Question - Omaha vs Holdem

I've watched a lot of the forum comments and blogs written by online players for a while now and I have a question that begs an answer.

We see countless posts and complaints about the "donks, idiots, morons, lukboxes, sukouts, river rats, noobs, chasers and bad beats" mostly regarding HoldEm and 7 card games. Granted, the majority of players are HoldEm enthusiasts and some experienced 7 card players.

Omaha is gaining popularity, both Hi and Hi/Lo. Yet we seldom see the same terms listed above regarding Omaha players and almost never see an Omaha 'bad beat' story. The most common statement seen about Omaha is 'good drawing hands'.

Doesn't a good drawing hand bring the same results as any other game? All it means in Omaha is that you have 4 cards to use instead of 2 in making the best 5 card hand on showdown. If there was ever a case for "donks, idiots, morons, lukboxes, sukouts, river rats, noobs, chasers and bad beats" it would be in Omaha.

Yes, fewer players really understand the game and know that the computer will figure it all out on showdown. Omaha tournies end sooner than any other game, bar none, given identical entries. It certainly isn't because of superior skill of the players.

Many players post about how their great 2 HoldEm hole cards didn't hold up, but do not seem to mind when their 4 great Omaha drawing cards do not hit. Just strikes me as an interesting oxymoron. If there is nothing wrong with being a Stock Broker and playing the 'futures' with 4 cards in Omaha, what's wrong with being a Day Trader playing 'futures' with only 2 cards? It's just a smaller BR of cards.

The question is - why don't online players attack the questionable plays, whine, place blame, and resort to name calling in Omaha like they do the other games?

duh, in omaha there are four cards and like tons more possibilities so drawing out is normal.

Seriously, people are idiots. I'm talking about both the ones that chase gutshots for pot bets in holdem, and the people that complain about their aces losing when they slowplayed a draw-heavy board or gave odds to a FD or whatever.

Not to mention that, given that there are a million times more HE tables than OH tables at any site, there is just plain more talk about holdem in general.

Omaha is a game where if you flop a good hand you still have to worry more that your opponent will hit something better, and staying in with a drawing hand is not such a donk play as you normally have a lot more cards that you can use as outs than you would in holdem. (As long as you start with a good holdem hand)

i am currently a holdem player but i one day aspire to play omaha more. the players in my current game are reluctant to play as they either do not understand it or think it is easier to lose at cause yu have more cards. you see all the top pros sayin it is a better game. i have played free play games to get used to it a bit more and played a few cash games but hvent done too well upto now in real money so will have to learn a bit more before i invest some money in it.

One major difference in Omaha versus Texas is that you commonly will see someone with the drawing hand being a favorite against a "made" hand. This can be attributed to the fact that with 4 cards, you have the equvalent of 6 Texas starting hands.

also a reaon you here less suck out stories is because at best an omaha hand is about 60% favourite pre flop instead of 80% with AA in holdem.