IIRC this is what Bob Ciaffone says in his Omaha book. The book is useful for beating tough games but most (live) PLO games are so soft all U have to do is nut-peddle (and be over-rolled to account for the variance).

This is so horribly wrong. Is this a level?

man there are so many ****ty know nothing players here, plo...an edgeless game????
thats just ****ing ridiculous. tell that to all the nosebleeds who still win (or lose) a crapload of money in games that probably have a small edge.

now judging by how ******ed every single answer on this thread has been, there is a HUGE edge in plo, cause no one here seems to know **** all about it.

what is everyones obsession with downplaying all other poker games, every other game has an edge if you are a better and more learned player then others you play with.

sure there is more variance but so what limit hold em has an edge and has tons of variance as well does that make it unbeatable.

all the people saying plo is an adgeless game... lol wtf?
so durrr, david and icall are just running hot? it has def replaced hsnl bc the edge pros have is smaller and thus the fish have a bigger chance of winning which they ibv like...

Can we close and delete this thread?

Surely the cadillac of poker is razz, its total dog****.

I think we're talking Lada/Skoda type range.

this thread is too funny.

online, the best game to clear a bonus/scare up player points or rakeback:
PLO/8... but u must tend 2 ur nitting, or not even an oversize roll will save u.

The high number of misinformed posts in this thread by people saying that PLO has no 'edge', and that PLO is just a random luck game like a pit game will show you why PLO is such a gold mine. Most people have NO idea of how to play it or what the game is really all about. And that is a good thing.

blah blah blah no edge blah blah PLO blah redundant sheeple

People who know how poker economy works probably think spreading PLO is a good idea. Poker isn't chess, the whole point of poker is to give bad players a chance without good players sandbagging. Poker is not supposed to be a definitive contest of who the most skilled player is.

PLO is where all of the ring game action is these days. A far higher percentage of the players play the game poorly. NLHE is sort of played out as a majority of the players these days play half way solid. NLHE is getting tougher to beat. Basically PLO is where NLHE was 4 years ago...it is a gold mine for solid players. The Pot limit aspect of the game requires a lot more play/skill after the flop. I think the game attracts the gambler/action type player and those are always good for a game. It also is a favorite of European players which I think is always a positive for a game. You get a lot of players chasing weak draws. The pots on average are much larger than similar limit NLHE games.

A lot of players are bored of NLHE...time to learn a new game. While strategy wise the game is similar to NLHE, PLO takes a lot of adjusting too...there is definitely a lot more strategy...you need to make big laydowns...the game definitely emphasizes post flop play. It is a strange adjustment to flop the nuts and be behind.

IMO there is a definite shift in players from NLHE to PLO at least in the ring games...the high stakes players moving really helps the shift. NLHE will always be king...but PLO might have the better cash games these days.

On Full Tilt limits 3-6 and up there is generally as many PLO games running as NLHE. Probably a year ago there would only be ~30 PLO games active...Tonight there is ~200.

PLO is way more fun, and I feel that at least for the lower stakes games, you don't need to adjust as much as you need to be fundamentally solid. I've played both PLO25 and NL25, and at this point, I not only have a much higher winrate at PLO than NL, but that my decisions are much easier because my opponents are so fundamentally bad. This is partly because PLO is not widely discussed as much as NLHE, and there are much fewer resources to learn.

Based on Antonius' remarks, PLO is the Millenium Falcon of poker (when the light-speed is working):



"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

This.

I knew the average NVGer was terrible at poker, but I didn't realize they were this bad.

No wonder why the PLO games are so good.

PLO is even more merciless to the fish. Try getting a handfull of newbs and teach them PLO and NLHE. Then sit them down and play a forced rotation.

There is very little beginner's luck in PLO


Some of the biggest post-flop blunders in PLO come from poor preflop hand selection. But even with good hand selection, postflop is where big edges are pushed and weak hand-reading skills are punished.



Any B&M knows how fast PLO will kill fish and dry up the rake. That's why they'll never push the game. Low buy-in NLHE seems to be working okay for casinos, though they prefer limit.


Wrong. Datamine the 200/400 PLO game on FTP and you'll see a wider range of stats from winning players than in NLHE. Compare OMGClayAiken, Durrr and Benyamine... all great players with wildly different styles across the board.

Not if they never sit foot in your game.

People poo poo'ing a 60/40 edge is hillarious.

Casinos are raking in billions with games that edges from 1-3%

I am not a Omaha player at all, but this is just math.

And yes while HUGE edges can exist in hold em (80/20, 80/15, 90/10, etc.) this of course assumes you have players in your game who will give you such an edge.

In a game of god awful players who manage to get their whole stacks in drawing almost dead, yeah Hold em is probably best.

But in a game where the players are semi-knowledgeable at hold em, they may not do this often. However a good hold em player might frequently put himself on the bad end of a 60/40 in Omaha just because he doesn't understand the game nearly as well.

So I'm guessing the reason Omaha can be so profitable is because it's a game people know less about it and a knowledgeable player will get alot more action and even with a small edge that's good.

A small edge and lots of action is better than a huge edge and no action.

wow @ this thread

NL Hold'em is so boring, especially now; b4 up until 2007 it was awesome, now everybody pretty knows what to do in most situations; and in those situations there are only a few things a person can have (top pair, bluff, draw, set etc...); why do you think the world poker tour is on its last legs? there are only so many times you can say he is bluffing with 7 high, and flipping coins is like watching paint dry

in PLO i had a sick wrap last night with a flush draw, against top set and i was 63% fav, that too me is awesome, the only down side is that, when you run bad in PLO, you can go on massive downswings, i mean durrr was a 1.2 mil loser last year in PLO; now this year he is a 2 million winner; that is tough to stomach those kinds of roller coaster rides, but the fact of the matter is PLO is way better and will be the game in the future, if not already, because 2 + 2 = 4; and 4 cards is always better then 2

plo <3

it is also amazing how dominant Benyamine is in that game of top pros; he is up almost 10 mil on all accounts; and he has been destorying the big HORSE games too (and he plays 65% of the hands, lol)

u can only play 2 but you get to chose from 4

It's really annoying when people say this about DB.

The measure of someone's skill is their winrate, not their gross winnings.

Considering that DB has probably played well more than 2x as much 2/4 PLO on FTP as anyone, it would be to his discredit if he were NOT the biggest PLO winner.

I suspect if you look at DB's winrate you will find it's pretty modest.

Take any winning PLO player who puts in a 300k hands at 200/400 and you will see a pretty sick aggregate win.