No Limit Omaha!!!!
No limit omaha? That's right -- it's my new favourite game. I didn't know it existed until I found it on Royal Vegas. I had been playing a lot of Pot Limit Omaha on Stars and Party Poker and achieving some success. However, I was still getting frustrated by a lot of suck outs. If you hate getting drawn out on, limit omaha is bad enough. Pot limit omaha will sometimes make you lose your mind because you're usually losing more money. However, I find No limit to be way better in terms of being the master of your own destiny! I can go all-in on the flop if I hit top set and I'm okay with someone making a bad call to try to hit their flush. I still get sucked out on, but at least I'm giving them unfavourable odds, and those bad odds will catch up to them soon enough.
The following is my thesis on NL Omaha:
As an example, the other day I was playing against the loosest table in the world at .05/.10 NL Omaha on RoyalVegas. I'm dealt Kh Kd Ts 9c. I limp in with four others + SB and BB (pot = .70). The flop is Kc 8c 3d. Not really any straight possibilities, but the clubs concern me. A player in front of me bets out $1. I go all-in for $15 to: a) protect my hand from flush draws; b) hope to get called by a lower set. Everyone folds to the original bettor who calls all-in for $14 more. So he's getting $.70 + $1 + $14 = $15.70 : $14 => 1.12:1 on his money. He turns over Ac 5c Jh 2h. A flush draw? Gee whiz. He's roughly a 2.5 to 1 underdog (28%) because he only has 7 outs twice (9 clubs minus the 3c and 9c) plus a river club cannot pair whatever the turn is and vice-versa. He's about a 2 to 1 underdog if I don't have a club. So this is a horrible call, assuming I have trips, because he's not getting the pot odds. And I think you have to put me on trips here because most people will push trips on the flop to protect their hand in omaha. At best (for him), I have two pair with no clubs which would make him a 1.28:1 dog (and a call would still not be justified). What does he think I have? A queen-high flush draw? Top-pair only? (both would make him a favourite). Of course not! He knows he's behind. But you'll find these bad calls ALL the time in low stakes no limit omaha because they don't know any better. All they care about is that they are drawing to the nuts.
The dynamics of this situation change in Pot Limit: let's say he bets out $1 on the flop (Kc 8c 3d) and I raise the pot ($1 to call plus $2.70 raise - size of pot w/ my call & raise = $5.40). It is folded around to him and he calls my $2.70 raise (pot is now $8.10). In this instance, he is getting $5.40 : $2.70 (2:1) pot odds. However, he may not get any action from me if his flush card hits on the turn or river. The biggest difference here is that there will now be betting on the turn (rather than being all-in on the flop in NL Omaha). Now if he doesn't hit his flush on 4th street, I can bet the pot again ($8.10). Now he's getting 2:1 on his money (any pot-sized bet heads-up offers 2:1) to hit one of 7 clubs (or fewer if I hold any clubs), assuming I have two pair cards in my hand (KK, K8, 88, etc). This would be a horrible call here because he's about a 6:1 underdog. As Phil Hellmuth eloquently demonstrates in his book, you need at least 13 outs to call a pot-sized bet on the turn (e.g., flush draw [7 outs] with an open-ended straight draw [6 outs]). This would make you a 2.5:1 underdog. Although the pot is only laying 2 to 1, he factors in implied odds on the river if you hit your hand which pushes you over the mark.
By comparison, the advantage of PLO is that the leader on the flop (trips) can fold on the turn if a flush card hits. However, the trailer can also get out on the turn if he wishes. If he only has the flush draw on the turn, he'll probably fold to a pot-sized bet (of course, you could choose to bet, say $2 into a $9 pot, giving slightly unfavourable 5.5:1 pot odds [$11 : $2] on a 6:1 proposition [7 outs]) to induce a call. However, I would rather take it down right there by betting the pot and getting him to fold or hope the flush doesn't hit if he makes a bad call to a pot-sized bet. Thus, I prefer NL Omaha because if you can get all the money in the pot on the flop, flush drawers vs. your top set will be forced to be 2.5 to 1 underdogs for a pot that is usually laying less than 2.5 to 1 (no other money invested in the pot by other betting before you) with NO implied odds (because there is no more betting in later rounds). Of course, all of this applies only to heads-up play -- the situation changes drastically with other players in the pot. But the beauty of NL Omaha is that you can more easily force out other opponents behind you to get heads up with someone who has raised in front of you (i.e., by going all-in).
