EV and time.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

I am convinced Pot-Limit Omaha is more complex than Pot-Limit Hold'em. The reason is that there are more possible hand combinations in Omaha than in Hold'em.

In Hold'em each player can combine his cards into 1 hand on the flop, 4 on fourth street and 21 on the river. In Omaha the numbers are 6, 24 and 60, respectively. This make the game essentially more complex.

Of course other matters might have an influence on how complex a game is. One factor is the other players. Another factor is how you play yourself. In PLO it is very often a winning strategy simply to wait for an unbeatable hand. However, when you try to max. your EV, measured in time, you have to figure out when your small flush is any good.

But of course a specific Omaha game may be simpler than another specific Hold'em game.

The bidding structure has an influence of course. So when deciding whether PLO is more complex than then NLHE, I am not convinced, it is only my belief that a possibly more complex bidding-structure, does not make the game more complex altogether.

The same can be said about PLO vs. FLHE, though here I am even a lesser believer, as my insight into fixed limit is very limited, but I do believe that Fixed Limit is more complex than NL or PL.

The most complex game could very well be Omaha High/Low - Fixed Limit. A game I will never play, as it requires much to much concentration at all time. (See my reply to Louie Landale.)

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, might such considerations not apply in some tournaments?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you raise an interesting question here.
I've often wondered whether, in a 300 player $1k Freeroll, I should :

1) Mark myself away from the table for the first three rounds and make some money from a ring game.

2) Limp every hand until I'm blinded out in the hope of hitting the flop big and doubling up or going home quickly. If I double up, it's worth my time to play. If I get blinded out (or come up against a monster) I can then spend the time playing a ring game.

I just feel so frustrated at how much I might have made in another game if I try to play my best game from the start and bust out after two hours just out of the money. To be honest, anything short of the final table still feels like lost earning potential.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I've often wondered whether, in a 300 player $1k Freeroll, I should :

[/ QUOTE ]

Play on auto fold for the first hour or so. When you get a break for a few moments, go all in a few hands in a row. If you manage to double through a couple of times switch back to auto fold again. Continue until in the money or out of the tournament. Got some decent results using this strategy.

[Louie Landale]

As hard as it is to believe, we've finally found someone who spells worse than I do. I've been waiting 6 years to say that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

No, authors don't talk about this sort of stuff. Its hard enough to get them to talk about what affect their actions will have in the near future; they routinely JUST talk about maxing EV right now.

If you have a such a short bankroll and are inclinded to forgo small but real EV, you are playing over your head ..err.. your bankroll. The exception would be if this is a PARTICULARLY good game.

Yes. If you can focus real hard and play great for 50$/hour but for only 4 hours, you are probably better off pacing yourself for $40/hour for 8 hours.

But no, this stuff is not poker theory. Poker theory presumes perfect folks with perfect knowledge and ability playing against other such perfect folks. Yup, its more "poker practice".

- Louie

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am convinced Pot-Limit Omaha is more complex than Pot-Limit Hold'em. The reason is that there are more possible hand combinations in Omaha than in Hold'em.

In Hold'em each player can combine his cards into 1 hand on the flop, 4 on fourth street and 21 on the river. In Omaha the numbers are 6, 24 and 60, respectively. This make the game essentially more complex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The reason is that the vast majority of those hand combinations are irrelevant to the play of any particular hand. In terms of hand combinations, what's important are the number of hand classes where it's reasonable to put in some amount of action. In Omaha, frequently the hand classes are:
--the current nuts
--one of the two or three nut draws.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course other matters might have an influence on how complex a game is. One factor is the other players. Another factor is how you play yourself. In PLO it is very often a winning strategy simply to wait for an unbeatable hand. However, when you try to max. your EV, measured in time, you have to figure out when your small flush is any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have to make these decisions all the time in holdem and only occasionally in PLO. If a player is frequently deciding whether to put money in the pot with a small flush, it's usually a sign of poor play rather than a sign of sophistication.

[ QUOTE ]
But of course a specific Omaha game may be simpler than another specific Hold'em game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about the game in the abstract.

Jerrod Ankenman

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I think these things do deserve a place in Poker-theory, because I belive that so many players want what I want:

Easy money, the easier the better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if you play poker solely for the money (as opposed to entertainment value, the challenge, etc.) then this is indeed the basic issue. And because much of your effort is spent away from the table reading and thinking about the game, a money player should want to play the games that give the best return per unit of playing time and thinking time invested.

