I finally made a wholesale switch to Omaha after years of on off losing in online Hold'em. I deposited $100 on June 18th to primarily play .05/.10 Omaha, with some 02/.04 and very occasional .10/.20. My bankroll is now $348. I guesstimate I average one hour of poker a day. I have had exactly two losing days since June 18th, the rest I have always finished up. Don't play by math, just instinct on fellow players and my cards with possible combinations on the board after flop. I'll occasionally count outs in a sticky situation. I'm a recreational player and do not multi-table.


Is my profit ($248) and days winning considered variance at this stage or proof I can really beat .05/.10 cent tables? Once I hit $300 to $400 profit I want to move up to primarily .10/.20 tables with the max $20 buy in - hope to then double my winnings.

Hard to say. Based on the small amount of poker youve played in this time compared to winnings there is a very good chance it's just variance. You can't prove you're a "winning" player without a significant sample size which I doubt you have after ~1hr/ day for a few weeks.

Interesting question. Do you have any clue how many hands you played?

Wonder around how many hands u know if ur a proven winner or not. Im in the same situation as you and recently started playing plo micros and wonder about the same

22 days of single-table PLO for an hour a day will be under 2000 hands.

OP, you might be a winning player, or you might not be. But your sample is quite far from constituting proof. Your plan for moving up is fine either way, though.

I know I have played thousands.

The high variance nature of PLO means you're going to need very big sample sizes to even get close to approximating your winrate. Mere thousands of hands don't cut it imo.

You only need 300 or so hands per session to know if you're a God amongst men at poker tbh. Just look at zoja.

Seriously though, come back when you've played 100k hands... Then you'll get told to play another 100k and then maybe you'll know if you're a winner.

Are you playing on global?

Yes, how about yourself? Sucks no rakeback - but poor villain play makes up for it.

Variance is a *****...along with tilty bad play. Lost over $60 in two days going all in with 2nd best hands. Just poor play on my part along with being card dead. Today I moved up in stakes not really caring as I was playing with profit. Unlike the last two days I felt in full control of the tables. Won over $70 in one day and back to my original high of winnings. Variance really does play such a part. I know I played poorly the last two days but caught some lucky breaks today with many bluffs working as players were afraid to call me. When you are on a roll other players around the table tend to think you have the nuts next hand on a bluff. At least that's the ways it appeared to me.

Variance can be awful. Let's say you've played 2k hands in the OP. In my last 2k hands, on average, I would have won 3 buy-ins but in reality I lost 4 buy-ins. That is, I'm going all-in with the best hand most of the time, successfully bluffing, catching bluffs, etc. but that part I can't control, when I'm all-in, is just not going my way, right now.

On the flip side, I've a graph of someone who, on average, is winning at 2bb per 100 hands but, in reality, is winning at 8bb per 100 hands and luck kept up that streak for >50,000 hands which is 25 times bigger than your sample.

So, it's fair to say you've just scratched the surface of what variance can do to your results. Just keep playing well. Good luck.

Update on 7/22 - I am now up to $332 profit since my buy in a little over 2 months ago. Still play on only .02/.04, .05/.1 and .1/.2 tables. I'd like to move up to .25/.50 but sense I need to hit at least $500 to $700 profit before I risk $40 buy-ins.

Variance will eat through a bankroll if you're not properly rolled.

A heater will allow you to stay at $50s, but don't count on that happening.

Personally, I would want to sit with more than 12-16 buyins before I shot take (assuming your initial 100, plus 500 to 700 profit), but do what you will.

I just read the title.

While there might be some legitimate cases to ask this question, 99 times out of 100 it means that you don't understand enough to assess whether you're a winning player. Are your opponents making mistakes that you clearly identify as mistakes? Do you have enough theoretical knowledge to explain why they're not just doing something unorthodox but profitable?

You can learn about sample size and all but I'd suggest spending more time on those questions. Answer them well and the long-term results will work out.

