We've all heard the cries that you can't beat low limit HE because of all the fish and the suckouts. We know this is not ture, that LLHE is beatable, and most of us do so on a regular basis. But what about Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 8 or better? Probably doesnt apply to PL due to the punishing nature of 'big bet' poker. This idea was spurned by Beavis' lamentations about "they play the worst crap, I woulda scooped".

Hypothesis: For good players, relative win rates (in bb/time, not $/time) are lower at low Limit O8b than they are at higher limts of O8b. This is due to the propensity of weird suckouts due to the nature of omaha. The games are beatable, just less profitable.

People play the weirdest hands in Omaha 8. They play to almost any low draw, any 2-3 big cards is playable, etc. You bet to maximize your profits, yet they still hit weird draws. Most of the hands that you would have scooped , lose to like a 8 high flush, giving you only half. At higher limits, people play more sensible hands, allowing you to capitalize more on your premium hands.

How does this differ from LLTHE? 2 cards vs 4 cards, and split pots. In HE, these werid draws only hit the minority of the time, even if every player is doing it. That allows the better player to maximize his long term profits by punishing those players. IN Omaha 8, there are 2 more cards in each hand to hit to more outs, and then they can hit in 2 different directions.

This increased frequency of reduced wins cuts into a good players win rate harded at LLO8b than at LLHE.

A good LLO8b player should then move up to a limit they are competitive at, within their bankroll, to increase their relative win rate.

Opnions, comments?

no because unlike hold em when you have a strong hand in Omaha you want people chasing.

for instance you have KK and the flop is KTT you want someone with a ten chasing or someone with a straight or a flush draw chasing

in hold em you rarely have nut hands and people chasing to beat your 2 pair will get there.

Often times in low limit Omaha 8 people are drawing dead to 1/2 a pot.

I should add that it is also more likely people are drawing to non nut flushes and non nut lows.

OK I relazied I phrased this wrong. Heres what I meant to ask, conintued from above.

Is the affect of bad players (suckouts and more chops) greater in LO8b than in LLHE? And is the affect of moving up a threshold limit in LO8b greater than in LLHE?

What about LO8b vs limit Omaha high only?

The easiest game to beat is low limit Omaha 8.

bad players have more of an affect on suckouts in Hold Em. in hold em your hands and draws are more vulnerable than in Omaha 8.

Typically yes moving up in Omaha 8 is more of a change than hold em for 2 reasons.

#1 there are fewer in between limits of O8, typically a cardroom will spread some 3/6 or 5/10 games than the MAYBE a 10/20- 20/40 after that it's right up to 75/150 typically. In hold em you usually have 2/4, 5/10, 10/20, 15/30, 20/40, 30/60, 40/80, etc

#2 playing 3 way pots compared to 6 way pots is totally different in O8, in fact it is basically a different game. where in hold em it is much easier to adjust to heads up and 3 handed pots

Speaking personally, my hourly win rate is higher at OHL than it is at the same level of hold-em. I started playing OHL on a fulltime basis to test a personal theory that its the best loose-cash game on the net right now.

I don't know if I've proven that to myself yet, but I've definitely added it to my regular rotation of games.

My personal theory/explanation is that with all the focus/televising/writing on hold-em right now, the overall quality of the game can't help but improve, if for no other reason than by basic ripple effect. The percentage of people playing with at least a casual knowledge of the game is increasing.

Omaha and OHL, on the other hand, have largely escaped the focus of poker writers and poker theorists. You don't see it televised that often and even when it was as part of ESPN's WSOP package this past year, the nuances of the game were never really explained. People trickle over to it because it looks like hold-em, is still called Omaha hold-em in some places even, and is, therefore, easy for them to adapt to from their regular hold-em game. They arrive not knowing the nuances of playing a split-pot game and not recognizing that a vastly larger percentage of the deck is in play on every deal.

I agree with Steve-O, the easiest game to beat online right now is low-limit OHL

ok, so my thinking was along the right lines, jsut backwards.

Omaha and OHL, on the other hand, have largely escaped the focus of poker writers and poker theorists. You don't see it televised that often and even when it was as part of ESPN's WSOP package this past year, the nuances of the game were never really explained. People trickle over to it because it looks like hold-em, is still called Omaha hold-em in some places even, and is, therefore, easy for them to adapt to from their regular hold-em game. They arrive not knowing the nuances of playing a split-pot game and not recognizing that a vastly larger percentage of the deck is in play on every deal.

now i think this is bad for the game. there are less people trying the game because it is not as "glamorous" as hold em. more players = more bad players. And people rarely trickle over it to live.