how bout a quick lesson in OMAHA?
how bout a quick lesson in OMAHA?
how's it played? etc etc :?:
diff. variations etc :?
no clue
how's it played? etc etc :?:
diff. variations etc :?
no clue
Comments
http://www.rgpfaq.com/omaha-rules.html
ScottyZ
It plays exactly like hold'em, except each player starts with 4 cards instead of 2. The betting then goes the same, as does the board (flop of 3 cards, turn, river). The key is, at the end, even though you have four hole cards, you can only use *2* of them to make your best hand. Not one, and not three.
So, if there are four hearts on the board, and you have the ace of hearts in your hand but no other heart to go with it in your hand to use as your second card, you *do not* have a flush.
Similiarly, if you have four hearts in your hand and one heart comes on the board, you *do not* have a flush.
Two from here, three from there.
It's a fun game, with ten people playing it the nuts, second nuts, or third nuts usually takes it down. Protecting your hand is a huge factor (especially in NL) when you flop a set, and if you're drawing, drawing to the nuts is usually the way to go, or not at all.
Hope that helped,
all_aces
ps: Then there's Omaha/8 or better, which is a whole other can of worms...
thx fellas
OY :shock: is Omaha Hi Lo & Omaha Hi the same?
heard sloth was cleaning house playin' Omaha...thought i should
give it a try someday...
gots to learn how to play this sumbitch first
It is a game that few play well. And thus for a smart player who has taken the time to learn it, it can be quite profitable.
It is played in the same fashion as Omaha, except that one plays for both a high and a low hand. The two cards which are used to make the high do not need to be the two used to make the low.
Alot of fun.
I used to hate any split pot game, but have found that I really make some decent scratch from them now that I have learned them.
Mike
so is Omaha/8 the same as Omaha Hi Lo ?
getting confused :shock:
I was playing Triple Draw A-5 last night. You should have seen how crazy I went when my Kings full of Aces lost to A-2-4-5-7
Keith
The beauty of the game is that you can flop multi-hands/multi-draws
here is an example of a hand I had in Omaha online:
Ks As 7d 7h
flop came Js 10s 7c
needless to say, i hit that flop pretty DAMN hard. I had nut flush draw using 2 of my cards as well as a set with the other two. So my outs include:
*Any spade
*Any queen
*ummm...a 7
and assuming no one has a higher set, then pairing the 10 or J would be nifty too of course.
Another thing that really helps in making $$ at this online, is for the most part i've found that people play generally poorly. They might have AA65 and not make a set or anything and call you down thinking their one pair is good. Rule of thumb...1 pair is NEVER good in Omaha
so Omaha-Hi is the same as Omaha :shock:
while Omaha 8 is the same as Omaha Hi Lo :shock:
thx,
CO :shock:
yes. Unless otherwise specified, when someone just says "omaha" they mean "hi" or at least thats the industry standard.
"while Omaha 8 is the same as Omaha Hi Lo"
Not exactly... I may be wrong on this..but it's my understanding that with "omaha hi lo" the lowest hand will win half the pot even if the lowest hand is something like J high.
BUT if it's specified that its Omaha 8, then it means that the low cannot have a card higher than 8 to qualify being the low hand. Make sense? so if you're heads up and your oppenant has J high, then there is no low, and you win the whole pot.
I have NEVER heard of Omaha hi/lo being played with no qualifier. I think that pretty much all hi-lo games now are played with an 8 qualifier, unless otherwise stated.
I guess that wouldn't be the case with 5-stud hi/lo, but when was the last time a casino spread that???
Keith
doesn't surprise me at all (saying there is no such thing as no qualifier) could be that I played a home game w/ no qualifier 'er something...I dunno...I know enough that I hate hi-lo 8)
So if someone said "Omaha hi/lo" I'd assume (or ask if necessary) they were talking about the 8 qualifier version.
The main problems with hi-lo no qualifier are probably:
1. Strategy is too simple.
A decent strategy is playing only hands with good low potential and hoping to back into a high hand for the scoop. With a qualifier, this doesn't work nearly as well because there's no guarantee you'll hit a low at all.
With no qualifier, 7 stud hi-lo strategy is not significantly different from Razz strategy, particularly in the early betting rounds.
2. Easy to collude.
With no qualifier, even average players can gain a big advantage by pairing up and playing only hands where one player has a high hand and the other has a low hand. You don't even have to be all that skilled at general cheating, since (a) you only need two signals ("I have a good low" and "I have a good high") and more importantly (b) you'll almost never get caught because squeezing out a 3rd player in hi-lo is the most natural looking thing in the world.
Unfortunately, a qualifier for low will cannot prevent this sort of collusion... it just makes it slightly less effective.
ScottyZ
This is what makes it so good. People will STILL play it badly, and they will get punished big-time for it. There is also very little variance. Razz is kind of the same, but might be too "boring" to attract the sort of players that you want to play against.
I know. That's why I don't like the qualifier.
This is true. But bad players see a hand like (KK)J and they think it's good. Also they will win the high half often enough that they don't get it beaten into them that this hand is crap. Furthermore, when they DON'T win the high half, they feel they they are outplaying the other person and got outdrawn, since they started with the best high.
This is what makes it a good game.
People do the same thing with a qualifier (at a full table this (KK)J hand is still garbage) but when you go brick-brick-brick-brick the sucker gets the whole pot. At least with no qualifier, the sucker only gets half the pot when you catch really ugly cards (I guess it's possible that the guy makes a jack-high for low and you can't beat that OR a pair of kings for high, but that is REALLY REALLY unlucky and will be very rare. Realistically this hand has about 0 scoop potential). The only real problem with this game that I can see is that the bad players lose all their money WAY too quickly.
I am not entirely sure why it is less effective with a qualifier?
Keith
One example is that with no qualifier, there are more cases when the low player on the team can still have a lock for low without having a made 8 low.
Here's a specific example with 3 players in on 5th street:
Low collusion team member: (A 2) 3 9 T
High collusion team member: (A A) K K 7
3rd party: (X X) J J Q
So, the best low the 3rd party can make is a Q low against the low team member's made T.
Now the low team member can give the "immortal nut low" signal (Okay, they may need one or two more signals...) and the high team member can jam the pot with confidence knowing that the team will not lose too much money if the high hand ends up being beaten.
Note that if this was Stud8, the team would be in a real pickle on 5th street and the low player would certainly have to abandon the hand. (Even ignoring the question of whether or not the low should have called on 4th street after bricking high.)
Clearly this sort of hand can sometimes come up in Stud8 also. However, with no qualifier, the low collusion player simply has many more chances to make a lock low when he is not restricted to making just 8 lows or better.
ScottyZ
FWIW, the stud8 version of that hand that you mentioned plays almost exactly like regular 7-card stud (hi only) from 5th street on. The main difference is the hands that you can put people on. (AA)K is a pretty bad full-table stud8 hand. I can't think of a playable hand with a J as a doorcard other than (JJ)J at a full stud 8 table. The guy with (A2)3 has good reason to be pissed off (assuming no collusion). That's why I like the idea of no qualifier... even after catching some pretty bad cards, the guy who started with the decent hand STILL has the best hand. Look at what (AA)K has to catch to scoop against (A2)3. But people will play it anyway because it LOOKS like a good hand.
Keith
Yeah, that's why I said "slightly".
Yep, which is exactly why the colluders have no special advantage in this particular hand in Stud8, but a *major* advantage in they're playing hi/lo with no qualifier. That's sort of why I chose it. 8)
ScottyZ