Hi,
Having only recently began to study and play PLO I have come to some level of conclusion in my head regarding the game, and was wanting some input into if what im thinking is correct.

It regards the varience of the game, and why decent players would choose to play this over NLH. It seems that the high stakes players have taken to omaha recently as they believe they can get a significant edge over their opponents, compared to in the highest stakes NLH games. I havent been playing too long as I said (playing 1/1), but having made the transition from 1/2 and 2/4 NLH it is driving me slightly mad that the vast majority of the time I seem to only get my money in as a 60/40 favourite. I know this is of course good, but compared to running over 1/2 NLH games it is only a slight advantage to me. This may be because im not that good at the game yet, and so havent figured out how to get in with better odds, but by all accounts this seems to be the nature of the game.

Getting to my point. Playing with a 60/40 advantage over players is massive at the highest stakes games, when in NLH the edge is very small, but playing low stakes, it seems financially sensible to play NLH when a massive advantage can be had over bad players. Again, my NLH skills outweigh my Omaha skills so this may just be the case that I cant find such edges but, teh nature of the games seems to mean that a good low/mid level player should be able to run over NLH far quicker and easier than PLO.

Anyone agree or am I way off on this one?

Don't get confused over the multiple meanings of "edge."


There are two meanings relevant here:

1. The equity of one hand over another (e.g., top set vs. nut flush draw 2:1 about)

2. The advantage you have over a particular opponent, generally. (In terms of expected win rate, NOT for any particular hand)



I will address each meaning in turn as it relates to your post

1. Equity

I don't think the big profit comes from getting all the money in on small edges, likey 45-55 ones, or even 40-60. But obviously, when facing those odds, you have to play them.

However, it seems there are two other major aspects of the game you need to emphasize -- bluffing and extracting value when you have them dominated. These two aspects are closely related, as your willingness to bluff will also create action when you have the best hand.

As a corrollary, picking off bluffs and folding when you're crushed are also key skills.

By the way, the 45-55 edges that PLO is famous for refer only to preflop and flop hands. By the turn, usually one player is owning the other. Furthermore, the turn is where the scare card comes up, thus opportunities to bluff. Of course, you have to be deep enough to exploit these later street spots.


In short, putting your money in on a strong draw, are easy/standard moves, therefore require less skill. It's all the other stuff-- bluffing, thin value betting, turn/river play-- that is difficult, and therefore where the money is.


2. Edge over opponents

It is possible to have a massive edge over an opponent, generally. If you identify a player who consistenly overplays sets, underfuls, draws to non-nut hands, plays weak wraps, or plays out of position, etc.-- you are crushing that person. You will get massive value when you have the best hand and he has second/third best.

PLO gives you more opportunities to exploit these players because they will hit the flop more and find more reasons to stay in when they shouldn't. Alternatively, they will pick the wrong spots to bluff and hand their stack to you.


Conclusion
In short, if you are equally skilled in PLO as you are in NLHE, you should find yourself winning more against equally bad opposition.

The reason you aren't profiting more from PLO now is because you are new to the game and haven't really found ways to profit yet. Afterall, it's a demanding game.

I think there's more difference in the players than the game.

The worst players play only Hold'em, so moving to Omaha gives up that advantage. Also, some Omaha players are specialists in the game. On the other hand, the average Omaha player is less experienced at Omaha than the average Hold'em player is at Hold'em. There is less written about the game, less television exposure, less opportunity to play. There are mistakes that most Hold'em players make when moving to Omaha, you can exploit this.

Everything I said about Omaha applies to Pot Limit as well, versus limit and no limit.

In terms of the game itself, Omaha is more random. There's not as much difference in starting hands as there is with Hold'em. Preflop betting is halfway like an ante, in terms of how much information you have before you bet. Similarly, the worse hand after the flop and turn typically has more chance of winning in Omaha than Hold'em.

This is the appeal of the game to bad players. They are more likely to have a winning session in Omaha. Some strong players dislike the additional variance, but most take the attitude that it averages out in the long run, and it keeps the bad players around longer.

