Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill?

Canasta.
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

I think you pretty well nailed it here. In PLO I used to lose a lot
of pots by pushing hands like AAJJ when I flopped a set, but when I
did not evaluate the board for likely draws to str8s and flushes.

It still annoys me when I get good-looking hands like that, but four-
suited, because I know that unless I flop a boat, I'm setting myself
up to get outdrawn. If there are two of a suit on the flop, you're up
against an eventual nut flush almost half the time. It seems like MORE
than half the time, at least perception-wise.

Even so, with AAxx, shouldn't you STILL be raising and re-raising pre-
flop, even if you get pot committed? Don't the odds warrant that?
This is one PLO question I still have not found a good answer for.



On Mar 20, 1:48 pm, "ML" <lipsey.m... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 1:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:

> > A long-time Holdem Player (NLHE) I recently got into Omaha Hi(PLO) by
> > accident and loved it.
>
> > What I have noticed is that in NLHE you have to be very careful to
> > fold lukewarm hands pre-flop to avoid getting into trap situations.
>
> > But in PLO, it seems that about half the table is in pre-flop almost
> > every hand, pot limit raises are common pre-flop, and they don't drive
> > many people out unless there is a re-raise.
>
> > I take it, then, that the trick in PLO is to see the flop whenever you
> > have multi-draws, and apply your skill to the flop. You either flop
> > good, or you fold.
>
> > Am I off the mark here? Please correct me if I am.
>
> > And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> > to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> > Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
> I don't know, for sure, which game is "harder." I personally find
> Omaha a little more taxing on my brain, but that probably is due to
> not having as many hours under my belt in Omaha, compared to Hold'em.
>
> As to it being a different game, that is definitely true. First off,
> the difference in pre-flop strength in Omaha is much smaller than that
> of Hold'em. AA v. 64o is a big gap (even more so if domination comes
> into play, as in AA v. AK). AAKJ v. 8897 is less of a gap, percentage
> wise.
>
> Also, post flop play is dictated by draws and re-draws in Omaha. In
> Hold'em, it is ruled, primarily, by the strength of the hand NOW.
> Take, as an example, KsJdJsTd on a flop of 9d8s2d. Your opponent has
> a QhQs9c9h and has a better hand, now. Your redraws are brutal,
> though; while your opponents hand sees little possibility of
> improvement. You don't get this many re-draws in hold'em, so the odds
> aren't usually there facing a pot bet (or worse). Two different
> games.
>
> I have found, too, that the variance in PLO is much higher; meaning
> you probably should have a bigger bankroll to play it.
>
> --
> ML- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat....TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote:
> What I have noticed is that in NLHE you have to be very careful to
> fold lukewarm hands pre-flop to avoid getting into trap situations.
>
> But in PLO, it seems that about half the table is in pre-flop almost
> every hand, pot limit raises are common pre-flop, and they don't drive
> many people out unless there is a re-raise.

The trap situation in PLO is getting a lot of money is with your
opponent freerolling to a better hand or holding a larger set. It's
true that none of these hands are big dogs preflop but the potential
for getting your money is really bad after the flop is huge.

In a full ring game, typical players who see the flop indiscriminately
are probably losing their asses.
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 3:00 pm, "Lute" <lutelat... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
> Even so, with AAxx, shouldn't you STILL be raising and re-raising pre-
> flop, even if you get pot committed? Don't the odds warrant that?
> This is one PLO question I still have not found a good answer for.

Aces are tricky to play in Omaha. The effective stack size makes a
huge difference. With 100BB stacks, avoid putting in the second raise
out of position. It defines your hand against a field that is
probably not far behind and has position on you.
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat....TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote:

>
> And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.


Hand rankings in poker are based on the relative difficulty in getting
them ... The rankings in 5 stud, 7 stud and Hold em ... are all the
same ... When I try to work them out in Omaha ... I'm not exactly sure
how to figure it out ... so I've not done it myself ... since instead
of taking the best 5 cards out of 7 (or the five cards in 5 stud) by
taking the best 3 of 5 on the board in how they combine with the best
2 of 4 in your hand ... leaves too many variables ...

Anyway, I've found these probability tables listed ...

5 card Stud - Flush - 0.20 %
- Straight - 0.39 %
- Trips - 2.11 %

7 card Stud - Flush - 3.03 %
- Straight - 4.62 %
- Trips - 4.83 %

Hold em - Flush - 3.03 % Hold em same as 7 stud
- Straight - 4.62 %
- Trips - 4.83 %

See how much closer the odds of getting a straight become almost the
same as 3 of a kind ... instead of being twice as hard ...

