PLEASE more people play Omaha. Here's Why.

I would like to see Omaha have a boom the way Hold Em did a few years ago. There are some very compelling reasons to play Omaha, especially my game of choice, Pot Limit Hi/Lo.

Listen.

1. If you are a studious player who works to be a winning player, Omaha Hi/Lo is 50 to 100% more profitable with about half the variance or risk. For an explanation of why, check out the Hwang book or the Cappelletti book among many others.

2. If you are an action junkie, Omaha Hi/Lo is by far a better game for you. You see almost every flop pretty cheaply. With practically every hand you have an exciting draw for those who like fishing expeditions. More hands go to showdown. And even if you're a terrible player, you'll receive gratification by stumbling into a fair number of half-pot wins.

We need you in Omaha, especially the beginners. The learning curve ain't too bad, and we will be nice and friendly and very appreciative while you're learning the game. I notice that there's much less donkey talk and tapping on the glass in Omaha than in Hold Em.

Now I would ask and advise you to please not play pre-flop in Omaha like you do in Hold Em, especially the split pot game. It disrupts the game and it's not at all in your interest. Some experts debate about whether you should ever raise pre-flop in Omaha. Bluffing doesn't work as well because your opponents will almost always have hands with potential. Makes sense since one Omaha hand contains six two-card combinations. Besides, it's really not in your interest to be stealing small pots pre-flop. You want to build pots by inviting people in, then if you hit your hand milk it or play it big. The Hold Em-style aggressors stand out like a sore thumb. You'll have some fun but invariably get nailed.

What the heck am I doing? I'm inviting you in because I want more beginners, i.e. bad players in the game, yet I'm giving you a little advice about how not to totally suck. I must be crazy! Or maybe just a little too kind. But you are all CCers, and I want you all to do well (just not at my expense). So tell your friends about Omaha Hi/Lo and let's get this train rolling!

Gary
This is my landmark 500th post. Does this qualify me for the next level of tourneys or something? Anybody want some cake?

You have cake??

Yes Omaha Hi/Lo is a good game to play it can aid a player in learning to read flops and the way the board can play.

The one tip i do have is always play for the hi hand

I tried playing PLO8 but its absolutely retardedly boring. Limp, see a flop, fold. Rinse & repeat. Players are so absolutely terrible at that game, that you just make strong 2 way hands & take their money. PLO8 is the furthest thing from an action game that there could possibly be. You have to have a hand that is in contention for both pots, and that doesn't happen super often. So you spend most of your time seeing flops & dumping hands, bluffing a few rare dry flops. I guess it could be okay playing heads up or super short handed, but the game makes me >_X.

An action game is like Stud 8, where its a limit game, so you can play for half, and there's tons of jamming in multi-way pots.

If I wanted to nut-camp all day, I'd play PLO8. But I don't want to nut camp, so I play NLHE 6-max, where I can raise/raise/raise/4-bet light/raise/raise/raise.

EDIT: I've included a nice post about how to play PLO8 by Steve Badger. He makes it pretty clear that PLO8 is not an action game.

However, I do agree that Omaha 8 in general has less variance and super idiotic players. I had no trouble winning at a healthy rate when I played 25$ PLO8. However, I got bored out of my skull in the process.

i have played O b4 and have won huge pots very quickly..only to lose huge pots very quickly..the game is BRUTAL..i reccomend all Noobs stay away from this game..as i would avoid RAZZ like plague..all the O players will hate me for scaring off potential fish..but i cant help it..i got murdered @ every O table i have ever played..ANd that is NO FUN!!!...a game with alot more variance than i can handle..Best of luck to every1..Halifaxleafs

c9,
you're absolutely right - action play is not the right way to win at Omaha. But if you're a wild hold em player, you can be an even wilder Omaha player and see a lot more flops and showdowns. Not good play, but the kind of play I'm hoping to instill in my opponents.

Bear,
Always go for the high is exactly the wrong advice. Pre-flop you're looking for hands with two-way potential, but a good low is what gives you the freedom to try for the high. I'd rather start with A236 than KKQQ. With your high pairs you could hit a set, which is usually worthless at a full table. But having good low potential allows you to take more draws for the high.

High hands are valuable because they can scoop if the board doesn't make a low, but the flop in Omaha changes so many things that you can't really rely too much on those pre-flop highs. Even AA doesn't have a whole lot of value.

