G
glworden
Visionary
Silver Level
I am a beginning player, transitioning to intermediate. Here are excerpts of a discussion I share with my local players' group, just my take on the game. Comments, suggestions are criticism are welcome.
Omaha HL limit didn't work out for me. The game dynamic is a whole different profile than Pot Limit. It costs more to see a flop, so if you're not hitting you fritter your stack away at a faster rate. The pot odds make it cheaper to chase, so you might end up doing more of that than you should. And there's not much leverage with the betting.
I'm back to Pot Limit and doing well. I'm playing .10/.25 with a $25 buy-in. It's mainly a lot of waiting, then trying to capitalize from big hands. Flops are cheap, but I'm really tightening up at full tables. I'm consistently seeing 16% of flops, which is pretty darned tight. I find in Omaha it's so easy to hit the second best hand that you might as well just fold anything that doesn't have the potential to make the nut.
Here's what I'll play if it's cheap:
A-2-3, especially if the ace is suited.
Any three cards that make the wheel.
And hand with three broadway cards
Any double suited aces
I'll fold almost every hand with three middle cards. 8-9-T-J looks good and is a decent hand in Omaha high, but in H/L, if you make the straight you're either splitting with a low or have the dreaded King-high strait, which is one of the most costly hands I come across.
A naked A-2 can be very expensive.
I avoid low sets and the under full.
The thing I like about H/L Omaha is that there are much fewer bad beats than in Hold Em. I think that's because if you play really tight hand selection, you end up with big draws or big hands most of the time you're in the pot, or you're out early.
I prefer to scoop, but if it looks like a split, you have to remember to cut the pot in half when calculating pot odds and implied odds. It could still be worth it.
Big rookie mistake: overbetting and betting people out of the pot. In a split pot game, you want as many people contributing as possible. Once you're down to heads up, if you have the high or low nut, you're only getting your own bets (minus rake) back or you win only by betting the other person out of the pot - which is a rarity. This is more possible in PL than Limit only.
Bluffing isn't nearly as big a part of the game as on Hold 'Em. Sometimes you can do it in late position on a flushy board, but be cautious because anybody sitting with the nut is doing what they can to build the pot, including check-raise. I imagine bluffing is even less effective in limit.
BAD opponents are easy to spot in Omaha. They are often those who play like it's hold 'em. They get a good hand (or maybe not so good) so they come out betting. We're all learners, so it's no surprise that there are people who do this. I like to see it. But what amazes me is seeing the same people doing it week after week. It's about the most stupid thing you can do in Omaha, especially the split game. The good players are playing so tight and selective that anybody who calls them is likely to have a powerhouse hand. But mainly, they are just killing the pot and not getting any value out of their good hands. You can tell that they're getting a thrill because they take lots of small pots - they're usually just getting their own money back. It's a perfect example of somebody playing a strategy that goes against their own interests. It can be a little annoying because it cuts down you ability to see flops, but on the whole that's not such a bad thing since selectivity is so important. These guys are like the hold 'em maniacs. Lots of drama and fireworks, lots of action, but they are usually depleted within an hour. The good players at the table are just waiting for an opportunity to call them.
I think Omaha is more profitable than Hold 'Em because:
1. bad players are so obvious
2. The rise from bad to average is easier in Omaha than Hold 'Em, and the advantage is huge.
3. It's more analytical, less psycho-bluffing aggressive BS.
4. Because of the big bets in PL, it's easier to get away from speculative hands. Since you expect Omaha hands to be bigger, I find this to be perhaps the biggest advantage of Omaha. It just doesn't pay to chase, so you don't. The best draws in Hold'Em are crappy ones in Omaha. In Hold 'Em, an 8-outer open-ended straight draw is a decent hand. In Omaha it's crap, because the outs there are 13, 16 or 20 outs. So you don't even mess with a lot of the crap that looks golden in Hold 'Em. They say FOLDING is the most powerful move in Hold 'Em. It's even more so in Omaha.
5. I feel more in control in Omaha. When it comes time for me to bet the pot, I'm very rarely doing it on a hope and a prayer. Looking at my Omaha stats, I'm winning close to 100% of showdowns. I just don't go to showdown unless I'm in good shape. It could be I need to loosen up with that 100% stat - something to think about. Usually my worst outcome, and I try to avoid this, is getting quartered. It usually happens when I have the nut low and am trying to be aggressive with a big bet in hopes of inducing a fold. Sometimes it works. The other bad outome is betting big with the nut low, then getting counterfeited on the river. The saving grace in a PL game is that the bets get exponentially bigger each round, so I can usually fold after the turn without too much damage. Or if I'm against a small stack, I just take the loss.
The down side of Omaha:
1. It can be very slow. It's great when you sit down and get a couple big hands per hour. The $25 can quickly go to $50, $75 or more. But more often you sit and you wait, folding almost everything, bobbing back and forth between $20 and $30. It can go on like this for a long time. Several hours. In Hold 'Em, you can get creative, get aggressive, get bluffy. But that's usually a fatal path in Omaha, so it's just wait, wait, wait.
