No one plays the exact ranges of the solver which would change the solution pretty significantly so I doubt that 1 point difference would matter that much

If the solution is 100% accurate then yes. This is a basic principle of GTO. The solver doesn't mix with combos unless both actions have the same EV. You only lose EV if your opponent knows your strategy and exploits your frequency error.

In practice though, when a solver takes an action 1% of the time it's almost definitely just a margin of error artifact that would go away in a 100% accurate solution when the solver decides it's definitely lower EV than the alternative, but that's not the point of this hypothetical.

Thanks for this, but I'm going to repackage it as: LHE is a game of sheering the sheep; NLHE is a game of skinning the sheep.

Which game does a weak player have a better chance to win at consistently over 10, 20, 30 sessions? PLO, imo.

thats just a case of variance
the weak player also has a better chance of losing more over 10, 20, 30 sessions in PLO than in Holdem

Neither, both require the same level of skill for commiserate level of success and are in essence the same game. Both require range v range equity analysis and knowledge of corresponding strategy response and strategies mirror between games if equities mirrored. The only difference is understanding the equity distribution.

Freudian slip?

Of course. But he's there to gamble, and has an increased chance to win in the PLO. He's chasing a win w/out the skill level needed to be the fave. PLO a better game for that player? I think so.

that is quite the seperate issue from the question: which is game is harder?

you are right in answering the question: in 3k hands, in which game does the fish have the bigger chance of winning?

Right, right, right. I "interpolated" and slanted the question a bit. As to which is harder to "master" or become an expert at, agree it's PLO.

NLH is much harder because average player has a decent knowledge of the game. PLO is still a goldmine, NLH failed grinders or grinders with reduced winrates switch to PLO and struggle because they hate variance and they try to play it as NLH with more cards.

the HCL PLO high stakes stream is pretty much what most private PLO games look like where a good solid mid stakes reg could probably give up 5+ bb/hr and still beat the game comfortably (if you can get an invite lol).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mqnutvVOU8

that being said, professor is legit hilarious and has me laughing out loud.

Good to see PLO getting some more mainstream love

Long time rounder, Bobby Hoff (RIP), once told me PLO is a great game for bad holdem players; guess that's why I like it so much....

because equities run closer in plo its easy to think youre running bad when you are just playing really bad. things that look negligible to the untrained eye can be really bad in reality.

Could be a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect happening itt.

In NLHE we tend to think of preflop equities and how those equities shape our ranges and a lot of our postflop play as well (because equities tend to not move very much very often).

PLO, otoh, has to be approached different. We need to think more about postflop playability to shape our preflop ranges and then postflop we have to think a lot about current equity + future equity + card removal (blockers) to navigate a game where you cannot overbet and equities tend to change drastically from one street to the next.

Look……both games are great and complex in different ways....i have tons of hours in both live + online…….i play mostly PLO live the last 4-5yrs…….i will just say this……most of you crying about PLO and how it is a shove fest are referring to shortstacked small buy in games……..shortstack poker is the most simple form of poker that exists……..try playing PLO 300-500bb + stacked game…...the larger the stacks…….the more decision making there is from street to street obviously……..hard to really compare…….totally different animals…….i always felt NL deepstacked is much more creative while PLO is much more technical…...either way hard to really say what is more difficult playing full time because there are so many factors to weigh……...just STOP playing so short and ruining good action games! Furthermore…….i really like that playing PLO……..you cannot just jam pre…….it forces you to play post flop………and that is a great aspect in PLO vs NL………navigating post is much different and deepstacked even more of a challenge! Money in poker is made post flop! Think a bit! Lmao

Plo is harder in some ways and nl in others. There different games but still poker.

PLO is basically men playing BINGO, so I would say NL. At least you can disguise your hand in NL. Those dudes playing PLO play with their cards face up.

I mean, this varies. It CAN certainly be a game of BINGO if the game is structured in a way to encourage/permit this (i.e. unlimited restraddles, match the stack)

There are games where you can play PLO as it was "meant" to be played, with post-flop decisions and betting across multiple streets

Lol

I get why unlimited straddles makes it bingo but why does match the stack? Playing deeper means more play later streets=less bingo. Seems like a game option you just personally don’t like so you are biased against. FWIW I think it’s bad for the game for other reasons though.

Match the stack allows people who just want to play bingo to straddle and pot every single hand and push the game into bingo mode even as you have several hundred BB. Especially witht he amount of straddling going on in live PLO. At some point they arent able anymore, but basically having to win (semi) flips 3-4 times in a row to escape pure gambling isnt much fun.