason it must be more complicated right there.


But to me, it doesn't matter which is more so. The point is to study and learn the best starters for each game.


Good Luck with your omaha career Mike, I've been spending a good bit of time on the game and I think there is a good future in it and with it.

seems to me that Mr. Billy Hill got right to the heart of the matter....more cards, thus more relationships between the cards


is stud, you may build upon this, slowly one by one. whereas in Omaha you will suddenly be confronted with the "fit" of the three card flop


not uncommon to see players overlook something in their omaha hand...far more so than stud


that is a good book, and will help in what is a very good game. my limited experience in omaha suggest that players are more willing to gamble in omaha than in hold-em. I suppose that in fact, they must...it's a draw out game.

In stud, it is necessary to consider as many as seven additional (up)cards when selecting starting hands, as well as the proclivities of the opponents holding them and your position relative to them.

I hate to burst your bubble but form what Mason Malmuth states in much of his writing Omaha high does not have much of a future.


From one of his essays he says the following:


"...and why is this form of Poker (Omaha High) not looking forward to a very good future? I believe the reason is that it's too easy to make the nuts in this game. Once anyone has some experience at Omaha, he quickly learns to draw for the nuts or (in many cases) to throw his hand away. This means that you cannot punish your opponents for making mistakes, since experienced Omaha players make very few mistakes (Compare this to conventional Hold'em where some players-who have years of experience-still make numerous basic mistakes.) This means everyone plays about equally, that is even the best players have low win rates." (Poker essays I pg.231)


Malmuth goes onto state that the standard deviation or "luck" factor in this game is extremely high, making it even less desirable for skilled experienced players. No experienced players,no one to form a core to keep games going day after day, and thus no future in this form of poker.


He also states though that this does not apply to Omaha Hi-Lo 8 or better.


I personally have never played the game. But I have dealt it albeit only rarely at the Casino where I work.


Another reason why players don't like it from a dealing point of view is that it takes too long to deal. With ten players you generally go through most of the deck each hand. It's too slow.


Maybe Mason is wrong.


Benevolently,


Yvonne

Yvonne,


You've raised an issue which is of more interest than the topic of this thread. I agree that limit Omaha is not an attractive game for serious poker players due to the factors Mason describes. OTOH, the large luck factor may appeal to recreational players who are not playing to earn money...and those players far outnumber the winners.


I am primarily interested in the pot-limit form of the game, which appears to provide more opportunity to profit from skillful play. To what degree do Mason's arguments apply to pot-limit Omaha?


Regards,


Mike

Omaha is a NUTS game and in this fashion it loses great interest when you are involved with NOT-NUTS OR NOT-DRAWING TO THE NUTS HANDS.


On the contrary, The major fascination of this game comes from the BLUFFS more difficult to attempt at hold'em limit games.


However, the skill factor IN THE LONG RUN have a great weight in this game and IMO is higher than hold'em games.


Hand selection in 7-stud is not a great problem; OMaha starting strategy is a lot more difficult----it's funny to know (Ciaffone' book) that the best starting hand to fight A-A-K-K double suited is 5-6-7-8!


Marco

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that selecting ohmaha high hard starting hard is harder than 7stud, or even a difficult poker decision. ALot of authors like to paint their game as the hardest to play but sorry picking omaha starting hands ain't that tough.


Mason's comments about Omaha was for limit high, not pot limit. The game (limit Omaha high) should be an easy game of drawing to the nuts. I don't Malmuth's comments were incorrect at all.

Michael:


There are two points to make hear I believe from your last message. They are 1)Pot limit Omaha Hi games and the type of player you hope to find in games (i.e. recreational players)and 2)Pot limit Omaha Hi prospects.


First of all the recreational player will most likely find themselves in limit games because of the intimidating nature of Pot limit. To that extent you are stuck with Mason's prophecy and his opinion on the nature of the game. However what I wrote previously did deal with limit Omaha Hi, not Pot-limit Omaha Hi.


He states in another quote I found in one of his essays regarding Limit Omaha High


"If ever there was a worthless game this is it. The luck factor is too great and the skill factor to minimal. In Las Vegas I know of only a few cardrooms that regularly spread limit Omaha Hi and these games seem to be getting slowly weaker. I don't believe this game has a future"


On the other hand regarding Pot limit Omaha Hi (I believe he means Omaha Hi since it follows, the quote above)Mason says:


".....this form of Poker (Pot limit Omaha Hi)is more interesting and requires more skill than the limit version, but it suffers from the same problems that no-limit and pot-limit hold'em suffer from. That is, the suckers quickly get killed, and there seems to be fewer suckers every day. Pot-limit Omaha will still live at the Major tournaments and occasionally will be spread in the big cardrooms, but the games should slowly get worse. I believe there is still money to be made in this game, but that may not be true a few years from now."


I'll bet you liked the beginning of that last sentence :).


After this he again states that Omaha eight or better has a brighter future.


Regarding no-limit hold'em Mason states:


"...the problem with no limit hold'em is that the expert player has too great an edge over weak players and will virtually never lose to these players (unlike limit hold'em). Since bad players almost never win they either go broke, find another game, or quit playing poker altogether. Unfortunately there is not much future in no limit hold'em."


He then states following the above that His feelings about Pot-limit Hold'em are identical to No-limit hold'em.


The above Mason statements may be found in his book Essays 1 pages 228 and 229.


So I guess Michael. If you are good and there are some poor players AND there are Pot-limit Omaha Hi games to be found. You're in!!


Hope this helps.


I wish you well


Benevolently,


Yvonne

Interesting observation:


A game in which I play occasionally is a dealer's choice flop game (pineapple, holdem, omaha )


These players are really bad and play almost every hand all night long.


Except when someone calls Omaha High ... suddenly approx 3-4 people see the flop and most drop on the flop. The baddest of baddest players say , "you have to draw to the nuts in this game".

n/t

that omaha is a doomed game. it is very much alive there!!


went there for a tournament at the Horseshoe(JACK Binion) about a month ago. in side games there were more tables of pot limit omaha than any other red chip game!!! at one point there were more of those omaha games than all of the other red chip games combined!!


once there was a big omaha game going in same area as the tournament--huge pile of chips and cash in pot for one hand drew so many spectators that even some tournament players left their seat to watch.


in Houston those places which have played pot limit hold-em for years are now all playing one round of hold-em followed by one round of omaha.


while Mason's logic may be good, it seems his prediction of death for omaha is bad.


once each week I drive to Houston to play in one of those pot limit games....the guys there who are playing for fun seem to love it...they want more Omaha and less hold-em...manager there now lets each player decide which of the two games will be dealt as the deal goes around.


profitable? to say the least....

You are referring to a limit game? Your observations seems inconsistent with the fact that Omaha high hands generally vary less in value than holdem/pinapple hands. It is also inconsistent with my limited experience with limit Omaha games. The regulars in your game may be atypical. Do most of them prefer to play high-low games?

Yes, most do prefer to play hi-lo games ... and it is a limit dealer's choice game. I just find it kind of amusing that in all other games they will play basically any 4 (or 3) cards but when someone calls Omaha high they suddenly shift to tight players.


I'm guessing that as awful players as they are they do in fact realize that they have been burned by playing hands less than the nuts too often

Malmuth's comments was for LIMIT O HIGH only. The pot limit version is not as trivial as the LIMIT HIGH only version. His comments were for LIMIT High only.