Omaha - Flush - 6.7 %
- Straight - 11.2 %
- Trips - 8.8 %

Yep ... straights are easier to get than 3 of a kind ... and yet 3 of
a kind loses to the more readily obtainable straight ...
Just that fact makes Omaha more complex ...

In other games like 3 card poker where it is obvious flushes are
easier than straights they do change the hand rankings ... in Omaha
though they keep the traditional stud hand rankings even though
straights are much more prominent than 3 of a kind ...
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 2:39 pm, "number6" <snumb....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat....RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> > to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> > Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
> Hand rankings in poker are based on the relative difficulty in getting
> them ... The rankings in 5 stud, 7 stud and Hold em ... are all the
> same ... When I try to work them out in Omaha ... I'm not exactly sure
> how to figure it out ... so I've not done it myself ... since instead
> of taking the best 5 cards out of 7 (or the five cards in 5 stud) by
> taking the best 3 of 5 on the board in how they combine with the best
> 2 of 4 in your hand ... leaves too many variables ...
>
> Anyway, I've found these probability tables listed ...
>
> 5 card Stud - Flush - 0.20 %
> - Straight - 0.39 %
> - Trips - 2.11 %
>
> 7 card Stud - Flush - 3.03 %
> - Straight - 4.62 %
> - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> Hold em - Flush - 3.03 % Hold em same as 7 stud
> - Straight - 4.62 %
> - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> See how much closer the odds of getting a straight become almost the
> same as 3 of a kind ... instead of being twice as hard ...
>
> Omaha - Flush - 6.7 %
> - Straight - 11.2 %
> - Trips - 8.8 %
>
> Yep ... straights are easier to get than 3 of a kind ... and yet 3 of
> a kind loses to the more readily obtainable straight ...
> Just that fact makes Omaha more complex ...
>
> In other games like 3 card poker where it is obvious flushes are
> easier than straights they do change the hand rankings ... in Omaha
> though they keep the traditional stud hand rankings even though
> straights are much more prominent than 3 of a kind ...


That's good stuff, right there. Conclusions drawn from this?

--
ML
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 1:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat....RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote:
> A long-time Holdem Player (NLHE) I recently got into Omaha Hi(PLO) by
> accident and loved it.
>
> What I have noticed is that in NLHE you have to be very careful to
> fold lukewarm hands pre-flop to avoid getting into trap situations.

If the stacks are deep enough, compared to the preflop action and
ultimately on the blinds, pre-flop hand selection means much less than
in LHE or shallow-stack NLHE. Getting in dominated, however, can be
the kind of trap situation you mention and you have to guard against
it. 87s is a much better hand against a solid early-position raiser
than AJs IF both stacks are big enough to matter.

>
> But in PLO, it seems that about half the table is in pre-flop almost
> every hand, pot limit raises are common pre-flop, and they don't drive
> many people out unless there is a re-raise.

Multi-way pots are much more common. A re-raise defines the hand so
well that people usually won't do it, especially out of position,
unless it is pot-committing or all-in. Well, it defines HALF of your
hand, at least for most people.

> I take it, then, that the trick in PLO is to see the flop whenever you
> have multi-draws, and apply your skill to the flop. You either flop
> good, or you fold.
>
> Am I off the mark here? Please correct me if I am.

Well, I think you can see a lot more flops at deep-stack NLHE than you
seem to imply.

> And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.

Apples, as someone demonstrated on another newsgroup, can be usefully
compared to oranges but that is an aside. I think the skills in use
are very different. PLO is more mathematical and it is more about
showing down the winning hand but that does not mean that it isn't
about skill. NLHE is more about inducing bad folds and making good
folds and not making bad folds.

Will in New Haven

--
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

Neither


Both are games of luck!
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

Omaha


"Lute" <lutelatner.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1174415445.595433.106590@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>A long-time Holdem Player (NLHE) I recently got into Omaha Hi(PLO) by
> accident and loved it.
>
> What I have noticed is that in NLHE you have to be very careful to
> fold lukewarm hands pre-flop to avoid getting into trap situations.
>
> But in PLO, it seems that about half the table is in pre-flop almost
> every hand, pot limit raises are common pre-flop, and they don't drive
> many people out unless there is a re-raise.
>
> I take it, then, that the trick in PLO is to see the flop whenever you
> have multi-draws, and apply your skill to the flop. You either flop
> good, or you fold.
>
> Am I off the mark here? Please correct me if I am.
>
> And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

While I'd vote for Omaha on the whole I find there are less 'levels of thinking'
in the game than NLHE - never mind the 'He thinks, you think he thinks you might
think he has it' - in Omaha someone has usually got it!

