EV and time.

[Snoogins47]

[ 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.
Of course other matters might have an influence on how complex a game is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, though the point you make is a good one. To maximize profits with marginal hands is probably more difficult than in HE, at least from my experience with the games, it's less critical to a winning strategy (not for the BEST winning strategy, of course)

There are some complexities in Omaha that rarely show up in Hold'Em (the math is much more complex... multiple draws, freeroll situations, escaping with half the pot, etc), but I think overall Hold'Em, in general, has more SUBTLE complexities.

[ QUOTE ]
...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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny, out in the RL realm I hear so many of the homegame champs of the world talking about how bad limit play is, how it's just random luck, how they can never get chasers out of hands...

But then on here, so many people understand and respect the complexities that limit play offers.

I don't know if I could ever say that one structure is certainly more complex than another, but I recognize the subtle irony that is limit poker.

You don't have to risk as much in the short run. Calling stations are typically much less -EV than in NL (when they chase for two big bets as opposed to calling 3x the pot, they might be making bad decisions, but they're much less painfully bad. Of course, you have the notion of implied odds when they hit in NL, but... yada yada)

Therefore, it's a casino's dream. People are more apt to put money in the pot when it's "Well, I can bet 5 bucks here, and if I get raised, only put in 5 more" and go through their $500 stack in 6 hours than in NL where "shoot, I don't want to bet $5, because I might get re-raised the price of my hotel room for a night"

In this sense, it caters to poor players.

However, it caters even more to the patient and mathematically minded. More than in NL, especially NL tournament play.

I play in some low buy in single table tourneys live every now and then. ($20 to $100) It might as well be a two card game and a random number generator, what with the blind structures of these games. Any Joe Schmoe can read a few books, and thrust all their chips in before any cards are out so they don't have to make any decisions, get in with the best of it, and then complain if they get beat, or take a big payday if they win a few coin flips in a row. And this is what your everyday "player" is doing; your everyday "student of the game" that will never miss a WPT event on TV.

It's funny. I'm no expert poker player by any means. I do have a fairly strong sense of the game though, have been studying it fairly heavily for about 1.5-2 years, been able to eke out some nice beer+smokes money at college games, and been maintaining a decent WR in online games.

My love is for the game of poker though, not hold'em. I love it in all it's forms.

When I go to most of the homegames I play, it's always NLHE. Without fail. And I tend to sort of sleep through these games, usually win, sometimes lose, chat with friends, make crazy plays... just have fun.

A few nights ago I finally talked some people into playing some mixed games... it was rotating between Draw Hi Fixed Limit, Stud Hi Fixed Limit, PLO, PLO8, and HE.

I can go into a NLHE homegame and be gambling in $40 pots like nothing (yeah, so that's one small bet for alot of you, but at the games I play often at home, it's 4x the buy in ;P)

Here we were, playing .25/.50 Limit Draw, and Stud, and within about two hours I had a headache.

With NL, it's a very complex game... but at lower stakes, it's usually pretty bland, plain-vanilla stuff.

"He's betting like he's on an overpair, I'm going to raise him with my rag two. Oh, he played back, what could he have that has me beat? Only one thing, and I doubt he's got it" --> Push Chips in Middle --> Rake pot, or get sucked out --> wash, rinse, repeat. Wow, I just made 70x the BB in one hand. I can sit back now.

Playing limit poker though, is a completely different story.

Making a mistake that costs you a bet or two is crippling to your win rate. You have to constantly be thinking, be on top of your game 100% of the time.

In NL, I think a good enough player could only be concentrating about 50% of the time and still be a consistent winner.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

Could you please define: Subtle complexity?



[ QUOTE ]
Making a mistake that costs you a bet or two is crippling to your win rate. You have to constantly be thinking, be on top of your game 100% of the time.In NL, I think a good enough player could only be concentrating about 50% of the time and still be a consistent winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. (50% may be off +/- 10%).

That is why I, as a sloppy person, never play fixed limit. (And yes, I do not understand limit poker, as I have hardly ever played it.) In PL and NL you dont have to concentrate all the time, and there are big flashing signals telling you when to concentrate, namely when the pot or bets are large.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[Wheezl]

This is quote from Steve Badger's website www.playwinningpoker.com. Steve is apparantly one of the premier Omaha players in the world, and he views Holdem as a far more complicated game.

[ QUOTE ]
Holdem has far more random luck than Omaha (or Stud). That's why it's the most popular game. Poor players can do better, longer. Somewhat bizarrely, Holdem also has more long-term skill. Winning Holdem is a game of exploiting tiny edges often. Winning Omaha is a game of exploiting huge edges less often.

In most ways, Omaha is a far simpler game. When played by good players, Omaha games are horrible -- unless the blinds are huge, forcing players to gamble. This is why Omaha is often played with a kill, to generate action in a game that should have very little. This is also why Omaha will never be "the game of the future." Poor players have no chance. Good players eat them alive. In many localities, Omaha games burn brightly for a while, and then burn out as the bad players go back to Holdem games where random luck gives them a fighting chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Akasha]

[ QUOTE ]
This can also be put another way. Assume you have two ganes to choose from: Fully concentrated, making $50/hrs., or @at ease", making $40/hrs. If you can only play the first game for three hrs. before needing a break or getting unconcentrated, ant the second for four hours, the the second game is actually best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this go against your time invested theory.

