NLH or PLO in cash games?

Which is more profitable at the micros? I know most of you will say, go with whichever your best at or whatever.. but I'm just wondering which has the potential to let you win more?

My theory is that in PLO you can play more hands and the average hand is a lot stronger, so you can value bet a lot more and vs a calling station you can win more as opposed to NLH where you'd have to value bet a lot more thinly, am I right?

And does PLO have more fish than NLH? Just wondering, thanks.

- Campbell

:icon_salu :albertein

in a vacuum....

this is a difficult question, but I have to believe for most

1. Most people are probably better at NL
2. You can play more hands of NL
3. The volatility should be lower at NL

but, on the other hand micro players make "bigger" mistakes at PLO

and you would probably rake more per hand playing PLO

if you could get the same amt of hands etc in a hr, PLO8 would probably have the most benefits, ie higher rake, big mistakes, and lower volatilty

gl at the tables,

t

I suspect that a key factor is the skill differential relative to the opponents. For instance, if you're only slightly better than the fish at PLO but solidly better than the regs at NLH, the latter seems likely to be more profitable.

Also, since we're not talking about a lot of money, it may not be "worth it" in terms of fun to focus on the game you enjoy less. For instance, if we assume a win rate increase of 2BB per 100 hands single-tabling .02/.05, that's roughly .05 more per hour. What's more, it may not take much improvement to raise your win rate at your preferred game by this amount or more.