View Full Version : Why is there no NL Omaha?

11-20-2004, 05:32 PM
My friends and I recently started playing Omaha to mix it up.
However, from looking at one or two internet sites, it doesn't appear that anyone plays Omaha in a NL format.
Can someone explain why this is so? or confirm whether NL Omaha does exist to some capacity at certain sites or B&M places?

I can only imagine that NL Omaha is non-existant because the game would get too out of control and strategy would go out the door, in favor of gambling on most hands.

11-20-2004, 05:41 PM
I do know that the local B&M (Hawaiian Gardens, CA) spreads a $100 buy in NL Omaha
game every day around 3 pm. I can't offer any evidence for the internet though.

Your idea of why no limit omaha may not exist reminds me of a thought by D. Sklansky in his "Tournament Poker for Advanced Players", I think it was when discussing his All-in pre-flop or fold "System", he talks about how he sees that as a strategic disadvantage of No Limit type games, however that was for tournaments not ring-games.

But what would make omaha more "out of control" potentially than NL hold'em? (honest question not smart-ass question that anticipates no reasonable responses)


11-20-2004, 05:57 PM
the player with the temporary nuts tends to wanna overbet the pot enough to shut out all compertion.

11-20-2004, 07:03 PM
Yeah I think greywolf got it right. I remember reading in Ciaffones "Omaha Holdem - The Action Game" that pot-limit is the best structure for Omaha, because the opponents can be observed over multiple betting rounds, in nolimit nearly every hand would be an all-in fest from the flop on.
I personally believe, that the variance in pot-limit Omaha is already very huge, but making the game nolimit would make it a real variance hell. I mean the starting hands are so close in value, playing against a LAG preflop would be very tough, then going all-in on 53% shots on the flop wont help much too reduce variance.

11-20-2004, 07:08 PM
It's very common in Omaha for someone to have the absolute nuts, while it's very rare in holdem. If a holdem player massively overbets the pot, even if he has a strong hand he is taking a huge risk that someone will have one of the few hands that beats him (and in the rare case that the overbettor does have the absolute nuts, he'd probably want to play it in a way that would be more likely to attract action). In Omaha, even if you have the nuts on the flop or turn there are usually lots of cards on the next round that could potentially give someone a better hand. So in pot-limit Omaha, you're usually forced to bet out a strong hand in most situations because it would be too risky to give a free card. In no-limit Omaha, in most situations where you had the nuts you'd rather just go all-in (knowing that you can't be beaten) rather than face further action (which gives the drawing hands an even greater value than their pure odds would indicate since they have the opportunity to either bluff you or to get paid off on some of their outs), and that would eliminate much of the skill in the game (which revolves around how to respond to scare cards on the turn and river). In no-limit holdem, where strong drawing hands are much rarer so free cards aren't necessarily disasterous, it's often a difficult decision whether to bet out, check-raise, or slowplay a strong made hand.

11-21-2004, 12:28 AM
I play the pot limit varient, but there is also action on the NL tables for Omaha on Pokerstars. Have fun, I wouldn't play a NL variant of it, sorry.

11-21-2004, 12:59 AM
I would like to mention that Ultimate Bet appears to have a $.10/$.25 NL Omaha Hi-Lo game. No one seems to be playing in it though.

11-21-2004, 01:33 AM
My thinking is along the same lines as Iceman.
However, it does appear that PokerStars does offer it.
NL Omaha does seem to really take a lot out of the strategy of the game though.

11-21-2004, 07:41 AM
Prima poker has omaha in NL format, both lowstakes ringgame and sng. They are wild but profitable.

11-21-2004, 11:35 AM
One would need to get experience of it to know better. No-limit before the flop, no thanks. No-limit on the flop might be good in loose games; sometimes one can't even bet because there just are too many cards that will beat it on the turn, and the many callers get collectively good enough odds. I am not sure the overbetting on the flop is too big of a problem as if one overbets the nuts one gets action from overnuts and misses calls from players that are not getting the odds with a pot size bet. No-limit offers more variety, so basically more skill. Bad player overbetting the flop, you might not like that as you might rather get good implied odds to try to beat him. The same reasoning for preflop play; one might like to have the option of all-in, but one might not like to give that option to worse players, even though they will make mistakes there too. A very loose game would be better as no-limit, to pick the flop where one is a good favorite and figure to move more or less all-in.