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?