He has an opinion, just like everyone else in the world. It doesn't mark the end of anything.

I am trying to imagine how this game would play and...no, just no. I think I would just fold anything short of straight flush, because somebody is going to have that anyway.

Edit: Assuming that I even manage to figure out what I am holding, which isn't a given.

lol, no. I certainly agree that PLO is a more intricate game, and a lot more fun, but go count the number of NLH tables at each level and compare that to the number of PLO tables. People have been saying PLO is the wave of the future for decades.

Here are some things that hold PLO back:
It is more complicated than NLHE, so casual players (i.e. the bulk of the fish) tend to not play it.
The casual players who do play often get wiped out really quickly because the structure forces more post flop play (higher number (on average) of post flop actions per hand), and hand strengths are very different from HE post flop (which is what most people are familiar with).
There are way more HE games at every level (up to a point, but that point is higher than the vast majority of players will ever play) so HE has a lot of inertia. (That is, lots of games attract players which feeds the number of games.)
NLHE is what is broadcast because it is easier to follow and, again, it is what is most popular right now. That influences a lot of players.
There are a lot more perceived bad beats in PLO.
Even though there is probably more skill involved, a lot of people think it is all luck.

isn't that guy busto anyways?

Doesn't anyone play Pineapple anymore ?

These are all good points. The biggest issue is perceived bad beats.

PLO has also had its issues in brick & mortar rooms as well. The Mirage sponsored tourneys weekly for a while, then pulled them .... just as I was winning some money, damn!

While I personally like PLO and TruePoker has offered it for 6+ years, NLHE is the game of choice for customers.

From time to time, we offer special incentives for PLO play. email me at management@truepoker.com if you want to be notified of these PLO Specials.

That's what we play. Two full boards.

Jamie Gold is another convert to the cause.

Jamie Gold - First PLO Tourney Ever - WSOPE

He says he's only played Omaha 5 times before, but that it's his best game.

"We're going to bring the game back to LA... so Kenny [Tran] and I decided that's all we're going to play from now on at home. Because Hold'em's really boring if you play Omaha. I didn't realise how much fun Omaha was. I love action, and it's an all-action game. You can basically play every hand.

"The first time I played live was a few weeks ago, and I fell in love with the game. It's my favourite game. I wish every event in the World Series was Omaha."

Two full boards playing independently of one another
doesn't seem to be that bad of an idea fwiw.

So are you playing for one pot then?

Pocket pairs probably become extremely valuable as the likihood of setting with a double pocket is high I imagine.

omg i would love to play jamie gold for a ton of money... omaha or holdem....

Games where fish bust quickly are not good games.

PLO is the game of the future, and it always will be

Having also played a lot of NLH and PLO, I disagree. Each game has its merits and I think overall NLH is better simply because its easier for beginners to learn.

Right, it's a split pot game. Unless you scoop.

If we define "suckout" as hitting a 4-outer or less, then it seems that there are actually fewer suckouts in PLO than HE...

I think the expert return on time is greater in PLO simply because people can play more hands per hour, and that weak players can make many more mistakes post-flop. (I've seen PLO players with a 20 VPIP and they're still losers because of horrible post-flop play.)
This is especially true when the money is deep, as is often the case in high stakes games where the same players are at the table for long periods. In deep money situations, trying to draw out as a slight under dog can be too expensive.

Also, since PLO is a more positional game, a superior player can better exploit the fish's positional ignorance.
Of course PLO has more variance, but we're talking about average returns here.

On the other hand, it's harder to isolate a single fish in PLO than in NLHE. So if you plan on the bulk of your profits coming from a single fish at your table, maybe NLHE is better for you.

PLO is a tough sell for beginners who have already learned HE -- Girls complain that there are too many cards, and guys complain that you can't blast someone out of the water with a manly overbet. Both boys and girls get confused with the "exactly two cards" rule -- if they don't get punished severely for this, they at least find it a constant annoyance.

Finally, newbies to poker get killed in PLO, and fast. There is zero beginners luck in this game simply because the number of bad calls far exceed the suckouts... at least from what I've seen at my home game (where we play HA).
On top of this, PLO isn't on TV regularly, and probably never will be because there are just too many cards to digest, even for an experienced player.

I suspect HE has already overtaken PLO in popularily in Europe simply because the TV exposure and the EPT, WSOPE, etc. Anyone know if this is true???
I'm sure this will be yet another example of American cultural imperialism stamping out a beautiful, indigenous culture....

PLO is a great game, but it's probably something that will remain the domain of true poker afficianados/degenerates/high-rollers.
For the masses it's probably Hold'em forever -- I don't see a "next" game that has the same facade of simplicity, the TV friendliness, and the flexibility to be playable in limit, pot-limit, and no-limit stuctures.
Plus, in NLHE you get to say, "all-in!" and that's really cool...