|
| Author |
Message |
kenobi Flush
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BlueSL65AMG wrote: |
| I think that hold em' to me is a harder game but more skillful than omaha. In omaha there are so many draws/chasing going on. Omaha definately has a lot more luck involved. If im feelin lucky then ill play omaha. But usually I play hold em'. |
Omaha has a lot less luck envolved, but appears to have a lot more luck envolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kenobi Flush
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I forgot to add "Which usually makes it easier to turn a profit than hold'em." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
acekicker626 Flush
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 Posts: 147 Location: killa cali California
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| no cant agree with you there omah dosnt take more skill if any thing its less you have more cards to put hands to gather but in holdem your olny delt 2 cards and you have you more fears of what your oppotet has |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
a24kiaj Pair
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 Posts: 43 Location: OHIO ,USA
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dont get me wrong but i like holdom all though omaha has more thought put in to it |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shyguy94 Flush
Joined: 21 Nov 2006 Posts: 148 Location: Andalusia, Alabama
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like Omaha better than Holdem< but you can easier get your but whooped alot easier to by Omaha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HuJwang Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Posts: 5865 Location: Halifax, NS
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| acekicker626 wrote: |
| no cant agree with you there omah dosnt take more skill if any thing its less you have more cards to put hands to gather but in holdem your olny delt 2 cards and you have you more fears of what your oppotet has |
gee, revive an 8 month old thread for this semi-coherent post.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Buttonwillow High Card
Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Riverside, Calif.
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: More "beginner" skill |
|
|
First off, there's a difference between lower-level skill and higher-level skill.
At beginner (and probably intermediary) levels, Omaha definitely takes more skill.
I have a cash game where we alternate between pot-limit Hold'em and pot-limit Omaha. The beginners/semi-beginners always bomb out the fastest in Omaha -- they get annihilated almost immediately. That's not luck. If it were luck, beginners would do much better and the better players would be getting wiped out more.
Why do beginners bomb out so fast in Pot-Limit Omaha (high)?
Well the hardest thing for a beginner to do is to fold a marginal hand on the flop. They don't have the knowledge or sensibility to figure out what's marginal, what's strong and what's weak. All they know is they caught something and they don't want to let it go.
For example, two pair is probably the most dangerous hand in Omaha. Beginners (and simply bad players) loose their stacks with them time and time again. It's pathetic, actually. However, good players can play two pair profitably -- they read the board and feel out their opponent, and yes, occassionally bluff with them when the situation is ripe.
In contrast, in Hold'em it's easy to miss the flop entirely. In fact, you usually do miss the flop. And when you do miss the flop, it's easy to lay down the hand. Even a beginner can see he has nothing.
In Omaha, however, you're always catching some piece of the flop -- pair, two pair, three pair, some nice draws, etc.-- Therefore, there will be more times where you will have to exercise poker judgement on the flop. You have to gauge the relative strength of what you caught. And that's where the beginner makes the crucial mistakes and lose all of his/her chips.
The other thing I see many beginners fail to do is bet aggressively enough when they do flop a strong hand -- they will play too "passively" and not protect their hand. Failing to protect your hand when you should is a bigger sin in Omaha than in Hold'em-- this is because draws are so much bigger in Omaha, that giving a free card is more likely to cost you the pot.
Furthermore, in Hold'em, a beginner can get away with failing to read the board. If the beginner fails to see the double gut-shot board in Hold'em, it probably won't matter -- there's a good chance no one has it. In Omaha, however, that same oversight will cost you all your chips.
Finally, since Omaha (high) is almost always played pot-limit, that betting structure assures more flops, turns and rivers are played. Outplaying an opponent on the flop takes way more skill than pushing all-in preflop, as happens more in NL hold'em.
Also, pot-limit increases the importance of position. Pot-limit Omaha is way more positional that No-limit hold'em (or even pot-limit hold'em). That's another skill set that beginners (or even average players) are oblivious of.
In summary, beginners can't read the board, can't figure out where they stand, can't lay down a marginal hand, can't protect a good hand, can't play post-flop, and can't exploit position. This is bad enough in Hold'em, but it means instant decapitation in Omaha.
This suggests a higher level of "beginner" skill. (It also suggests Omaha will never be as popular in the US as Hold'em, since it's not beginner friendly at all.)
I would venture to say that "intermediate" skill is probably also higher in PLO, but that's a total guess.
As for the expert-level skill required, I have no idea. I'm guessing that it's around as skillful/complex as hold'em, either more or less.
A lot of skilled hold'em players also play Omaha sucessfully. Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, Chris Ferguson, TJ Cloutier all do. If these top players can make a larger long-run profit in Omaha than Hold'em (when playing against similar players at similar stakes) then that would suggest a higher skill level, I think. It would be interesting to see numbers on this.
BTW, the game isn't just about "the nuts" as it is often said. There are surprisingly many situations where the nuts doesn't win... and it takes a lot of skill to identify and profit from those situations. Besides, poker is not about winning a pot -- it's about winning lots of money. Anyone can flop the nut flush, bet pot, and take it down. But that won't win you a big pot. Knowing how to extract the maximum amount with either a made hand, a good nut draw, a backdoor, an opponent's busted draw, or sometimes with a total bluff (yes, you can bluff in Omaha), is where skill comes in.
Of course, the most important thing is not what is more skillful (in which case we'd be doing theoretical physics), but what's funner.
Five-handed, I'd choose PLO over Hold'em any day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
8ANASHS High Card
Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 14 Location: STOCKHOLM,NORSBORG,ATHENS,PLATANOS
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ...couldnt agree more Buttonwillow...also , keeping track of the winning percentages of each player in different situations requires a lot more calculating in PLO...assuming u r good enough to guess the cards of your opponents , of course...pot odds and implied odds become so much more complicated in omaha... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FOUR ASES Message Board Junkie
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 Posts: 1526
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omaha is more harder to play. Takes more skill to pick 2 cards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|