Doesn't PLO inherently have more variance than NL Holdem? Doesn't more variance mean a lower winrate when talking cash game vs cash game? If we assume the same skill set for both games I don't see how someone would make more in PLO - equities run much closer which naturally should lower edge. Also Holdem NL is no limit vs PLO so add the fact that you can't bet over pot. In my opinion the less cards involved the more skill - I would venture to say generally speaking Hold em NL > 4 card PLO > 5 card PLO > etc in terms of potential edge pro vs amateur.

Live PLO often plays very deep (at least the games I play) and you get more chances to exploit huge mistakes on the latter streets for piles of cash. Also PLO attracts more gambley players, who like to put money in the pot, at least in my experience. And the vibe is generally much better as well

The skill gap between online and live PLO is massive.

People getting all in 6 times In a few hours and losing all 6 is way more tilting than (gasp) playing AT offsuit to a 3 bet when you shouldn't. I've seen so many players,even good players totally unravel in PLO in ways I never saw in NL.
Any idiot can play well when they're running well. How you play when running terribly is what's really important.

No to basically all of this. That's not how the math works. Variance has no effect on EV win rate.

I think your intuition here is backwards. PLO has a higher possible edge with higher variance. I think that's hardly even debatable. Cumicon won at like 25 BB/100 in HUPLO over a huge sample (presumably mostly against other pros). That WR seems beyond the imagination of what's even possible for NLHE.

Where's the pole?

NL, obviously.

Nah

More variance doesn't mean a lower win rate. It means more variance.

But is either game more skillful than stud high-low declare?

Heads up is a different beast. Talking about the format most often played, 100BB-buyin 6-max, Holdem is more complex I would think. PLO just has such a high volume of "auto-pilot" spots like set over set/ set over combo draw/ all in with AAxx at low SPR, etc. Maybe if played with super deep stacks so you have to play a lot of turns and rivers, PLO would be comparable to Holdem.

Like if you put a top pro at a table with 5 break-even $1/$2 cash-game grinders in NLHE or PLO, which game would the pro be able to earn a greater win rate at?

People only think PLO takes more skill because they have to think more for themselves without as much material out there as NL. So they feel that its harder to grasp. It isnt.

Once you play PLO full ring at a high level where the other players are also playing well you realize its just bingo. Your edges in big pots are always small even though the other players play bad, you all just sit waiting for that good preflop hand to hit that one flop and even when you do hit you get it in against a 40% EV and if you lose that pot your entire session is ****ed. Its funny watching nosebleed highlights of PLO online - the pots are literally the same as my low stakes home game. Everyone waiting for the fish to get to the flop with a mediocre hand and then get it in against them with a slightly dominating range.

So many spots in PLO play themselves once you have decent pre flop ranges. Its just math problems. NLHE has much more of the "play the player" aspect which adds another layer of skill.

HU PLO actually takes skill because your range is wide enough that you need to make actual decisions post flop. Full ring PLO is a joke.

My experience is that, in today's small stakes PLO games, people are still making massive postflop mistakes. If you can get to a competent level in PLO, where you understand equities, hand selection, and have decent understanding of post flop playability and how your opponents play, you can become a large winner in those games.

In SSNLHE, if you achieve a relatively similar skill level, you may only be a .75-1BB winner.

I think the difference is, even today, the quality of training material out there across both games is lopsided. NLHE has been studied much more extensively and solvers for NLHE have been available for much longer.

I agree with you that you can auto-pilot many spots in PLO but you are massively underestimating a lot of other areas of the game.

Here are a few bullet pointed below and all of them require a specific set of skills that NLHE players can't immediately transition into and a that a lot of NLHE players don't have the aptitude
to transition to, because their ability is strong in learning methods, systems, rules, dos and don't, so like learning a new language, and a language that has lots of numbers
in it text and its text books, but one that is only partly a math based language.