2. Getting scooped or quartered can cost you your stack. Of course, you can get felted in Hold 'Em too. Getting felted in Omaha can be pretty discouraging, though, because it can be such a slow game that you've just spent a couple hours only to lose it all on one hand, and now you feel like it's going to take all day to recover.
3. Going on tilt can be fatal. No room for tilt. In Hold 'em, even the worst tilty move sometimes works out because people will fold to your big bet. In Omaha, so many hands go to showdown that you have to win it with the cards, and if you can't, you're toast.
If you're having a good Omaha session, it seems so easy. Just give me my fair share of scoop hands, one or two per hour, and I can breeze through this game.
If you're getting no hands, you can wonder why anybody would ever play this game.
I had a prolonged losing streak playing H/L $1/$2 limit. I just couldn't figure out how to win in a game where you have virtually no betting leverage at all. In PL, I still pull off enough bluffs that I scoop the occasional medium pot. I just don't see how you could do that at all in limit.
I was playing yesterday and these two guys each had $30 in a $65 pot. On the river, one went all in with his last 60 cents, and the other folded. I couldn't believe it! He obviously missed his draw, but still - with those pot odds I'd think you'd call with anything on the hope that the other guy is spasming out with a seizure or something. Lost cause for almost sure. But still, $65 pot and you're not going to make the 100:1 call? I try not to get into that situation - and with pot-sized bets and the spectre of pot-sized on the next street, it's pretty easy to get away with anything but stellar holdings. But in a limit game, I'd just be calling those bets on pot odds alone. Maybe that's why I'm no good at limit.
Anyway, in trying the limit I pretty much blew through what was left in my UB account. So I switched back to Bodog, which has the worst players online. I had $300 six weeks ago, faltered to $167 while learning the game, and am now up to $440 on a pretty steady rise. It's slow going, but steady and as I said less volatile than hold 'em. I'll eventually move up in stakes, which always makes me nervous, because higher stake tables are harder to find and I'd expect there to be fewer bad players. I might not be able to find those tables consistently on Bodog. The flop percentages on Bodog are high - almost always 50+%, and often in the 70s or 80s. I look at PokerStars where they are in the 40s, and I don't know if I could win there.
I'd like to hear how others are doing? Still playing limit? Mainly high? Steady profits?
I'm actually preferring smaller tables, which allow me more post-flop play and creativity. The fuller the table, the more cut-and-dry the strategy.
As to reading, I think the most succinct text on H/L is the section in SuperSystems 2. I find that if I try to read everything, I get confused. It's really a pretty simple game that comes down to patience, discipline and above all hand selection.
GtW
Omaha HL limit didn't work out for me. The game dynamic is a whole different profile than Pot Limit. It costs more to see a flop, so if you're not hitting you fritter your stack away at a faster rate. The pot odds make it cheaper to chase, so you might end up doing more of that than you should. And there's not much leverage with the betting.
I'm back to Pot Limit and doing well. I'm playing .10/.25 with a $25 buy-in. It's mainly a lot of waiting, then trying to capitalize from big hands. Flops are cheap, but I'm really tightening up at full tables. I'm consistently seeing 16% of flops, which is pretty darned tight. I find in Omaha it's so easy to hit the second best hand that you might as well just fold anything that doesn't have the potential to make the nut.
Here's what I'll play if it's cheap:
A-2-3, especially if the ace is suited.
Any three cards that make the wheel.
And hand with three broadway cards
Any double suited aces
I'll fold almost every hand with three middle cards. 8-9-T-J looks good and is a decent hand in Omaha high, but in H/L, if you make the straight you're either splitting with a low or have the dreaded King-high strait, which is one of the most costly hands I come across.
A naked A-2 can be very expensive.
I avoid low sets and the under full.
The thing I like about H/L Omaha is that there are much fewer bad beats than in Hold Em. I think that's because if you play really tight hand selection, you end up with big draws or big hands most of the time you're in the pot, or you're out early.
I prefer to scoop, but if it looks like a split, you have to remember to cut the pot in half when calculating pot odds and implied odds. It could still be worth it.
Big rookie mistake: overbetting and betting people out of the pot. In a split pot game, you want as many people contributing as possible. Once you're down to heads up, if you have the high or low nut, you're only getting your own bets (minus rake) back or you win only by betting the other person out of the pot - which is a rarity. This is more possible in PL than Limit only.
Bluffing isn't nearly as big a part of the game as on Hold 'Em. Sometimes you can do it in late position on a flushy board, but be cautious because anybody sitting with the nut is doing what they can to build the pot, including check-raise. I imagine bluffing is even less effective in limit.
