What are the major characteristic differences between Hold'Em and Omaha?
I play hold'em 'cause that's the game I know best (well, the only poker variant I can play ), but I've heard of this game called Omaha. Some of my friends play it and seem to be enthusiastic about it, some people say it's easier to make a living from than is the case with Hold'Em, and now there's even a thread here in the forum arguing whether this omaha thing is the game of the future.
I barely know the rules of Omaha, but I'm not putting up this post with the purpose of learning basic mechanics of Omaha - My question, which I hope some of you multi-talented cardschatters with a deeper understanding of both games can answer - is this:
Apart from the trivial mechanic differences in the way the game is played, what are the major differences in how the game is approached? Are there any differences in the underlying math theory to be applied, are the drivers for game dynamics the same, well are there any traits at all besides of pure mechanics that set Omaha apart from Hold'Em in a big way? or are they just two quite similar variants of the same game, based on similar dynamics?
...and of course this: Is it easier to beat Omaha than Hold'Em at any given level?
I will probably give Omaha a shot one day, but for now it would be very interesting to get a heads up from someone who's been out there in the front line, grinding both games .......anyone?