Post-flop, I would rather have a good high draw than a low draw. If you have a naked A2 and plan on drawing all the way to the river to try to win half the pot, that is really bad play - but a lot of people do it. For one thing, your odds of making a low without getting counterfeited are only 50:50. Then there's always the possibility, especially in a multi-way pot, of getting quartered. Many reasons not to chase a low. But if you can hit your low with counterfeit protection, it gives you all kind of freedom to draw for the high as well.

That's my opinion.

Eh, I'm not a big Omaha fan. I've gone through fazes (hold em, then stud, then omaha), but hold em was my favorite by a fair amount. I play some HORSE at this point, because it combines the skills I've learned by playing all the different games, but given the choice of just one game, it's got to by hold em. Omaha just bothers me because too often can you be ahead without actually having a hand yet. I don't want to assume every flush possibility or straight possibility hit.

I didn't say I enjoyed Omaha the most or that it's the most fun. I play it simply because it's the most profitable, therefore the best use of my time.

Slugger, you're absolutely right, you can be ahead with no way to protect your hand and are often beat by drawing hands. That's all part of the equation. It's not uncommon for an Omaha player to fold the nut on the flop if it's a scary board with poor chances of your hand improving. In Omaha the draws can be huge. Straight draws can have 13, 16 or more outs. Add in flushes and fullhouses and there are situations where nearly half the deck will make your hand. It's different from Hold Em that way. In Hold Em, the made hand is usually favored. In Omaha the drawing hand is often favored, and what beginning players consider a bad beat may not be a bad beat at all.

I know there are a lot of successful Omaha players on CardsChat, but today we seem to be a group of naysayers. That's OK, though. It's better than preaching to the choir.

I am a winning Hold Em player. I can win as much or more in Omaha without the wild fluctuations. I would grant that correct play is somewhat boring and it's harder to be creative in Omaha. It's less about bluffs and aggression and more about hand selection and big draws. I'm drifting toward Omaha simply because online poker is like going to work for me, and I'm making better money with less fluctuation at Omaha. But if your thing is fun and Hold Em is more fun for you, then of course that's what you should play. Even when I played mainly HE, I liked to get a little variety though.

Peace and Bountiful Blessings,
Gary

I completely understand what you're saying Gary, and I think the main difference between us is why we're playing online poker. Like you said, for you, it's like going to work. For me, I am playing for enjoyment, and I'm a profitable hold em player, so even if I might be able to win a little more, I might as well stick with hold em.

running out of suckers are we ?

this post reinforces my belief that poker in inherently evil...a pyramid scheme where the experienced prey on the beginner....

capatilism at its worst

do you ever feel like a leech? taking money from stupid people to the benefit of some corporation...

ok i feel better now...had to get that out.

back to work theres more suckers out there to skin!

What is this all about? Of course I'd like to see more bad players in the game. But I'm also happy to help people progress if they are interested. Lord knows I've sure gotten a lot of help in the development of my game - and I have a long way to go, too.

And if you're accusing me of being deceitful and manipulative, you're not a very good reader as my intentions are clearly stated and mixed with some humor. What are you even doing on a poker forum if your letter describes your feelings about poker?

But alas, I think you jest too. Or are you really the scurrilous scoundrel that lambastes me as you hurry back to skin more suckers yourself.

If you see any, just send them on over to the Omaha tables. That's all I ask.
Gary

I like Omaha hi/lo but there does seem to be way too many possiblities to me. If I were going to play a split pot game it would have to be stud hi/lo. I tend to like this game a little more. And still find many people come into the pot with any 3 cards.

Excellent posts all of yours. And pretty funny too. Didn't know you were such a card. I'm guessing 8888's posts was slightly alcohol induced, but I could be wrong.

"The Hold Em-style aggressors stand out like a sore thumb." Can you spot pocket aces a mile away too? lol

C9h, I read a lot of Steve Badger's pages, and wow - he blows Hwang out of the water. I think he contradicts himself at times. But the strategic stuff is top notch, including the differences between limit & PL.

ive tried omaha h/l not bad but plo8 no good way too slow for me but h/l good change of scenery and does make u think a hole lot more and i am sure that sometimes i stick out from what u call holdem aggressors but im learning cashed in a few of the sat, night games on players only

I use to play Omaha but got tired of people badmouthing my play. After reading this post I know that some of what they said was justified. You stated the Holdem approach doesn't work and that's exactly what I was doing. I may give it another chance after a little reading cause I did enjoy it for the most part. Maybe you could tell all your O8 buddies to keep the name calling to a minimum though...I'm very sensitive,sniff,sniff.

