The title may be misleading because I don't consider myself beating PLO yet but at least I'm sure I can survive at it for a while.

I've always suspected that playing PLO affects my motivation badly when I see merely two cards in my hand and feel as if my bottom half was cut off. Now I think that PLO has dropped my NLHE skills to zero upon months of not training HE because I remember only selected pieces of HE knowledge that fail to complete a jigsaw puzzle in my head.

I remember clearly that I can play any two cards from the button but I puke when reraised because I remember that I can't call with almost any cards like in PLO. I subconsciously carry my PLO habits e.g. I suspect boats/trips on every paired flop and flushes on every monotone flop, regard a top pair with a bad kicker as a draw to two pairs, probably donkbet too much etc etc. As a result, I can't afford to play HEMTTs even with 1.5x overlays.

I hear of a lot of people that can play both games reasonably good, e.g. recall that kelnel's May IPT victory. Generally people with big HE results get more respect. I also see a lot of people online who multitable NLHE and PLO at the same time, I find this practice harmful but it still exists.

It's not the same thing as shifting to a new 'game of future' when an old one dies out. PLO and HE coexist, unfortunately most bonus tournaments of cashback programs come in the NLHE form so I have to stop either worrying about missed cashback value or failing at those tourneys.

So do you prefer to master one game at a time or to be decent in several games (probably mixed-game tourneys)?

learning multiple games increases skill in other games. PLO is softer than holdem though, maybe the skill level is one stake in front in holdem.

Saying that my track record at holdem cash is quite bleak. I play suited connectors far too much in 3b pots, and I fold to 3bs no where near often enough, because of plo cross over. I think plo improves holdem in hand reading- reading two cards is tonnes easier than reading 4.

A good stud type education helps you visualise the deck a bit better- outs and dead cards are so important in these games- and this awareness transfers to the flop games somewhat.

Its probably best to dedicate to one game, but learn the theory and play some of the others.

If you're profficient at one, there is no logical reason why you wouldn't be at the other. It's not as if one requires a fundamentally different skill-set. Of course both games are conceptually different, yet the fundamentals ; tilt control, understanding the purpose of any particular action you take, assigning Villain ranges and understanding their patterns etc are similar accross both games. Improvement simply comes through experience. Playing both regularly is perfectly attainable, just not directly at the same time (although some will likely be able to do this).

i personally cant stand Nlhe. When i first started playing plo i never went back to nlhe and think thats a good thing

I feel exactly the opposite, I don't know nearly as well what hands my opponents might be holding in texas. They could have anything, since ranges are not as polarized as in omaha. I suck at all forms of NLHE except for push-fold tournament poker.

PLO has vastly increased my NLHE skills...by a country mile. Reason is I can hand read 2 cards far greater than 4 and I think my best PLO skill is putting 'people on a range' and I struggled with that in hold 'em, struggled. It's not as hard for me now. I can now 3bet T8s from the button in NLHE whereas before I'd rarely 3bet anything less than AQs. I've considered trying to play a 4k Hold 'em bender just to see if my 100-200 hand forays are legit. But bluffing is a bigger part of hold 'em and I believe I can do that much more effectively because in PLO I watch every card think about card combos, earlier street action, etc. Wasn't thinking like that with hold 'em before, but now I am it makes the game easier.

I was always a very good NLHE tourney player, but sucked at cash games. SUCKED!! Couldn't even beat .02/.04. Playing NLHE every now and then as a respite from PLO is really cool b/c I get to use some skills gained from PLO.

It really depends on the opponents but I find this a strange opinion. IN omaha ranges are alot wider- more combos are playable.
Regardless in both games- its not really about what cards they have- but how wide range portions are. I find people more polarised in holdem. Its easier to know they are full of **** in holdem- but in omaha- its actually hard to be full of **** because they are gonna have 15%+ equity on the majority of flops

I suppose it depends on a tonne of variables actually- maybe they are exactly the same in terms of hand reading and I'm being bias. Interesting though... there are spots in omaha where you pretty much know what villain probably has- but yeah in holdem I can see that it can be more difficult i.e as there is more safety in slowplaying

nl makes me spew too much....also cant rely on luck as much as i can in plo, lol

NLHE is so boring.

no

I am so god awful at NLHE now that it's not even funny. I agree that it's best to stay proficient at as many games as possible, and that learning new games will help all your games. For me it has been a matter of playing virtually no NLHE for years and so not only has my own game declined a lot but the average opponent has gotten better by a ridiculous amount.

I intend to get some NLHE MTT coaching at some point though as I think it would be good to at least be competent again at tourneys.

This.

i m completely destroying holdem at the moment but fail and just breakeven at omaha, sample size can definitely be an issue though. i also feel the players at holdem are predictable and bad whilst i rarely find very clear bluffing spots in omaha (blocker bluffs aside). also just a little more than half the hands per table at omaha and i still can play less tables...
so i gotta say i think omaha players are better than holdem ones.
i used to struggle at holdem cash games and used to beat omaha in the past though. i feel that nowadays the omaha games are so high variance that you need to be very good mentally or hugely overrolled to take the variance.
i also think the omaha has helped me a lot in developing my holdem game which just seems much simpler to me.

Didnt bother reading the OP or any of the responses but short ansswer is yes. As long as you are somewhat decent at one form of poker your should be decent at all forms of poker. Take a look at all the best PLO players, at least all are somewhat competent at NLH and by that I mean 5/10 or 10/20+. Even Ziigmund who likes to play NLH like he has 3 brain cells could be very tricky tricky like an asparagus at NLH if he bothered doing so. I think he just likes to spew though lol

learning plo help my holdem game a LOT. i got so much better at reading board texture and plo teach me position is very important.

i consider myself pretty good at holdem and medium/weak at plo. as donkeykong2 said, i also can't find very clear bluffing spots at omaha, i got worried trying run a big bluff because w 4cards oponent can have every hand. i also don't feel confortable vbetting thin because oponent can have everything... at holdem its easy, i feel very confident w my reads.

as donkey2 said, at nlhe people play more predictable, its easier to read hands. i think if you are good at omaha, for sure you will be good at holdem, because omaha are more complex, more sick decisions. but a good holdem player can be bad/medium at omaha.