it pisses me off but after playing it 2 card is boring

The deal is four cards to each player, then proceed as you would at hold em

Start winning. Most of the time, that makes a game significantly more enjoyable.

if you find it ruins two card poker than it means you are playing too loose in the game.
also meaning you dont understand it yet. give both time and pick the one you actually win the most at.

thanks guys. i was frustrated and half expected the thread to be nuked. thats very good advice Ray, i looked at some starting hand info but didnt have the patience to decipher the code. that leads to madlex's point-maybe if i know which cards to play ill start winning.

If you have no idea how to play PLO, read some books.

Short guide if you only ever played NLHE and want to play without doing any research at all:

Pre-flop: Big double pairs (TT+), 4 card straights and double suitedness are things to look for. 4 cards gives you 6 holdem hands, try to make sure you have multiple hands, not just one. Like KcKsQcQs is a monster, AcAdJh6s is not. Small pairs are junk. Position matters at least as much as NLHE.

Postflop try to make the nuts. K-high flush is not a monster. Bottom set is not a monster. Re-draws matter, so middle set with NFD is a monster. If you draw, do so to the nuts. TPTK is not a good hand.

FWIW OP I had the same thing happen. PLO is 10 times as fun as NLHE or LHE. It's an emotional and bankroll rollercoaster, but holy cow is it fun. And yes, going back to a game like Hold'Em where it's standard to fold 20 to 30 hands in a row is like cultureshock.

As an attempt to make this post productive, one thing that playing PLO *and* NLHE helped me with is understanding how stack sizes affect implied odds and preflop decisions. The bigger the effective stacks the more hands you can profitably play preflop as long as you know how to get away from them postflop. In PLO, if you're playing on the right kind of site your implied odds are through the roof. If you're playing on the WRONG kind of site they can still be pretty high but you're more susceptible to REVERSE implied odds.

Hope that helped.

i can't play nlhe cash anymore. whenever i click on the nlhe games by mistake i freak out when i only get two cards. it's a very odd sensation.

It's not that unusual for me to fold 20 hands in a row at live PLO. I think that preflop hand selection is vastly underrated by most players, even some winning players, at PLO.

If you are playing too loose in the game, you probably don't understand that you can fold KKxx preflop, that you can fold a suited ace preflop, that you can fold a double suited hand preflop.

Yeah, I find it pretty easy to play tight in PLO. Since the game is slower I probably play fewer hands per hour than Hold’em.

I’ve never had a problem folding lots of hands, but I’m not a gambler. I get no thrills out of seeing flops like fish seem to.

>Plays poker for real money
>Calls himself not a gambler

How ironic.

You misread the post in more ways than one, SpinMRR

Well he called himself not a gambler. Which is contradictory, because poker is gambling. Whether you play tight or play junk hands and hope to get lucky, it's gambling all the same.

possibly the other message:
I play a conservative style of poker. I fold a ton. I don't do flips. Small edges are not riskworthy imo.

you misread the situation elsewhere as well.

haha. LOL. Jnandez videos on youtube are pretty good : )

NLH might as first look seem to be more boring compared to PLO but after playing a lot of both, I have no opinion there. I know the theory as well as it is in books, videos, HHs/observations and in some softwares I have used.

Only what I feel like playing at the moment decides for me, and is the reason why I don't choose between them.

NLH is lighter to play, as one needs to do a lot more thinking when playing PLO. And if I think about doing all that thinking (after doing a lot of it during the last days, weeks, months) compared to just gaming away in a NLH game (for now, needing no further study either), I am sure to support NLH till I again feel like PLO is the better game.

It is harder to know if one plays good PLO or not, that could be a reason to prefer PLO or not prefer it.

wow thanks for great responses everyone. Im going to need another reload tomorrow and Im not playing until I read a few things in the plo beginner sticky.
thanks. I learned to not insta stack off with a a small set turned fullhouse. Of course I learned the hard way. Counting fullhouse possibilities seems a bit ridiculous coming from holdem but stacking off with the 5th best isnt a cooler. I get that now.

ya its so fun and I know Ill be a winner. its alot easier for spewtards to play every hand vs holdem and when you get a guy 3betting every hand...there's really nothing in holdem like that.

I'm doing really well at the 50bb tables. It might be a mistake to auto top-up to 100 bbs at the regular tables. Ill consider stopping that if anyone has any input there.

I half feel like one of my problems is seeing monsters under every turn card and shutting down after cbetting without a great hand.

ya I love players who stack off no matter what with any AA, any board when they only get 10bbs in preflop. As a matter of fact I just stacked one of them. pot bet the K 3 6 with AAxx no draw, 3 turn, of course pot bet again. wtf do you want someone to be calling with? KK for me thank you very much.

Sometimes, stacking off with the 2nd best isn't a cooler.

PLO is certainly a fun game to play , and I do like it as a diversion from NLH here and there. PLO is also often a soul crushing, bankroll destroyer to the beginner. Even if you are experienced and play well it will often kick your ass from time to time. Enjoy it at a stakes level you can afford. The swings are like a carnival ride.

A lot of people play at stakes they can afford because they don't realize the game is bigger than a NL game with similar blinds. A reasonable estimate is that the bankroll you need for PLO is the same as what you need for a NLHE game with blinds that are twice as big.

OK, I guess what I mean is actually "at stakes you can afford to lose" even if you are somewhat adept at NLH , because the risk of ruin is higher than some folks might realize, especially for beginners.

Ah yes, the ol' double suited ding dong hands.

And then this. Leaving the fledgling Omaha player completely confused.

If he should play the nuts, and a K high flush isn't that good, then what's the point of
looking for "double suitedness"? I'm not saying there is no point, I'm saying we haven't explained it here.

It's related to the concept of "quantity over quality". I've seen many players go broke because they shovel in money because they "have the world". Having a flush draw and a straight draw and 2 pair is not necessarily a very good hand if they're not to the nuts.

So again, how to play hands with double suitedness and which ones specifically? And what good does it do you to make a 9 high flush if a K high flush isn't strong?

His meaning was very clear to me.

There's a reason this saying exists among winning poker players: "I never gamble with my poker money."

Certainly not second best flush or straight. Even stacking off with the nuts isn't a cooler sometimes. If you flop the nut straight and get it in and lose, you're often getting freerolled, and that's often your own fault.