Swings in PLO

[Cleveland Guy]

After a couple of "serious" weeks of playing low buy in PLO - I have experience the follow set of swings over the past few days.

Are these normal? or am I playing too LAG? If needed I can probably post a couple hands in question.

All games are played at $50 buy in tables

Wed- Sat - up $225
Sun- Mon - Down $175
Last night - up $210

Normal swings? or no?

[greywolf]

yes, very normal be prepared for higher swings.

[pokerwisc]

yes, this is normal. i once read in an article by rolf slotboom that his win rates in PLO for two consecutive years wer 63% and 59%, and if he is considered an expert, this is a lower win rate than an expert limit hold em player can expect, something like oh, 75% or so, someone correct me if i'm wrong.

if you're often in situations pushing 60/40 edges for your entire stack (in PLO), there should be much variance, so keep pushing edges and the money will come.

[Registrationtoo]

i'd say so.

[Yads]

How does that make sense, Swings in NL Holdem are less than limit holdem. Why would swings in PLO be more than limit holdem?

[pokerwisc]

again, someone correct me if my thinking is off... in PLO one will be put in many situations where they will be pushing a small edge (i.e. something like set vs. a big wrap on flop or AAxx vs. 89TJ all-in preflop), so many times they will not win, but in the long run they will be a winner if they have the edge more often than not. in limit hold em, you might be pushing similar edges (i.e. something like tptk vs. a flush draw on the flop) but not for your entire stack.

so let's say in a PLO session you are have a 60/40 edge situation 10 times, but you win only 3 of them though theoretically you should win 6 out of 10 (the number of times you actually win 6 will vary greatly). if you're in for your entire stack all 10 times against one opponent with the same stack size (and your stack was the same size initially each time, say 50 bb), you lose your stack 7 times (-350 bb), win your stack back and your opponents stack 3 times (+300 bb), you're down 50 bb for the session in this situation.

now let's say it's the same 60/40 edge situation with limit hold em, and you win 3/10 times. the 7 times you lose, you lose say 4 bb, for a net lost of 28 bb. but the 3 times you win get back say 8 bb, for a net won of 24 bb. this leaves you down only 4 bb for the session compared to a lot more (50 in the example) in the PLO situation.

i know this is an extreme example but it might help show how much variance there is in PLO compared to LHE.

i'm no expert at either game but my win rate for LHE is significantly higher than for PLO.

any other want to correct me or elaborate?

[Yads]

This is how it was explained to me on the NL HE forum
Assuming that you are a winning player overall (a key assumption), I suspect that:

1) In no-limit, your biggest winning and losing sessions will have the highest magnitude than in limit.
2) In no-limit a higher percentage of your sessions will be winning ones than in limit.

[Yads]

Oh and also another remark, in PLO you're pushing huge edges less frequently, whereas in holdem you're pushing small edges often. So I think by that definition alone there's going to be less swings in Omaha than in Holdem.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and also another remark, in PLO you're pushing huge edges less frequently, whereas in holdem you're pushing small edges often. So I think by that definition alone there's going to be less swings in Omaha than in Holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strike that, reverse it.

In holdem, most big pots will come up between a strong made hand and a relatively weak draw OR two made hands, one which has the other hand crushed. Therefore you are pushing large edges frequently.

In Omaha, it is rare to ever have a large edge over your opponent, except in set over set confrontations (and even then your opponents frequently have some time of backdoor outs). Therefore you are pushing small edges frequently, and forget this 60-40 stuff, sometimes we're talking 51-49. But as Stupak said even a one thousandth of one percent edge will break the richest man in the world over enough time.

Swings in PLO are monstrous, if you are not experiencing them you are leaving lots of money on the table.

[Yads]

What I meant was that, since most people play Omaha very poorly, you will be able to push huge edges, but less frequently. Since the top 10% of hands in Omaha perform so much better than average hands. As compared to holdem, where the top 10% of hands perform only slightly better than average hands.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Since the top 10% of hands in Omaha perform so much better than average hands. As compared to holdem, where the top 10% of hands perform only slightly better than average hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably the case for Omaha high/low, but for high only I disagree.

AA in Hold'em is a monster. KK, QQ, JJ and AK are huge too. There are no five hands in Omaha which have this much edge over the rest.

Having said that, I'm still not convinced that the variance in PLO with restricted buyins is bigger than in limit hold'em. It's big, but is it really that big?

It's certainly a swingier game than PLHE or NLHE against comparable opponents, though. Capped buy-in NLHE against poor opposition is a license to print money with almost no risk.

Guy.

[Beavis68]

Have you played PLO much YADS?

the really huge hands don't come along often, an even with AAJ10DS or AAKKDS, the wrong flop will turn it to dog meat, it is also a lot harder to get it heads-up pre-flop very often in PLO. Also, the monster hands to not come along very often in PLO. IT is pretty hard to get a 90% favorite hand in PLO.

You will lose your entire stack frequently, and you will win 2-4x your stack much more often than you will in Texas Hold'em.