question: omaha vs Hold em

[beckham9]

just pondering: Because Omaha is a more skilled game in that there is more happening and fewer people know that game than hold em, is it perhaps full of softer games in general than hold em? fewer skilled players? more profitable to good players?

all thoughts appreciated.
B9

[Dynasty]

Omaha does not require more skill than hold 'em. But, the four cards in your hand can give the illusion that it does require more skill.

[El Dukie]

At identical (lower) limits, a decent-to-good Omaha (referring specifically to O/8, not PLO) player can make more money than an equally skilled Hold'em player. That's because there are a lot of very loose, very passive lower-limit Omaha games. That said, it's difficult to find Omaha games above 6-12 that play that loose and passive. When you start to get to mid-limits (over 10-20) there aren't many Omaha games (at least in California/Vegas; my understanding is that Omaha is bigger in the South), and you'll have a much broader range of Hold'em games from which to select.

Bottom line: At lower limits, you can make more playing Omaha; but you'll top out when the games dry up as you move up in limits.

[dakine]

When we have between 3 & 5 players for holdem, we switch to Omaha Hi.It does take more skill to play Omaha Hi, and even more skill for HI/Lo. Unless you have really crappy hole cards like K 3 5 10o,(I muck) more often than in Holdem, with your four hole cards, you will see a flop. Your hand literally changes after each flop. You have to really think! about making a winning hand, and there is a helluva lot more betting. Remember, you can use only two cards out of your four hole cards, and the five flop cards to make your final five card hand. It is a fun, exciting game. One of a few Omaha books I recommend is, Ken Warren's "Winner's Guide To Omaha Poker". Good Luck.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Omaha is a more skilled game in that there is more happening and fewer people know that game than hold em, is it perhaps full of softer games in general than hold em? fewer skilled players? more profitable to good players?
B9

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you mean Omaha Hi or Hi-Lo, but I think that Hi-Lo is much more common in this country, and that's what most people play here.

O8 is a much more confusing game because there is a lot going on, but not necessarily more skilled. I'm not sure that there is any larger percentage of O8 players who are clueless than in Holdem. But O8 attracts action junkies, and many of them think that they are doing better than they are because they win a lot more pots (usually split pots) than they do in HE. And those players have found that they win a lot of pots by playing any 4 cards, and calling to the end if they get any piece of the flop. They don't understand that you can win a quarter of the pot and lose money on the hand.

Cappelletti points out that expert players have a much smaller edge over good players in O8 than in HE, but that good players have a much bigger edge over poor players. Sklansky says that O8 is much more a game of hand evaluation, while HE is much more a game of psychology. I believe that hand evaluation is much more objective and easier to learn than psychology, and so it is easier to become a good player in O8 than in HE. O8 doesn't require more skill, it requires a different set of skills. Every poker writer that I respect says that it is easier to make money at O8, particularly at lower levels, than at holdem.

[WEASEL45]

You should see less flops in Omaha then in Holdem

[dakine]

If it walks like a skill, talks like a skill, it is "Skill" in Omaha or Holdem, and "Rots of Ruck".

[ILikeApples]

For me, Omaha is easier to play than Hold'em. Why? Many times, the nut hand will win in Omaha. So if you are on a draw, you know exactly how many outs that you have and can accurately calculate your pot odds. Betting, calling, or raising should be just a formality if you have your pot odds precalculated.

It is different in Hold'Em because you don't know for sure if you have the best hand if you don't have the nuts. Also, you don't know if your draw is any good if you are not drawing to the nuts.

Omaha is a more mathematical game. Hold'em is a more artistic game. I used to be an engineer, so naturally I prefer to play Omaha.

[Scotty O]

[ QUOTE ]
You should see less flops in Omaha then in Holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

TOTALY disagree. You should see about 2x as many flops in PLO than NLHE

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should see less flops in Omaha then in Holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

TOTALY disagree. You should see about 2x as many flops in PLO than NLHE

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "less flops" arguement applies to limit O8 vs. limit hold 'em, especially for new players. In big bet games, a lot of "rules" can be broken if you're a great play. Of course, everybody thinks they're a great player.

Is that Alex Wildstar in your avatar?