Awwww.... I know exactly what you mean. In fact, there was 1 incidence of exactly that at our (CC) PL Omaha HL game last Friday at FT. Someone was lambasted for a bad move and I don't remember if he sucked out or not. But he admitted he was new to Omaha HL, so I came to his defense. Take a look at Steve Badger's pages (link above), it should help tremendously. And no, you cannot approach it anything like Hold'em. But if you enjoy it, keep at it. I'm not the greatest, but I do enjoy it. And yes, it is usually profitable, as I don't totally suck at it.

I sincerely wish to thank glworden for this thread and c9h13no3 and Divebitch for their contributions to it. Omaha is a game I was completely unfamiliar with until very recently and is one I am in a constant battle to grasp. I especially struggle with PLO8 which I feel like I should at least understand the basics of, as I am a more than competent Stud H/L player. Your posts and comments have helped a great deal and c9h13no3's link to the Steve Badger site was of incredible value.

Other than some posts and magazine articles on another forum (whose name adds up to four), this thread has helped me far more than the one book specific to Omaha that I have read so far.

Keep up the good work.

I don't really get upset by holdem aggressor approach. I do think if the person realized what they were doing they'd be embarrassed. But if somebody's doing that, I just play tighter. It does disrupt the game for a lot of people, though, because much more so than holdem, Omaha is a game of implied odds. People not only want to see flops, they usually want to have several callers for bigger pots. Omaha is much more a post-flop game. Big pre-flop bets on a bad hand are a waste of money, and big pre-flop bets on good hands are just plain stupid. Omaha hands pay off after the flop, not before. The holdem maniac doesn't get much respect because they are really shooting themselves in the foot and they don't even know it. So they come along and you just kind of put up with it until they bust out, and every once in a while somebody will complain or perhaps try to offer helpful advice. Most players at the table know when a fish sits down. It's much more obvious than in holdem. And if anybody starts ragging on them, you often get other players reminding them not to tap on the glass.

I DO want you to learn - just not right now at my table. There's a guy on here named TigerBob who is a good Omaha Player and he will let people sweat him.

Despite all the complex hand possibilities, correct actions in Omaha are pretty cut-and-dry - so I think of it as an easier game - and there aren't as many places for you to get creative. Position is important, but pushing with a bad hand in a pot steal might get you cracked. Those kinds of aggressive things that work in Holdem often backfire in Omaha. I want my opponent to be the Holdem guy who thinks his second nut flush might not be good but he can take down the pot with a check-raise. Omaha players like people who call big bets with second best hands.

Cappelletti explained it this way. In HoldEm, you want people to fear you. In Omaha you want them to love you.

I'm making it sound pretty boring, aren't I? Frankly, when I'm playing well, it is boring and profitable. But we need more wild players and calling stations who will see a lot more cards here than they do in HoldEm.

Gary

Why shouldn't the experienced prey on the suckers?

See this is exactly what I'm talking about...nobody likes me
But really,thank you Gary and Dive for the encouragement and will start dabbling in it soon. Btw where do you two play FT,PS or other?

omaha is definately coming up, and people are becoming more familiar with it.
you make some very good points and i do like omaha. it's just i still need more pratice in HE, and it took me quite awhile to get were i'm at right now.
i do play a little horse and some of the omaha freerolls. so i guess i can try the micro games.
there's been a lot of pros who suggest playing other games in order to avoid becoming bored and allowing your game to suffer.
all it would be is allowing a little change and variance, what's so bad about that. hmmmmmmmmmmm makes you think.
thanks for bringing omaha to my attention - good luck on the felt.
peace

I play at Bodog for the simple reason that there are a lot of loose players. Flop percentages from the 50s to the 80s. But not much action certain times of day. More to choose from at Pokerstars, but tighter tables. Hard to find flops % above 50.

I play OHL8 sometimes, but just hate the preflop raisers. I have heard that the preflop raise in OHL8 is the worst bet in poker. I tend to agree except for about 4 hands that I will raise on. I have been told that I am wrong about the preflop raise. Anyone else?

EXACTLY! Very little value with pre-flop raises in Omaha. Especially in a pot limit game. That's how you recognize the holdem crossovers; they play that aggressive game and just don't know any better.

Especially if you're playing the low side of the hand, you want as many callers as possible. Get it down to heads up and you are by definition playing a game you can't win. IF you make your low and IF you don't get quartered, you'll only get back your own bets minus the rake.

