Is Omaha more of a gamble???

[cdidit622]

I have been playing poker for years, I started playing cards in general at a very young age ( I use to gamble with the janitor in middle school) . So I've play tonk, pitty pat and reaaly stop playing those games and went to poker because I felt I had more control in poker and it seem to be a less "gamble" and more skills. Most people I know play Texas but recently I ran into a few omaha players. The two require different strategies but I would like an input, do people feel that omaha is more of an game of chance and less of a game of skills?

 

[Niantic]

Most people do believe that Omaha is more of a gamble because you have much greater chance of hitting your hands.
Just take an example as a double suit hand. Almost no matter what card it is most people will call on a double suit, and if they hit a flush draw (and maybe a backdoor flush draw as well), then they won't fold. They'll only fold if they haven't hit anything on river.

At least, that is my experience!

Regards!

 

[KoRnholio]

Against good players you'll often both end up all in on the flop or turn (correctly) when it's the nuts against a huge draw. Generally hands run much closer together equity wise in Omaha compared to holdem. It can actually be quite hard to get the money in as a huge favorite. This makes the variance super high.

Of course, against fish a good player's edge is actually much higher than in holdem (in my opinion) and thus the variance is lower. There will be many times where the good player will be playing a solid hand like AdKsJdJs while the fish is in there with a dog crap hand like AJ85 rainbow. Flop comes KQT with two spades or diamonds and now the good player has a 30%+ chance to win the whole pot, even though both players currently have the nuts.

If I were to give a 30 second PLO lesson I'd just say:

- Draw to the nuts
- Redraws are great
- Many times a big draw is a strong favorite (for PLO) over a set/2 pair
- Bottom set can be a big trouble hand (akin to 22 preflop in Holdem, If all the money goes in, you are either slightly ahead, or way behind)

 

[ovi1kanobi]

I have been playing poker for years, I started playing cards in general at a very young age ( I use to gamble with the janitor in middle school) . So I've play tonk, pitty pat and reaaly stop playing those games and went to poker because I felt I had more control in poker and it seem to be a less "gamble" and more skills. Most people I know play Texas but recently I ran into a few omaha players. The two require different strategies but I would like an input, do people feel that omaha is more of an game of chance and less of a game of skills?

I personally feel that omaha is more of a gamble. It's definitely a draw game that's for sure. So a short answer to your question, in my opinion yes it's more of a gamble. I guess for some people that are really good it would be less of a gamble because they win at it more. So I guess it comes down to who you are and who your playing.

 

[Colbefc]

I play PLO most of the time and the varience is
frightening compared to NL

I would suggest you need at least double the
bankroll to play PLO that you need for NL because
as people have said it is a drawing game and a
gambling game and you have to be prepared to
put you whole stack in with a good draw but as
we all know until it hits a good draw is just
that. If you are prone to tilt I would not recommend
PLO cos bad beats come thick and fast

 

[AUPhoenix]

Omaha is definitely more a game of chance than holdem. The two extra down cards provide almost endless extra possibilities of hands that could come up. That is for you and your opponent in the hand. I have read the pros tell you do not get in a PLO game without a much larger bank roll and even more importantly be ready and able to handle much bigger monetary swings in your bankroll. If I play this it is at very low stakes.

 

[doops]

Against good players you'll often both end up all in on the flop or turn (correctly) when it's the nuts against a huge draw. Generally hands run much closer together equity wise in Omaha compared to holdem. It can actually be quite hard to get the money in as a huge favorite. This makes the variance super high.

Of course, against fish a good player's edge is actually much higher than in holdem (in my opinion) and thus the variance is lower. There will be many times where the good player will be playing a solid hand like AdKsJdJs while the fish is in there with a dog crap hand like AJ85 rainbow. Flop comes KQT with two spades or diamonds and now the good player has a 30%+ chance to win the whole pot, even though both players currently have the nuts.

If I were to give a 30 second PLO lesson I'd just say:

- Draw to the nuts
- Redraws are great
- Many times a big draw is a strong favorite (for PLO) over a set/2 pair
- Bottom set can be a big trouble hand (akin to 22 preflop in Holdem, If all the money goes in, you are either slightly ahead, or way behind)

Exactly. On everything. The variance is greater. But the skilled player, who understands the values and the risks, and knows the value of additional outs even with a made hand, can do very nicely, thank you. He will still need a much larger bankroll to be able to deal with the higher than NLHE suckout rate.

So, yes, Omaha is more of a gambler's game. Few hands are safe before the river. (Quads are pretty good, and a royal is always good. Anything else can be beat.) Anything can happen in Omaha. No whining allowed.

 

[mrmonkey]

No whining allowed.

This should be a mantra. I broke it earlier today when I was finishing up a session in which my flopped boat, which I bet and had called on each street, got eaten up by a one outter straight flush on the river. It wasn't even an open-ended straight flush draw, it was the lone, roulette-spin case card that happened to fall.

I did not have any cheese with my whine.