By the way, in the hand in question, my opponent hit his flush on the river. Ahhh, math can only bring us so far....
P.S. Let me know if any of my math/concepts are wrong here.
Phil
The following is my thesis on NL Omaha:
As an example, the other day I was playing against the loosest table in the world at .05/.10 NL Omaha on RoyalVegas. I'm dealt Kh Kd Ts 9c. I limp in with four others + SB and BB (pot = .70). The flop is Kc 8c 3d. Not really any straight possibilities, but the clubs concern me. A player in front of me bets out $1. I go all-in for $15 to: a) protect my hand from flush draws; b) hope to get called by a lower set. Everyone folds to the original bettor who calls all-in for $14 more. So he's getting $.70 + $1 + $14 = $15.70 : $14 => 1.12:1 on his money. He turns over Ac 5c Jh 2h. A flush draw? Gee whiz. He's roughly a 2.5 to 1 underdog (28%) because he only has 7 outs twice (9 clubs minus the 3c and 9c) plus a river club cannot pair whatever the turn is and vice-versa. He's about a 2 to 1 underdog if I don't have a club. So this is a horrible call, assuming I have trips, because he's not getting the pot odds. And I think you have to put me on trips here because most people will push trips on the flop to protect their hand in omaha. At best (for him), I have two pair with no clubs which would make him a 1.28:1 dog (and a call would still not be justified). What does he think I have? A queen-high flush draw? Top-pair only? (both would make him a favourite). Of course not! He knows he's behind. But you'll find these bad calls ALL the time in low stakes no limit omaha because they don't know any better. All they care about is that they are drawing to the nuts.
The dynamics of this situation change in Pot Limit: let's say he bets out $1 on the flop (Kc 8c 3d) and I raise the pot ($1 to call plus $2.70 raise - size of pot w/ my call & raise = $5.40). It is folded around to him and he calls my $2.70 raise (pot is now $8.10). In this instance, he is getting $5.40 : $2.70 (2:1) pot odds. However, he may not get any action from me if his flush card hits on the turn or river. The biggest difference here is that there will now be betting on the turn (rather than being all-in on the flop in NL Omaha). Now if he doesn't hit his flush on 4th street, I can bet the pot again ($8.10). Now he's getting 2:1 on his money (any pot-sized bet heads-up offers 2:1) to hit one of 7 clubs (or fewer if I hold any clubs), assuming I have two pair cards in my hand (KK, K8, 88, etc). This would be a horrible call here because he's about a 6:1 underdog. As Phil Hellmuth eloquently demonstrates in his book, you need at least 13 outs to call a pot-sized bet on the turn (e.g., flush draw [7 outs] with an open-ended straight draw [6 outs]). This would make you a 2.5:1 underdog. Although the pot is only laying 2 to 1, he factors in implied odds on the river if you hit your hand which pushes you over the mark.
By comparison, the advantage of PLO is that the leader on the flop (trips) can fold on the turn if a flush card hits. However, the trailer can also get out on the turn if he wishes. If he only has the flush draw on the turn, he'll probably fold to a pot-sized bet (of course, you could choose to bet, say $2 into a $9 pot, giving slightly unfavourable 5.5:1 pot odds [$11 : $2] on a 6:1 proposition [7 outs]) to induce a call. However, I would rather take it down right there by betting the pot and getting him to fold or hope the flush doesn't hit if he makes a bad call to a pot-sized bet. Thus, I prefer NL Omaha because if you can get all the money in the pot on the flop, flush drawers vs. your top set will be forced to be 2.5 to 1 underdogs for a pot that is usually laying less than 2.5 to 1 (no other money invested in the pot by other betting before you) with NO implied odds (because there is no more betting in later rounds). Of course, all of this applies only to heads-up play -- the situation changes drastically with other players in the pot. But the beauty of NL Omaha is that you can more easily force out other opponents behind you to get heads up with someone who has raised in front of you (i.e., by going all-in).
By the way, in the hand in question, my opponent hit his flush on the river. Ahhh, math can only bring us so far....
P.S. Let me know if any of my math/concepts are wrong here.
Phil
Comments
The problem with NLO is that once you play with half decent players, the only people who will call your bets will have you beat and you can only safely play the nuts at any time. Omaha's a game of draws and NL is a game of hand protection. Put the two together and it doesnt sound like very much fun.
Also, if you DO become an expert NLO player, you don't have much of a progression up the table limits because games don't exist..
In summary, the advantage of NLO is hand protection and small pots. The advantage of PLO is no absolute hand protection and monster pots.