If 3 hours spent making 150.00 isnt better than 4 hours spent making only 10.00 more, then Im not sure I understand your initial point.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

You are quite right.

What often happens to me, is that I think something, but writes only part of it. Sorry about that. What I meant, but didn't write, was:

"This can also be put another way. Assume you have two games to choose from: Fully concentrated, making $50/hrs., or "at ease", making $40/hrs. If you can only play the first game for three hrs. before needing a break (of one hour, where you can do nothing productive or entertaining) or getting unconcentrated, and the second for four hours, (without needing a break at all), the second game is actually best."

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[Akasha]

From a total money earned per SESSION standpoint, I guess that would be correct.

However if you cant find something productive or entertaining to do to relax , then I guess playing poker for an hour for 10.00 isnt that bad.

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

A good link. It contains lots of good information, though most of it is trivial to the seasoned Omaha-player.

I do however consider this a theoretical discussion, and thus do not recognize authorities, only arguments.

And the page does not bring any arguments into this discussion, that I have not already stated my opinion on.

A quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Handling the complex aspects of the game can only come after understanding the basic simplicity of most of the game. The problem that most Omaha players run into is screwing up (and unnecessarily complicating) the simple aspects of the game. If you play QJT4, and get a flop of KJ4, you’ll likely spend a lot of time thinking about how "complicated" Omaha is. You throw that garbage in the muck before the flop, and the game is much simpler.

[/ QUOTE ]

He says that you are complicating the game by playing QT94, and that the hand belong in the muck. He doesn't mention wheter it is suited, or anything on position. So it must go for any position. (In addition, often he doesn't clearly distinguish betweem Omaha High and High/Low.)

So anybody playing [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 on the buttom, un-raised, should not be convinced by this guy.

He mentions that Omaha is a game of skill, not of luck. He also mentions that starting hands have different values.

With the type of horror hands you see people playing, this hand will have +EV, if you know how to handle it. If you cannot handle it, you have not understood the complexity of the game. (Again, the variance factor is there. In wild games, you might want to stay out, as subsequent action could cripple your (normally adaquate) bankroll.)

The advice not to throw your car keys into the ocean, because they would be difficult to retrieve, are of course sound. I do however believe, that many people would be able to figure that out for themselves.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[Wheezl]

I have never played Omaha so I am certainly in no position to argue whether or not it is a more complex game than holdem. However, I do find it interesting that every opinion from every professional player that I have ever encountered deems that Hold em is a more complex game. Perhaps they are all wrong and you are right. It is certainly possible.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examining the complexity of the game in the abstract does necessarily involve how to play well and what strategies would be expected of perfect players. "The game in the abstract" doesn't include the tendencies of individual players or their weaknesses, but does include features that are a natural outgrowth of the rules of the game.

For example, consider a limit Omaha hi/low game with no blinds or antes. Now in practice, people might be willing to play such a game to gamble it up, but this isn't a property of the game in the abstract.

[ QUOTE ]
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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

By this logic, then, it would be your contention that 5, 6, or even 7 card Omaha would be even more complex games than 4-card Omaha? Hopefully you can see why the raw numbers of card possibilities is not a reasonable metric alone for the complexity of a game.

[ QUOTE ]
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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously untrue. Many hands in PLO have significant value preflop against the opposition's distribution and so should be willing to attack the blinds. Even though we cannot determine what the equilibrium of a full PLO game should be, it can be proven that many common situations do not call for the strategy you suggested.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

<snipped for brevity - I claimed that "nut hands and nut draws" led to there effectively being fewer equivalence classes of hands.>

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a property of "the game in the abstract." You made the claim that PLO is more complex than other poker games. "Outplaying the fish" has nothing to do with PLO per se, but only with some specific game that you play in.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Now you're talking about something completely different if you're talking about bankroll requirements. But I don't claim that nut hands and nut draws are the keys in really wild games - they are the key to the game when it is played strongly as well.

Jerrod Ankenman

[MicroBob]

i did not read all the replies. but i have some rather simple ideas....you guys are getting WAY too complex for me!!!

btw, i consider myself to be a rather mediocre hold-em player....and have significantly less experience at omaha.



in omaha, if the board pairs or 3-flushes...you KNOW you have to slow-down...because the chances that your lesser hand is beat are significant.
in hold-em, if the board pairs or 3-flushes....you now have a decision to make regarding whether to slow-down.
was the previous betting indicative of a flush-draw?? do i need to be concerned about the full-house??

i think the decisions in how to maximize your EV on these specific hands gets much trickier in hold-em because you just aren't certain where you stand. in omaha...you KNOW that you have to respect a semi-scary board.

just my opinion anyway.

also, in omaha, you are more likely to hit the nuts or near nuts more frequently on the river. by near nuts...i mean a strong full-house when only quads (or maybe an unlikely higher full-house) will be able to beat you.
when you are holding the nuts....the only decision to be made is whether to go for the check-raise or not in order to extract as much money as possible from your opponent.

i think this makes the game less complicated than hold-em where you have significantly fewer situations where you hold the nuts like this.

again...just my opinion...and without much background in omaha and limited talent in hold-em i acknowledge that i could be very wrong on this.

i know i have over-simplified some aspects of both games.



as for the other points....
i see the idea of win-rate per hour mentioned all the time.
afterall...this is what it's all about.

i also see the idea of loosening your PF standards and/or re-raising to isolate the fish/maniac quite a bit as well.

these aren't really new ideas are they??