Complexity : NLHE vs. LHE vs. PLO8

I am currently focused on Limit Hold'Em Cash Games, but have played in some NLHE Freerolls (and won 31 cents ! Woohoo !). When I initially checked out poker in November 2008 I had a lot of fun with PLO8 and play money. Now, I have been studying and playing seriously at the micro stakes and I am putting together a study plan based on some Ed Miller books, and a ton of stickies (including the ones here). As I study, it occurs to me that I may want to eventually revisit NLHE and PLO8 cash games. Also, I would like to be good enough at NLHE to hold my own in tournaments. I'd like to know what I can expect, if I establish a baseline set of skills in Limit Hold'Em.

How does NLHE and PLO8 compare to LHE ? Also, is it true that PLO8 is closer to Draw or Stud than it is to Texas Hold'Em ?

I haven't played a great deal of LHE, but I do know that PLO8 has a lot more to do with hold 'em than it does with draw or stud. It's also a much more complicated game than either LHE or NLHE and last I checked, the low-stakes PLO8 cash games (on Full Tilt, at any rate) were populated by loads of muli-tabling regs and the occasional fish who'd wander in, drop one buy-in and then realise they were in the wrong game and leave.

Anywho, long story short. You'll learn some skills in LHE that you can apply to all games (getting reads on when opponents are weak or strong, taking note of their tendencies, etc) but you've really got to study and approach each game in its own right. Being a great LHE or NLHE player won't make you a winning PLO8 player, for example.

In general, NLHE is the easiest game to learn because you can make a series of small mistakes, then play one hand perfectly and still finish with a profit. Plus there's endless action and loads of fish. LHE is a lot less forgiving of small mistakes, as one perfect hand rarely wins you enough to make up for them. And PLO8... it's an evil game for beginners. Way too many ways to win some of the pot and still end up behind, especially in a cash game where you've gotta worry about rake as well, and the reg-to-fish ratio can be pretty bad.

Structured study!..Kudos !

The similarities stop at the cards. The things these games have in common are everything EXCEPT WHAT YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND !

You will want, in each case, to concentrate on Position, Stack sizes and relevances, player betting tendencies (only real 'tell' we get online), starting hands (ranges) for both yourself and your opponents.

As you focus in on particular issues or notions, don't be in a large rush to abandon your play money games. Higher buy-in play money games tend to play like decent micro/low limit cash games and are good for working thru concepts.

From my read you are playing ring games. Personally I don't like my ring game, but do like my tourney game.

All of the games you mentioned will also have those 2 different formats, and I, and at least a few others contend there are differences between the ring version and the tourney version.

Wow - I remember having much fun with PLO8. Kinda sad to hear that about the actual nature of the cash games, but I'll have some idea of what I can work on before I start trying to play it again. And honestly, I have always wanted to try getting a massive mountain of play chips... hmm. Well, for now at least, I will stick with LHE... with some NL for tourneys (won 31 cents in the PokerStars PPA Freeroll :-) ) Maybe that will be good - limit cash games, but no limit tourneys ? I'll see how that combo holds up...

You can get lucky in Omaha and No Limit, and make up for a lot of bad play with one good hand. That doesn't happen in Limit. The best players will always win at Limit. And there are fewer donks to take advantage of in a Limit game.

You can get lucky in any poker game. If you lose 6 or 7 buy-ins with lots of bad play, how do you make up for it in one good hand (in PLO8/NLHE)? Please explain....

Why doesn't it happen in 'Limit'??

Best players at 'what game' will always win at Limit ??

How did you establish that there are fewer donks to take advantage of in Limit ??

The "basic" principles behind all poker is identical. You put your opponent on a range of hands and bet your hand accordingly, aiming to make more money from the hands you beat than lose money to those you don't. As you begin to reach higher stakes, the range of hands you and your opponents play will continually shift which is often referred to as balancing ranges.

As for complexity, limit is easier than no limit and both are easier than hi/lo. Personally from the most popular games my order from simplest to not-simplest would be,

Razz
stud
holdem
omaha
hi/lo stud
hi/lo omaha

PLO8 is the annoying brat love-child of Omaha and Razz and the poker players who have learnt to deal with this little brat will have a much larger edge over worse players than any other poker variant.

Admittedly I have not played a great deal of PLO8 aside from swooping into a micro-stake NL cash game or a few orbits of a HORSE table. The only bit of advice I can give is to become semi-proficient at Razz and Omaha firstly so you are more aware of what strength of hands typically go to showdown in both variants. Then after that, you can modify those showdownded hands to suit the slightly tighter hi/lo showdownded handedies.

Yes, you can get lucky at anything. I didn't say you could make up for an infinite amount of bad play with one hand. But, in theory, in No Limit, you could win back 6 or 7 buy-ins on one big hand.

It doesn't happen in Limit because (under most rules) the biggest possible pot is 24 Big Blinds per player, whereas in No Limit you can easily win 100 BBs per player on a single hand.

Obviously I meant that the best Limit Hold 'Em players will always win at Limit Hold 'Em. It's mostly a technical game of calculating the odds, with a smaller element of hand-reading. Since you generally cannot bet enough to protect your hand or give bad odds on a draw, bluffing is less of a factor in Limit, and consequently so is hand-reading.

Obviously, I can't prove this contention. If you are going to hold me to an impossible standard of proof, then you are going to win the argument, at least in your own mind. This contention is based upon my observations, as well as what seems logically to be the case.

I suppose this goes to the definition of the word donk. To me, the definition of a donk is someone with marginal skills who hopes to get lucky. This type of player wants to play games that offer long odds when they hit, like the lotto, like slots. Thus No Limit is a more attractive game to them.

One writer says that you win at Limit because of the sum total of all the correct decisions you make in a session, and you win at No Limit by making correct decisions in big hands. Donks do better at making a few correct decisions than they do at making mostly correct decisions. Thus donks do better at No Limit, and thus more donks play No Limit.

No Limit is often more attractive to the masses, imo, because it takes so little knowledge to play. Everyone can play nlhe. While one site may have 20 nlhe tables open, there are 30% pure bad players at those tables. That same site may only have 3 lhe tables open at the same stakes, but the same 30% of bad players will likely be at those 3 tables.

Who might that 'writer' be?? Is that whole paragraph their words? or are some statements para-phrased or interpretted after the initial comment? Don't 'donks' in fact do better when Lady Luck and the Poker Gods smile on their bad decisions? I would contend that bad players prefer No Limit because it's the only thing they understand.... all-in or fold ...

I like Julies retort.

I find LHE to be more technical, with implications in NLHE, whereas the aggression of NLHE doesn't transfer so well, over a long session, to LHE.

IMHO

http://www.holdemreview.com/limit-ho...-limit-holdem/

I'm not going to go around and around with you Nick. You clearly have strong beliefs on this topic, and are not likely to be persuaded. I also believe that I am right. You rebutted and I defended. I don't see any liklihood of agreement between us, and we have each made our arguments to the other readers of this thread.

No problem, be happy to drop it. I was under the impression that discussions were sometimes more than single statements, but w/e.

GL in your games ...

I like playing Omaha because of the complexities of it more than holdem but I think i'm better at holdem.

complexity:
1.omaha
2.no limit holdem
3.limit holdem.

LHE is just like NLHE except for the all in move and big bets while PLO8 is totally different.

Its really according to what you like best.