On the other hand, I would say pot limit has less randomness than either limit or no-limit. In limit, you often have situations in which it is EV for two players to call to the river, and the hand becomes a pure gamble. In no-limit, you can lose or double your entire stack at any time (unless you have the biggest stack at the table). Pot limit requires the most betting skill, because early decisions have a big effect on the final outcome.

well said

This is highly debatable, if not flat-out wrong.

Partly it depends on your definition of "bad player."

A bad player, who, nevertheless has plenty of experience at PLO and some semblance of discipline, enough to avoid some landmines, will have a larger number of winning session due to variance, as you have correctly pointed out.

However, a bad hold'em player who is inexperienced at PLO will spew off their stack at a faster rate than they accumulate from sucking out. I describe this phenomena as PLO having very little "beginner's luck." Therefore, they will lose quickly, have many lossing sessions, and hate the game, which is why PLO has limited appeal.

On the other hand, the game appeals to many talented NLHE players, who see the similarities in the "higher-level thinking" processes of the two games, and are looking for more action and more interesting situations.

High stakes NLHE players have gone over to PLO simply because the HSNLHE games are basically a rotation of the same guys, who in turn, have a very marginal edge even if they are the dominant player at a table. I've read a couple articles from pros talking about the trouble they have finding a good NLHE game anymore and that they're win rates are comparatively down. There's also a select few that just want to master "poker" in all its forms, so I think they are more ego driven.

All in all, PLO is a very lucrative game, try it out. But be forewarned, its also one that can bust your bankroll very quickly, and although the same hand strengths apply, almost every other HE aspect goes right out the window once sitting down at a PLO table. Do not be surprised if you're first session nets you huge profits while your next session busts your entire bankroll, its that volatile of a game.

Been waitin for a long time to be able to quote something Davino said and feel ok about it

One should pick shorthanded nl-holdem. The odds of becoming so good at it that one doesn't get enough action are too low for one to consider PLO.

PLO is a rare game at many sites and is good mainly shorthanded. If ever playing in live games, they are all full ring games, though likely better, with higher rake though, but also extremely boring and it doesn't take a lot of skill to read what is the nuts and what can try to draw. Offline, there generally is not high enough PLO games.

The highest NLH games do not have a lot of action at this time, but that's hardly going to remain so, as holdem is far more popular a game.

The skill factor one needs at PLO is less as it's (too) hard to put the opponent on a hand. But on the other hand one does not learn PLO as well from the books, and using trackers etc. is not that significant.

The tightly structured nl-games is one reason that makes PLO better, but it's not realistic to play only PLO.

This argument comes up a lot, and I don't think it is true at all.

While it is more difficult to name all 4 cards the opponent might have, you can narrow down the "active hands" he is playing.

e.g.,
"top set"
"top two"
"overpair (TT+) with flush draw"
"wrap straight draw or top two"
"straight no redraw"
"straight with redraw"

etc.

+1

It's really hard to put players on a range preflop (at least against a random unknown), but postflop it's not much different from hold em.

Not posted yet but don't forget that playing Omaha asks a lot more of your brain capacity.
Say I'm rolled for 50NL and I'm comfortable playing 4 tables shorthanded at the same time.
I would also be rolled for 50 PLO but there's already bigger variance so I might want to have more than 30 buyins before I take a shot at 50 PLO. And I wouldn't be able to play 4 tables at once anymore.
Less tables will mean a smaller hourly winrate right.

So I think we need to have a huge edge difference before looking to pick up on Omaha.

This question has been answered really well from a practical level so I won't be a dead horse. All I will add is that many top players have said that the edge good players have over bad players is much larger in PLO because there are much more room for mistakes. There is so much more thinking and problems that can come up in PLO bc of the 4>2 cards thing.

Maybe start by multitabling 3 NLHE and 1 PLO, and adjust from there.

As for the bankroll consideration, one option is playing slightly lower stakes. One good "in between" stakes possibility is FTPs "deep" tables, which seem to play larger than the regular games at those stakes. e.g., go from playing 1/2 NL to 0.50/1.00 Deep PLO with maybe 150 BBs.