Omaha vs Omaha split - which is more popular? |
|
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 10:39 am GMT by Idaho
Do people still play high hand Omaha or is it basically now played as a split game. I was going to do some reading up but didn't want to dedicate time to the wrong one as the tactics are very different.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 11:42 am GMT by flafishy
Seems like split is much more popular. I'm trying to learn Omaha now, and it seems like on the three or four sites I play, you can always find a high-low game but not always just a high game.
Also, the card rooms here in South Florida more often offer the high-low variant.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 11:48 am GMT by golddog
I personally prefer split. It seems like many people have trouble reading a low hand and will call you down with things like 7-6.
I know that Omaha high is still played, but I don't think it's hugely popular.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 12:22 pm GMT by howzit
haha, i just played my first Omaha8 and wanted to report that I suck. Hand reading is so hard to do in this game.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 12:38 pm GMT by Idaho
Omaha is a game of the nuts - if you haven't got it, you have probably lost.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 12:46 pm GMT by crack
Omaha is a great game. I prefer to play PLO8, but I would suggest reading up and playing both games. They are both fun.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 5:42 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
It depends. I like to play them both anyway, but in card rooms Hi/Lo seems more popular, since they mostly run limit games. In Europe and Australia, however, Pot Limit Omaha High is a much more popular game. In short, in limit settings, Hi/Lo tends to be more popular, and in Pot Limit settings, High seems more popular, but both can be played either way.
Reinforces my theory when I play Omaha that too many players (particularly on the net) are overly influenced by their Hold'em experiences and have trouble adjusting their strategy for different games. This is less true with Omaha than with Stud, but there's still plenty of easy money to be found in non-Hold'em games.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 7:21 pm GMT by Hank
I love/Hate Omaha, but I can’t get away from it.
I have come out way ahead in many of my sessions, but I have also lost my A$$ with this game when I had a string of second best hands. Even worse is when you are using three of your hole cards to make a straight flush. Imagine my surprise 
I study Omaha because I feel a little strategy goes a long way in this game. Damn near everyone at the tables knows how to play a reasonable game of Holdem. So you have to play a really good game to have an edge on your opponents in Holdem.
So many people jump into an Omaha game thinking they can play it like a Holdem game yet the value of hands are very different. Then you add Hi lo split, some people just don’t get it. So many people make so many bad calls you can really clean up.
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 7:44 pm GMT by TheSalche
Yeah, I think the Hi/Lo split is really hard for a hardcore hold'em player to get into.
I've tried out Omaha Hi and figured out what the best types of starting hands are, but it seems like most of the time when you get those great hands, the board never matches you. It seems like its much more of a mathematical game of figuring out outs and deciding which starting hands to play, rather than a feel/bluffing game that hold'em becomes at higher levels.
I still love how the winner of the WSOP PLO 2004 didn't realize that a 4-card straight doesn't do it ...
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 8:11 pm GMT by ibarrio
I Enjoy Omaha Hi/Lo...Good Game
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 8:18 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| TheSalche wrote: | | I still love how the winner of the WSOP PLO 2004 didn't realize that a 4-card straight doesn't do it ... |
Oh gawd... Ted Lawson, that guy was a jackass who did not deserve to win. On top of it all, he was a cocky bastard. What a jackass.
And on that note, how many times has Lee Watkinson got 2nd in something? Always a bridesmaid that guy...
Posted Fri May 20, 2005 8:29 pm GMT by Hank
Hey Salche,
Nice signature. I should have known someone else would carry that quote from Phil in their signature. Phil really is textbook narcissist. I just changed mine the other day so I’ll find another signature.
|
|
