Personally I play mostly Texas Hold-em. I am trying to work on my Omaha game as find it to be more exciting. The variance certainly seems to be higher, but also easier to see who understands the game of Omaha from those that do not.
Having read through all the posts on this thread including the one I've quoted, I'm picking up more evidence to support a theory I've held for a while, that a player wanting to build up a bankroll from micro stakes upwards might very well be better off learning the fundamentals of Omaha and grinding that format, rather than Texas, because it seems easier to find and exploit fish/inexperienced players at Omaha tables, and a higher percentage of players at Omaha tables seem to be absolute beginners (at Omaha) who are just dipping their toes into those waters for a bit of a break from Texas.
Agreed, which is why I am looking to learn this game. I have really focused lately on preflop hand selection and the importance of having cards that allow you to play multiple types of boards. I feel, and know I was a victim of these too when I started, that many players will get two of the four cards that would make a good hold-em starting hand, but really limit your post flop opportunities since you must use two cards in your hand. You really want to have at least 3 hole cards that can be used before seeing a flop.
your rivals have the same situationI particularly prefer omaha for having a lot more action at hand, so it gets more exciting!