Example in NLHE: "We have more 5x in our range having defended in the BB against a min raise from the button."
That is not a math based thing, it is a learning based thing that the button's opening range of hands contains less 5x than the BB's defending range.

So here are some PLO specific skills you need to play it to a high level:

* The importance of blockers and reverse blockers in a lot of decision making, mainly OTF and OTR.
* Putting opponents on ranges.
* Balancing your own ranges.
* Dead money considerations pre.
* Protection considerations pre (sometimes leading to post flop protection too)
* How to controlled aggression spin up a small stack. (There are skilful best chance of succeeding ways of doing this)
* River value betting and sizing. Including thin value betting, which is a very difficult skill to master in PLO.
* How to most effectively steal opponents' equity.
* How to avoid having you own equity stolen by opponents.
* Buy in strategy (extremely important in PLO cash games)
* SPR OTF calculations and working this out in advance, e.g. pre flop. (this is even more important, in fact crucial in PLO MTTs when stacks get shallow.)
* Player profiling and tendencies. This is important because a) some players have very specific tendencies and b) some spots post flop can be played more than one correct way.
* Being able to calculate equities post flop. The majority of NLHE players in my experience are not naturally gifted at math, so will struggle with this.
* C betting the flop, picking up equity so barrelling the turn, following through on the river if hitting and knowing on which rivers to follow through when you miss.
This is the same barrelling concept as used in NLHE when raising or betting the flop with only BD equity, but is more mathematically complex in PLO.
* Hand selection. Yes there some charts/tools to help with this online, if within the rules. But what about live? Live, you have to know which hands play well
HU, which play well multi way, and in which position and against which stack sizes, and be aware of the remaining action pre flop. There can be a lot of calculations.

There are probably another 10 bullet points if I had more time to think of them.

Probably the answer is that NLHE and PLO are as hard as each other, but they are two completely different games and the amount of overlap between them is very small.

This. And also the fact that bad play in Hold-Em is punished much more severely. In PLO you can play 85% VPIP LAG and only be a moderate losing player (maybe like 20 BB/ 100), and you'll still run up a huge stack a good percentage of your sessions. In Hold-Em playing 85% VPIP you'll get destroyed to the extent that you'll rarely even have a winning session over 100-200 hands.

So as a result the fishy players in Hold-Em tend to be playing overly conservative, which the competent players are still able to beat, but for smaller win rates.

You and Wumpy are correct, variance doesn't lower your win rate.

But, ...

Let's say you are bankrolled for a specific game with 25-50 blinds. In this game you will have a winrate of X and a variance of Y. Now, something changes, and even though your winrate is still X, the variance is now 2Y, it has doubled. Now your bankroll might not be big enough for the game anymore, and if you continue to play you will be taking a serious chance of going broke. If that is the case, you might have to step down to the 10-25 blind game that has a variance of Y (or below), even though your winrate will now be lower than X. Just to avoid the risk of going broke from the higher variance.

In this sense, variance can have an effect on your winrate. It is just an indirect effect.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

think about which game takes longer for a solver to compute an answer for and then you, in turn, have your answer.

This is the answer

Bu…Bu…But BINGO!?!?

No, HU is the same game and for the purposes of my argument there’s no reason you can’t extrapolate to 6m.

Long time rounder Bobby Hoff told me years ago “Omaha is a great game for bad holdem players”.

Guess that’s why it suits me so well☹️

I'd rather lose as a 60% favorite in PLO than a 90% favorite in NLHE.

I'm not sure this is true. It seems to me as you expand the number of players, the strategic complexity declines as optimal ranges become more constricted. This could happen faster in Omaha than in Holdem.

This whole thread makes me wanna play live PLO even more.

Fair point Greg.
This makes plo even better.
Keeps guys who can't handle swings or don't have the bankroll to move up.

I'd rather lose as a 90 percent favorite in PLO than win as a 60 percent favorite in hold em bc at least I'm not playing hold em