And why raise on the high side, since no pre-flop hand is that big a favorite over any other? You need to see the flop to see how your hand shapes up. And if it does shape up, you want a multi-way pot. Again, the more people contributing, the better, especially since you're still likely to win only half.

You'll rarely scoop pre-flop in Omaha, so why try? Get it down to heads up and you limit your profit potential. You almost always want to be playing multi-way pots, so if you ARE raising pre-flop, it should be at a table where you expect a lot of callers to build the pot.

Glworden, you are so right with point no 2 in your original post. I have been watching Ivey and Hansen playing on Full Tilt and sometimes have to scrape my jaw off the floor at the money flying around that table. And it seems like any cards are good. They really must be action junkies!

I like you just fine. In fact, you are more than welcome to learn at my table. Haven't played at FT for some strange reason I can't answer. But I will probably start. Been playing at UB and PS.

Now, I've always equated low flop %s to a maniac or 2 at the table who keeps raising, so everyone folds. There's no way, especially in Omaha HL that any hand would be totally folded to the BB. Am I missing something?

I rarely raise pre-flop, but there are instances you should do it. In limit, you should always do it with a strong hand. In pot limit, with a strong hand, especially in late position, I never bet pot if several have called in front of me. I will however do a min-raise or a little more. This is NOT to push anyone out of the hand. Like Gary says, you want the multi-way pot, especially if your hand is far stronger for either the hi or the lo, but not both. Rather, I do it so that in the event I hit my flop, I can come out with a fat raise to either 1) push people out and take the pot down, or 2) build a bigger pot faster, if I see fit. If I don't hit any part of the flop, I can then get off the hand with no major loss. In EP, I'll only raise with a very premium hand. Not sure my advice is any good, but that is my level of comfort.

P.S. Gary, I keep forgetting to say congrats on your 500th, a fine post it was.

[quote=Divebitch;1108343]
Now, I've always equated low flop %s to a maniac or 2 at the table who keeps raising, so everyone folds. There's no way, especially in Omaha HL that any hand would be totally folded to the BB. Am I missing something?[quote]

Yes, that's a good possibility. Either that or a table full of tighter i.e. better players. Either way it's not the kind of table you want to play at, because in the first situation the maniac interferes with your ability to see flops and destroys the multi-ways, and in the second - you really don't want a table full of skilled players. This is more important in Omaha than in Hold Em, since skill is a bigger factor in Omaha. Badger makes this point really well in that link from cp. High flop percentages are more important in Omaha than Hold Em. In Hold Em it might just be passive players who are folding to every raise, and those players aren't too hard to beat. Omaha is a good game as long as there is a big skill disparity at the table. A table full of highly skilled players would be a terrible terrible grind.



[quote=Divebitch;1108343] I rarely raise pre-flop, but there are instances you should do it. In limit, you should always do it with a strong hand. In pot limit, with a strong hand, especially in late position, I never bet pot if several have called in front of me. I will however do a min-raise or a little more. This is NOT to push anyone out of the hand. Like Gary says, you want the multi-way pot, especially if your hand is far stronger for either the hi or the lo, but not both. Rather, I do it so that in the event I hit my flop, I can come out with a fat raise to either 1) push people out and take the pot down, or 2) build a bigger pot faster, if I see fit. If I don't hit any part of the flop, I can then get off the hand with no major loss. In EP, I'll only raise with a very premium hand. Not sure my advice is any good, but that is my level of comfort.
[quote]

Excellent points. Although as far as early position raises with a premium hand, I'd be reluctant to do them at all unless I knew there were a lot of callers at the table, and I'd be very careful about sizing my raise. Unlike Hold Em, you don't want to take it down to early. Omaha is a big pot game and you want those premium hands to generate a big pot. Don't kill it with aggressive early raises. This is, like I said, why the crossover hold em players really stick out like a sore thumb. They bet too big early, are easily gratified that they win a lot of pots (Wahoo!), but they leave a lot of money on the table. I complain about them, but I should just calm down, because it's exactly who I want to be playing against, especially if they can't lay the hand down after the flop.

Gary

With PLO8, you're playing to scoop/quarter people (obviously). You're not playing to win 1 side of the pot or the other, you're playing to win both. I hate when people say "play for high first!" or "play for low first!". Its ridiculous. Play for both.

Raising preflop cuts down on the number of players postflop, which can often help your scooping/quartering chances. You can often quarter bad players with the nut low and top pair if the pot is heads up, but its pretty difficult to accomplish multi-way.

