Round By Round

A popular form of poker in my home state of Michigan is “round by round,” where we alternate playing a round of no-limit hold’em and a round of pot-limit Omaha high (PLO). We have casino cardrooms and charity gaming cardrooms, and round by round is played in both these legal Michigan poker scenarios.

The basic idea of spreading this game is to allow no-limit players inexperienced at Omaha to learn PLO in an environment where the risks of Omaha are reduced, because some of the time, the table will be playing no-limit, which those who are primarily hold’em players hopefully will think of as “their game.” Even if there are only one or two of these Omaha newcomers at the table, it makes a significant difference in adding a certain attraction to the game. However, there is a large gulf between theory and practice. Perhaps somewhere in our country there is a poker player who knows Omaha fairly well, but has little experience with no-limit. But despite my extensive travels throughout the poker cities of America, I have not located such a person. Frankly, I expect to encounter a Sasquatch first.

The first time I played in a round by round game was when I moved back to my home state of Michigan in 1996, where the Soaring Eagle cardroom in Mt. Pleasant spread it for a while. We played with $2-$5 blinds for PLO and $5-$10 blinds for no-limit. Using a blind structure of double the stakes for hold’em was an attempt to equalize the amount of money changing hands for each of the games, to avoid the amount of swing at Omaha exceeding the amount of swing at no-limit. This was a reasonable idea, but it turned out to be insufficient to achieve parity between the two games. My observation in ballpark figures is using the larger blinds for hold’em cut the swing down from being three times as great in favor of PLO to merely twice as great. In recent years, I have not seen a game of round by round where the blinds differed in size between the two poker forms, so the Omaha action is strongly predominant at round by round. Let me try to explain why this is so.

I do not think it too difficult to evaluate a no-limit hold’em starting hand, whereas evaluating a PLO hand is a lot harder. Furthermore, the advantage of having a premium hand at no-limit versus a moderately good hand is much greater than at PLO. Let me give you some concrete numbers to illustrate this. The best no-limit hold’em starting hand is obviously pocket aces. Your edge against an underpair when holding A-A is around 4-to-1, and is only slightly less against some suited connectors. The best PLO hand is two aces double-suited, where the aces are around 55 percent against certain suited connestors. So if you are willing to play a worse hand trying to crack the aces, your disadvantage is much less at Omaha. The general pattern at PLO is for the underdog to have a decent fighting chance preflop, regardless of the precise hands involved. If your goal is to get even after being stuck, PLO leaves you with a reasonable chance, whereas no-limit hold’em has you going sharply uphill. It is not unusual for a round by round game to switch to two rounds of PLO and one round of no-limit, or even all PLO, as the evening wears on and the stuckees hope to get even.

The extra two cards at Omaha makes it much more likely that premium card combinations are out. In addition to a good made hand such as two pair or a set, there are a large number of premium drawing hands that may be participating in a pot. There is a good chance that the nut-flush draw is held by someone, as well as a number of lower flush draws that may decide to stay in the pot. A 13-out straight-draw is fairly common, as is a 17-out straight-draw, which is about even money against top set if there is a rainbow board. Whereas the no-limit hold’em player dreams about flopping a set and doubling up, the PLO player can hope to make the nuts in a multihanded pot and triple up, or do even better. Sure, we have seen a no-limit hold’em pot where the winner busts two or three other people, but that is really rare.

I acknowledge the superiority of no-limit hold’em over PLO for tournament play, especially in world championship play. It is a lot easier to explain what is going on to the casual audience, among other things. (Imagine Mike Sexton trying to explain a wrap-around straight-draw to a group of mostly kitchen table players.) But for a cash game, I prefer PLO. Here’s why.

First, you can represent holding the nuts in nearly any layout. Even when holding pocket aces, that leaves the two other cards available to make the nut flush or a straight. This is especially important to a solid player like me who enters few pots and has a strong preference for the top half of the deck. I can make the nut straight or a small boat with little cards on the board just like the loose goose in the game can.

Second, even though good position is of great importance in no-limit, it is even more important at PLO. I often see an Omaha player raising in early position with unsuited aces, even when deep-stacked. That dude (unless short-stacked) clearly does not understand the game. The more Omaha I play, the more cautious I have gotten about building a big pot with a good hand but bad position.

Third, at Omaha, it is easier for me to read the primary holding that my opponent is betting on. PLO players are scared of those big draws, and usually protect their hand by making a pot sized wager when they make the nuts. There is a lot more slowplaying at no-limit, especially against a player like me that often bets on a moderate (or worse) hand because the opponent has shown weakness.

Fourth, even a hardened pro like myself prefers getting into action rather than just watching. I have quite a few no-limit hold’em sessions where I go for several hours folding nearly every hand I am dealt, and completely missing the flop on those rare playable hands. Not only do I fail to get a hand that meets my criteria for playing, but much of the time I am not even making tight folds. I have to wonder how anyone who wants to win can play so many starting hands. I guess any two cards will do. At Omaha, you have to be running really dry to not play a starting hand for an hour, no matter how tight you play.

Lastly, I know PLO is often described as a high volatility game because of its large fluctuations. That is true against reasonable opponents, but let me tell you that when I am gambling with Omaha players who are loose, weak, and passive, there is not much volatility for me. I hardly ever lose.

Bob Ciaffone’s new 408-page book, No-Limit Holdem Poker, is available now. This is Bob’s fifth book on poker strategy. It can be ordered from Bob for $25 by emailing him at [email protected]. Free shipping in the lower 48 states to Card Player readers. All books autographed. Bob Ciaffone is available for poker lessons.