Which Table Better: Wild or Passive???

Went to HPC last night and played 3-6 kill Omaha8. One table was wild, capping preflop 70% of time. Pots were huge. Other table, the one I played, was very passive. I was the only one who would raise preflop. Everyone kept giving me nasty looks when I raised, but my understanding is that raising preflop in Omaha is usually not a great idea because it gives your hand away. But if everyone is going to stay and chase with 2nd and 3rd nut draws, why not punish them? Well, despite playing tight and good poker, I managed to drop $170 in about 6 hours. Of course, I had numerous bad beats.


The question I have, is if you play solid Omaha8, is it more profitable to play in the wild game or this incredibly passive and game? And should I play many more hands, as there is about a 95% chance of the pot not being raised preflop?


Thanks.

loose passive games are the best to play in and the worst can be aggressive early jammed games.

I agree with Ray here, but with 1 exception.


That exception is when you are in a wild very agressive game with 8-way (I do not mean 7 women and you) action where the bets are capped before it gets to you; you are in excellent position; you flop the nuts and still cannot bet because it continues to be capped before it gets to you. On the river, everyone call and 1 person raises to you when you finally raise. All but 1 person folds (the person with quad aces), and you have the straight flush. You bet--he bets etc for 2 hours. He finally calls and you win and leave.


anyone disagree?

if you are a piss poor poker player...you want a wild g...gl