Cheers, Mark
http://plan3tgongpoker.blogspot.com/

On Mar 20 2007 7:30 PM, Lute wrote:

> A long-time Holdem Player (NLHE) I recently got into Omaha Hi(PLO) by
> accident and loved it.
>
> What I have noticed is that in NLHE you have to be very careful to
> fold lukewarm hands pre-flop to avoid getting into trap situations.
>
> But in PLO, it seems that about half the table is in pre-flop almost
> every hand, pot limit raises are common pre-flop, and they don't drive
> many people out unless there is a re-raise.
>
> I take it, then, that the trick in PLO is to see the flop whenever you
> have multi-draws, and apply your skill to the flop. You either flop
> good, or you fold.
>
> Am I off the mark here? Please correct me if I am.
>
> And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 20, 3:39 pm, "number6" <snumb... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> > to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> > Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
> Hand rankings in poker are based on the relative difficulty in getting
> them ... The rankings in 5 stud, 7 stud and Hold em ... are all the
> same ... When I try to work them out in Omaha ... I'm not exactly sure
> how to figure it out ... so I've not done it myself ... since instead
> of taking the best 5 cards out of 7 (or the five cards in 5 stud) by
> taking the best 3 of 5 on the board in how they combine with the best
> 2 of 4 in your hand ... leaves too many variables ...
>
> Anyway, I've found these probability tables listed ...
>
> 5 card Stud - Flush - 0.20 %
> - Straight - 0.39 %
> - Trips - 2.11 %
>
> 7 card Stud - Flush - 3.03 %
> - Straight - 4.62 %
> - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> Hold em - Flush - 3.03 % Hold em same as 7 stud
> - Straight - 4.62 %
> - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> See how much closer the odds of getting a straight become almost the
> same as 3 of a kind ... instead of being twice as hard ...
>
> Omaha - Flush - 6.7 %
> - Straight - 11.2 %
> - Trips - 8.8 %
>
> Yep ... straights are easier to get than 3 of a kind ... and yet 3 of
> a kind loses to the more readily obtainable straight ...
> Just that fact makes Omaha more complex ...

Straights don't improve into full-houses, but 4-card connecting hands
are really good starting hands because of the straight possibilities.
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

I don't know that one game is inherently more difficult than the
other. I find HE more interesting, in that in Omaha at the stakes I
play I usually just wait around for the nuts.
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill? 

On Mar 21, 12:23 pm, "David Nicoson" <bigda....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:39 pm, "number6" <snumb....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2:30 pm, "Lute" <lutelat....TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > And now on to my question. In your opinion, does it take more skill
> > > to play Holdem or Omaha? Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
>
> > > Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
> > Hand rankings in poker are based on the relative difficulty in getting
> > them ... The rankings in 5 stud, 7 stud and Hold em ... are all the
> > same ... When I try to work them out in Omaha ... I'm not exactly sure
> > how to figure it out ... so I've not done it myself ... since instead
> > of taking the best 5 cards out of 7 (or the five cards in 5 stud) by
> > taking the best 3 of 5 on the board in how they combine with the best
> > 2 of 4 in your hand ... leaves too many variables ...
>
> > Anyway, I've found these probability tables listed ...
>
> > 5 card Stud - Flush - 0.20 %
> > - Straight - 0.39 %
> > - Trips - 2.11 %
>
> > 7 card Stud - Flush - 3.03 %
> > - Straight - 4.62 %
> > - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> > Hold em - Flush - 3.03 % Hold em same as 7 stud
> > - Straight - 4.62 %
> > - Trips - 4.83 %
>
> > See how much closer the odds of getting a straight become almost the
> > same as 3 of a kind ... instead of being twice as hard ...
>
> > Omaha - Flush - 6.7 %
> > - Straight - 11.2 %
> > - Trips - 8.8 %
>
> > Yep ... straights are easier to get than 3 of a kind ... and yet 3 of
> > a kind loses to the more readily obtainable straight ...
> > Just that fact makes Omaha more complex ...
>
> Straights don't improve into full-houses, but 4-card connecting hands
> are really good starting hands because of the straight possibilities.-

Straights CAN'T improve into full-houses ... my sets DON'T improve
into full-houses
Exactly ... because straights are easier to get than a set ...


I'm surprised that no one has commented much that in Omaha the hand
rankings are different than the odds of getting them say they should
be ...
and not a little ... 25 % more likely to get a straight than a set ...
 >> Stay informed about: Omaha vs Holdem: Which Requires More Skill?