Questions of this sort are asked/answered ad nauseum, so let's save everyone some time.
Here are some good, fairly recent threads regarding skill levels of games and winrates.
Cliff notes: PLO is the most complex poker game, has high returns to skill, and is more fun; PLO is the "Ducati" of poker. Diehard Hold'em fans can't believe it, mainly because they like Texas. Cadillacs are kinda ghetto.
NLH vs PLO Winrate Theory
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...675&highlight=
skill to luck ratio in various games?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...093&highlight=
Why high stakers play Omaha but I dont...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...t=#post4644378
Is PLO the new cadillac of poker?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...013&highlight=
(In each of these threads, my posts are the most informative.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan776
It's an interesting question. From what I've gathered, being a winning player at stud is just a matter of knowing a certain system which is, aside from variance, unbeatable. The same with starting hands in PLO. It's only in NHLE where there's genuine complexity where system plays won't hack it. (Or, perhaps, PLO is over complex such that hand reading is impossible, which equals gambling, imo.)
1. I like your contradictions: You went from saying that PLO is simple, to saying it's too complex. You also went from saying PLO is subject to a winning system to saying it is just gambling. Hmmm....
2. Hand reading is very much possible in PLO. But instead of trying to guess all four cards, you try to classify your opponent's hand, such as "made-hand", "straight draw", "flush draw", "made straight with redraw," etc.
PLO is considered the most positional poker game outside of draw games. Position wouldn't be important if hand reading weren't possible.
(for a discussion on position and PLO vs. NLHE, read the thread "Video: The Differences between PLO & NLH"
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...d.php?t=241144 )
3. PLO is more complex than NLHE. Check out the links and the Antonius interview below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilboy666
In SSI, Brunson was pretty sure that NLHE was the game with the biggest gap between the top pros and the average fish.
PLO wasn't spread in Vegas when SSI was written (1979). It came to Vegas sometime in the mid 1980s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan776
But as the only game I've studied is hold 'em, limit and non, I'd be curious to hear other's thoughts.
Here's what one of the top NLHE players,
Patrik Antonius (aka, "God"), thinks:
"LH: What is your favorite game to play, and why?
PA: Pot-limit Omaha is my favorite, because it is the most fun; you get to play more hands than you do in any other game. Also, there is a lot of flopping involved, and the board changes all of the time. For example, on the flop, whichever cards come usually make a straight or a flush possibility. Then on the river, there are always tough decisions to be made. When a straight or a flush card comes, or the board pairs, you have to know whether to value-bet, call, fold, raise, or bluff. There are a lot of interesting situations that come up, and there is also a lot of bluffing involved. I think that pot-limit Omaha is really a game of decisions.
LH: You're known for your no-limit hold'em skills; how enjoyable do you find that game?
PA: No-limit hold'em is not my favorite game if it is a ring game with no antes. In that kind of game, you just have to play very tight. There are much better cash games to play, but it is OK if you play with antes. It can actually be a lot of fun if you play with antes in a shorthanded cash game."
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/17580
Last edited by dismalstudent99; 07-07-2008 at 08:14 AM.