In light of this, it seems to me that the periodic debates that arise over which form of poker (limit, no-limit, tournament, etc.) is "tougher" or "more complex" miss the point. Typically, the limit players say that limit is more complex, and no-limit players say the same about no-limit. Then the pot-limit players come in and say that they're both wrong. But shouldn't a money player wish to play the least complex or easiest form of poker (as measured by return versus total effort spent)? If another form of poker is easier than your preferred game, then why the heck aren't you playing it?

(Again, I define "easy" here as "requiring the minimal effort for a given return." If poker were as simple as tic-tac-toe, then it would not be "easy" in this sense, because 99.99% of the players would know and use the no-lose strategy, and no one would make any money.)

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

A very good point.

In my case things happened "in reverse". When i started playing on-line poker, I tried out many different games, but found out that in Pot-Limit Omaha my EV (measured in time) was notablicely higher than in any other game. Therefore I choose that game to try and make the easy money.

Later I came to wonder why it was that Omaha was my best game. My conclusion was that it was because Omaha is more complex. If someone should prove that Omaha was not very complex, I would still play it, if my EV were ok.

I put no value in playing the more complex game. I discuss it because I like to discuss in general, and because I hope to learn something.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

Though I do not agree completely with you on all subjects, you have indeed clarified some things for me, AND made my thoughts move in (hopefully) the right direction.

My only lame excuse for the bad language, is that I am not native to english and to lazy to use a dictionary.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[EjnarPik]

Oh my God, what have I done.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

I do belive that your argumentation is flawed. You state that you are talking about the game in the abstract. But when you talk about which hands it is profitable to play, you are moving away frok the abstracts, and into how you believe the game should be played.

In abstract terms there are more possibileties in Omaha than in Hold'em, when the bidding structure is the same.

Imagine ten perfect players playing a rake-free game, of either Omaha or Hold'em. As the players are perfect, they will play alike. Each player will have to win 10% of the pots. To do this each player would have to play X% of the dealt hands. X would not nescesarily be the same number in Omaha and Hold'em, but it will not be 1/6 - 1/4 the number of Hold'em hands, in Omaha. Thus more hand-combinations would be in the game. (This argument is easely expanded to include raised and re-raised pots.)

This is of course more complex. I hope to make a post in apr. 2 weeks regarding this.

(A possible counter-argument, could be that in the perfect game, almost all pots in PLO should be passed out to the big blind.)


I do, however, believe I can beat you on your home-ground.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am convinced Pot-Limit Omaha is more complex than Pot-Limit Hold'em. The reason is that there are more possible hand combinations in Omaha than in Hold'em.

In Hold'em each player can combine his cards into 1 hand on the flop, 4 on fourth street and 21 on the river. In Omaha the numbers are 6, 24 and 60, respectively. This make the game essentially more complex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The reason is that the vast majority of those hand combinations are irrelevant to the play of any particular hand. In terms of hand combinations, what's important are the number of hand classes where it's reasonable to put in some amount of action. In Omaha, frequently the hand classes are:
--the current nuts
--one of the two or three nut draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some games, that may very well be the best strategy. In others you are lowering your EV (measured in time), by not being in the pot, outplaying the fish.

Sometimes the games can get so wild, that a normally adaquate bankroll may be jeopardized by high variance, even though the EV is getting bigger also. Thats when I try to play like you, nuts and nut-draws.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course other matters might have an influence on how complex a game is. One factor is the other players. Another factor is how you play yourself. In PLO it is very often a winning strategy simply to wait for an unbeatable hand. However, when you try to max. your EV, measured in time, you have to figure out when your small flush is any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have to make these decisions all the time in holdem and only occasionally in PLO. If a player is frequently deciding whether to put money in the pot with a small flush, it's usually a sign of poor play rather than a sign of sophistication.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is easy for me to turn this argument upside down, abd say:

"But you have to make these decisions all the time in PLO and only occasionally in Hold'em. If a player is frequently deciding whether to put money in the pot with a small pair, it's usually a sign of poor play rather than a sign of sophistication."

It's all up to your experince vs. mine. That would be very hard to settle.

It might even easily be that the Hold'em games you play are more complex than the PLO games you play, while the PLO games I play, are more complex than the Hold'em games I play. Our insight into the games will also have an effect on our experience of the game. The deeper the insight, the more complexity you are able to see.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But of course a specific Omaha game may be simpler than another specific Hold'em game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about the game in the abstract.

Jerrod Ankenman

[/ QUOTE ]

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.