Need to edit my results. $332 in 5 weeks, not two+ months (thought I bought in a month earlier). You are correct. I'm trying my hand (so to speak) at Omaha now, having given up online Hold'em play (except some tournaments where I seem to do well playing very unorthodoxly). I do see mistakes opponents make, although playing someone online and not getting to see them or know them is so different from live play. I am a recreational player, I do not aspire to earn more than some nice additional income per month. I do not have some deep theoretical knowledge of this game nor do I understand some deep theory an opponent may play. Then again, I don't expect deep theory at $10 and $20 buy in levels. I've played poker for a long time and use what I think is common sense, not pure theory and math. I am also quite a cautious player so do not take risks that other players may take. It may cost me wins, but also limits my losses as I hate to lose more than I like to win. This works very well for me. I play different styles depending on the table I'm at and how I feel at the time. However, I always play with what I believe is common sense. I don't see myself as this great player, however, I guess I play well enough to be profitable at a table with a fish...unless the fish is me

So what are a couple of examples of hands where your opponents played them differently than you would play them? Ideally these would be examples where most of your player pool plays the "wrong" way.

This is a basic fish play from probably inexperienced player. I would never raise with anything less than the nut flush in a case like this. I felt I could raise him pre-flop, he was raising with pure garbage on many hands. I won $10.47 on this hand. I was concerned about the second deuce hitting:

Player#x
hero
Player a
Playerb
Hand Events
Player x Small Blind 0.05
Player b Big Blind 0.1
hero Was dealt AcAd3d6s

hero Raise 0.35
Player a Fold
Player x Raise 1.15
Player b Fold
hero Raise 3.55
Player x Call 2.4
FLOP 2dJdQd
Player x Check
hero Bet 3.6
Player x Raise 13.4
hero Call 4.37
TURN 2dJdQd2c
Player x Showing Pocket Cards 9dTh8h7d
hero Showing Pocket Cards AcAd3d6s
RIVER 2dJdQd2cTd
hero Has Flush AdQdJdTd3d
Player x Has Flush QdJdTd9d7d

Interesting. In a game where people are often bet/folding a better flush, I don't hate his line if he's turning it into a bluff and stacks are a bit deeper. Do you think he's doing that for value?

Also, you now lose to every full house. Do you think FHs are in his range here?



But OK, so if people regularly stack off with non-nut flushes in your game and you don't stack off, that's one place your edge comes from. Where else?

Will post some more tomorrow. I think he hit the flush on the flop and that is exactly what I had him pegged at. Let's assume he has trips on that flop. would you not call his all in pot raise with the nut flush? Why would you believe a nut flush after flop loses more then wins? If he raises me after the 2nd deuce hits I would fold.

I would say your biggest obstacle now would be consistency. If this run you had wasn't on luck alone, can you replicated these results into 5h+ per day 5+ days per week, multitabling.

OK - are these good results for 5 weeks ($332 won in PLO at $4, $10, and $20 buy in levels)? I cannot replicate this at the levels you state because I work full time - I am a recreational player. I also choose not to multi-table at this time so I have a better feel for what type of player I am up against - I can only play the cards, not the person, multi-tabling. With a single table I have good bluffs and better handle on betting.

To me, being in the positive is always a good thing.

Worry less about what other people think good results are, and whether or not they feel you are a consistent winner and just focus on how you feel comfortable playing the game. You simply need to be aware that there are significant ups and downs in omaha, the advice in this forum can help ensure that you are playing optimally for your particular level, when you hit an up or a down.

Currently you're up, so it would seem to be that you're playing well. Post a few hands and people would be happy to analyze your play for spots you may have missed value, made mistakes, etc.

Apologies, I misread the hand history. If all the money went in on the flop then obviously you're happy about that. I had somehow thought the turn action was bet-raise-call.

(Is there not a converter for this format?)

So then, the point of this hand is just that you wouldn't stack off with a non-nut flush right? (That's good!) How would you play it in his shoes?

In general it's not ideal to "put a player on a hand" rather than a range of hands. But I can imagine in this case his range might be pretty narrow, say K- and T-high flushes only. Do you think he'd ever play QQ or JJ this way?

He may play that way. Hit a major bout of bad variance at high levels today. I need to play better.

What are your thoughts about buying in short at higher levels?

isn't consistency every plo player's greatest problem lol

like, literally?


variance is the one villain we all face together