BAD opponents are easy to spot in Omaha. They are often those who play like it's hold 'em. They get a good hand (or maybe not so good) so they come out betting. We're all learners, so it's no surprise that there are people who do this. I like to see it. But what amazes me is seeing the same people doing it week after week. It's about the most stupid thing you can do in Omaha, especially the split game. The good players are playing so tight and selective that anybody who calls them is likely to have a powerhouse hand. But mainly, they are just killing the pot and not getting any value out of their good hands. You can tell that they're getting a thrill because they take lots of small pots - they're usually just getting their own money back. It's a perfect example of somebody playing a strategy that goes against their own interests. It can be a little annoying because it cuts down you ability to see flops, but on the whole that's not such a bad thing since selectivity is so important. These guys are like the hold 'em maniacs. Lots of drama and fireworks, lots of action, but they are usually depleted within an hour. The good players at the table are just waiting for an opportunity to call them.
I think Omaha is more profitable than Hold 'Em because:
1. bad players are so obvious
2. The rise from bad to average is easier in Omaha than Hold 'Em, and the advantage is huge.
3. It's more analytical, less psycho-bluffing aggressive BS.
4. Because of the big bets in PL, it's easier to get away from speculative hands. Since you expect Omaha hands to be bigger, I find this to be perhaps the biggest advantage of Omaha. It just doesn't pay to chase, so you don't. The best draws in Hold'Em are crappy ones in Omaha. In Hold 'Em, an 8-outer open-ended straight draw is a decent hand. In Omaha it's crap, because the outs there are 13, 16 or 20 outs. So you don't even mess with a lot of the crap that looks golden in Hold 'Em. They say FOLDING is the most powerful move in Hold 'Em. It's even more so in Omaha.
5. I feel more in control in Omaha. When it comes time for me to bet the pot, I'm very rarely doing it on a hope and a prayer. Looking at my Omaha stats, I'm winning close to 100% of showdowns. I just don't go to showdown unless I'm in good shape. It could be I need to loosen up with that 100% stat - something to think about. Usually my worst outcome, and I try to avoid this, is getting quartered. It usually happens when I have the nut low and am trying to be aggressive with a big bet in hopes of inducing a fold. Sometimes it works. The other bad outome is betting big with the nut low, then getting counterfeited on the river. The saving grace in a PL game is that the bets get exponentially bigger each round, so I can usually fold after the turn without too much damage. Or if I'm against a small stack, I just take the loss.
The down side of Omaha:
1. It can be very slow. It's great when you sit down and get a couple big hands per hour. The $25 can quickly go to $50, $75 or more. But more often you sit and you wait, folding almost everything, bobbing back and forth between $20 and $30. It can go on like this for a long time. Several hours. In Hold 'Em, you can get creative, get aggressive, get bluffy. But that's usually a fatal path in Omaha, so it's just wait, wait, wait.
2. Getting scooped or quartered can cost you your stack. Of course, you can get felted in Hold 'Em too. Getting felted in Omaha can be pretty discouraging, though, because it can be such a slow game that you've just spent a couple hours only to lose it all on one hand, and now you feel like it's going to take all day to recover.
3. Going on tilt can be fatal. No room for tilt. In Hold 'em, even the worst tilty move sometimes works out because people will fold to your big bet. In Omaha, so many hands go to showdown that you have to win it with the cards, and if you can't, you're toast.
If you're having a good Omaha session, it seems so easy. Just give me my fair share of scoop hands, one or two per hour, and I can breeze through this game.
If you're getting no hands, you can wonder why anybody would ever play this game.
I had a prolonged losing streak playing H/L $1/$2 limit. I just couldn't figure out how to win in a game where you have virtually no betting leverage at all. In PL, I still pull off enough bluffs that I scoop the occasional medium pot. I just don't see how you could do that at all in limit.
I was playing yesterday and these two guys each had $30 in a $65 pot. On the river, one went all in with his last 60 cents, and the other folded. I couldn't believe it! He obviously missed his draw, but still - with those pot odds I'd think you'd call with anything on the hope that the other guy is spasming out with a seizure or something. Lost cause for almost sure. But still, $65 pot and you're not going to make the 100:1 call? I try not to get into that situation - and with pot-sized bets and the spectre of pot-sized on the next street, it's pretty easy to get away with anything but stellar holdings. But in a limit game, I'd just be calling those bets on pot odds alone. Maybe that's why I'm no good at limit.
Anyway, in trying the limit I pretty much blew through what was left in my UB account. So I switched back to Bodog, which has the worst players online. I had $300 six weeks ago, faltered to $167 while learning the game, and am now up to $440 on a pretty steady rise. It's slow going, but steady and as I said less volatile than hold 'em. I'll eventually move up in stakes, which always makes me nervous, because higher stake tables are harder to find and I'd expect there to be fewer bad players. I might not be able to find those tables consistently on Bodog. The flop percentages on Bodog are high - almost always 50+%, and often in the 70s or 80s. I look at PokerStars where they are in the 40s, and I don't know if I could win there.
I'd like to hear how others are doing? Still playing limit? Mainly high? Steady profits?
I'm actually preferring smaller tables, which allow me more post-flop play and creativity. The fuller the table, the more cut-and-dry the strategy.
As to reading, I think the most succinct text on H/L is the section in SuperSystems 2. I find that if I try to read everything, I get confused. It's really a pretty simple game that comes down to patience, discipline and above all hand selection.
GtW