Additionally, raising preflop can often buy you position. The button should be limping with a wide range of hands preflop after a couple of other limps. But if you raise, you can often act last on all the later streets, which is a good thing.

And lastly, while the flop does change a lot in PLO8, some hands hit flops way better than others. A4KTr is a pretty speculative hand, and doesn't hit that many flops very hard. A23Kds, AA3Qds, or A2KQds on the other hand nails a ton of flops and you should be willing to push your preflop edge, even though it adds to your variance tremendously. Its much easier to play a big pot when you've raised preflop.

Oh, that was a 'given' that it would be a very small raise. As I said, in LP, my raise would be smallish, even truer for EP. We don't want a snowball to become Mr. Snowman by the time it's back to you.

Maybe it wasn't directed at me, but certainly no one should be playing mainly for the low first. And of course you should play for both, but fact is, most playable hands are at least a little skewed more toward one or the other:

As2s3cKd (powerful low, good hi)
As3sKdQd (powerful hi, good low)
As2s3c4h (best low hand possible, only a barely decent hi, but you make that sacrifice)
AsKdQsJd (no low possible, but are you really gonna throw that away?)

Excellent point on the preflop raise. Usually don't give variance any thought, but guess the principle is that many small smart risks pay off in the longrun.

Players Only used to have a $1000 PL OHL8 freeroll every week. In fact, last week they had two tourneys, exactly the same, running at the same time. I don't see any more scheduled for this week. Anybody know if they have stopped running them?

While its true, these are just low cards, the combination of 4 cards that work together, plus the suited ace allows you to hit flops exceptionally hard. For example, anytime you flop two pair with this hand, you will also have the nut low draw and a straight draw. 4 cards that work together is always going to be a much more dominant hand when playing for high.

In early position in a full ring game, I just might. Hands like this aren't especially strong because they usually have zero equity in half the pot. You don't want to make a big investment with hands like these preflop (since they're speculative), and its hard to know if you're going to see a cheap flop from early position. I'd rather limp this behind several other limpers, or raise it as a steal against the blinds.

You have a job? Where's the money come from? Sorry but life's a competition. Capitalism is how life works. The best advance at the expense of the worst. When you get a job basically you're saying "I have a skill set that you don't have, it's worth x$ to me but since you don't have it it's worth y$ to you so you pay me y$ and I'll work for you and turn a profit". The smarter/higher paid are typcially the ones who can maximize y. If there were other people as good they would of course make the higher wages as well. Same with poker. I work to maximize my edge and make money. Life/the economy/poker is a zero-sum game (although both are actually slightly negative, rake and taxes). When you make a profit someone else takes a loss. That's how it works. I'm gonna outwork everyone else though, so my edge is big. That goes for life when I go to school and am more qualified than the HS dropout and that goes for poker when I'm putting in the study time while others are just playing. It's how life is, work hard and get better or everyone else passes you by.

I think he was just kidding, as evidenced by his last sentence. But you are right, and it's only fair that those who work harder profit more. I work hard at poker. It's not everybody's bag, and I'm glad. The game needs hobbyists, it needs those who only do it for fun, and it especially needs those who think it's all a matter of luck.

My point in starting this thread was to invite people to Omaha Hi/Lo. Selfish reasons were we need a bigger player base with more recreational players, and that the action junkies might actually have more fun with all those cards out there. Altruistic reasons are that for those who want to work at it, it's a consistently more profitable game than hold em.

Gary

I wouldn't dare try playing omaha 2 years ago, didn't have a clue as to what it was. Now, I love playing it, if for no other reason than to have a break from hold'em. I play some horse and stud, but not so keen on them.

I will stick to the holdem games primarily and dabble in omaha, when feel the need to have a break from holdem.

Yes, but sometimes those chasers are justified due to the higher number of outs in Omaha. Often the drawing hand has better odds of winning than the made hand. But sometimes, they're just clueless chasers, and that's OK too. You want opponents who play poorly and make mistakes.

OK so I decided to give this Omaha another whirl...just for a few hands of course. Went to FT and entered a game with only 1 player sitting at the table. Posted the bb and was dealt the hand. Boy I felt like the teacher just put a trigonometry test in front of me and I had been studying for the Algebra quiz. Then decided to dissect the four cards a little different this time. Maybe this is so basic that everyone already knows it but it seemed new to my brain. Looking at