If you have the same 'edge' over an opponant at both NLH and and PLO (if this is theoretically possible), at which game will your winrate be higher?

Basically I am wondering if all things are equal and you are 'x' amount better than your opponant heads up, would you make more money at NLH or PLH or would it be the same?

Sorry if that sounds confusing, but I think it's a valid and interesting question.

How do you define edge? I think most players would define it as $/hr or $/100 over the table. In that case, your winrate will be the same in NLH and PLO. I would expect your variance in PLO to be much larger, just given the nature of the game.

I guess that is the obvious answer, but I was hoping not to define edge that way. Let's say that you could magically give a rating to a player's skill in a game between 1-10. You are a 9 and your opponant is a 5 in both NLH and PLO. You have 10,000 hands to play, would it be more lucrative to play NLH or PLO? I know this seems impossible to answer and a little confusing but again, hopefullly you can get where I am coming from. If you are good at both games and the competition is weak, which is more lucrative.

It matters where your edge comes from. Mostly it comes from post flop and playing in position. In theory, PLO affords more complex game play post flop, and therefore with two opponents of identical skill that is below ours, one we play in nlhe, one we play in plo, I would think our edge is greater in PLO, unless of course we can play NLHE with insanely deep stacks. If we are playing with infinite stack sizes, NLHE is ridiculously more profitable against worse opponents. I dont know how to do the exact math, but i would much rather play PLO at a capped game of 50bb than NLHE, and I would much rather play NLHE with 500bb. At 100, its probably quite close.

Hmmm, this seems debatle to me. If I am very strong player playing against someone who is VERY weak, i would rather play PLO if it is very very deep. But maybe that is just me. All in all its a tough question and seems like ppl are struggling with where to go with it..

No way.

PLO gives you more opportunities to apply your edge, however you define "edge."

For example, suppose you have an edge over your opponent in using scare cards to bluff. Well, more scare cards come up in PLO, therefore you get you use your edge more in PLO.

There was a recent cardplayer blog by NLHE HU specialist Even Roberts who is moving towards PLO. He basically argues the same thing. Keep in mind, he uses the word "edge" to mean "advantage in winrate.":

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/blogs/article/3356


At the very least, because the same player's VPIP will probably be a little higher in PLO, that in itself is an example of having more opportunities to use his edge.


Overall, in PLO there is/are more:

-hands played
-postflop play, turn/river action
-big pots created on later streets
-cards that change the texture of the board

Thus, you have to make more tough decisions in PLO, particularly at times when the pot is big. This argues for a higher profitability of PLO, all else being equal (such as availability of games, and opponent selection).



Analogy -- Suppose you made a hunting prop bet with a weaker hunter: For every pound of animal you kill more than he does, he pays you $10. Do you want to hunt in a desert wasteland (NLHE), or in the African Savanna (PLO)?




If your primary concern is making money, then the only reason to tolerate higher variance is to receive a corresponding higher expected return.

In portfolio-choice theory, this is called "mean-variance efficiency." For you to choose a stock with a higher variance (PLO), it has to offer a higher expected return as compensation. Alternatively, for you to choose a stock with a lower expected return (NLHE), is has to offer a lower variance as compensation.

Of course, there are other reasons to play a game besides profitability. But High Stakes PLO attracts enough tight players for us to conclude that the game must be offering them greater return in compensation for the higher variance.