Pot-Limit Omaha and No-Limit Hold'em

I’ve mentioned several times in my columns that I don’t really play no limit hold’em anymore. I haven’t really mentioned why that is and what draws me to the games that I like these days. In this column and the next couple issues, I’ll lay out the case for why I think pot-limit Omaha (PLO), specifically PLO and Big O, is better for poker players. I’ll also share what I think the important concepts are for moving from no-limit to pot-limit Omaha and from pot-limit Omaha to Big O.

I will freely admit that I’ve never found no-limit cash to be an appealing game. When I first started playing poker, I played almost exclusively limit hold’em and limit Omaha eight-or-better. I think no-limit (NL) is an excellent tournament game, especially in a freezeout format. I just don’t like it as a cash game, especially with more than six players. It constantly rewards players who peddle the nuts and the ability to rebuy at any time doesn’t make putting someone to a decision for all of their chips as impactful as it is when their tournament life is on the line. It’s possible to sit for hours waiting to cooler someone and have that be a profitable strategy in NL.

In addition, and probably the worst of all these things, the edges are so big in many situations in NL that the biggest pots are played with one person having so little equity that losing players go broke faster. This leads to less interest in continuing to play, a smaller and less sustainable player and money pool, and (for the poker rooms out there) less rake for the house. The players lose AND the house loses.
I live in one of the only places in the world where limit hold’em still exists at limits that are high enough for people to make a living playing it. I don’t really play the game anymore, but it’s a much better cash game than NL in my opinion for both the house and the player. Your money can last longer if you’re a losing player, as you’re only losing a few bets in very bad cooler situations instead of your whole stack, you can play more hands and be involved more often because of the nature of structured limit betting, and you play more hands per hour than you do in NL (again, better for the house). I hate jackpots. However, if you’re playing in a limit game that has a bad beat jackpot that is pooled amongst all hold’em games, you even have a better chance at hitting that in limit games than you do in NL games.

How about PLO then? I definitely think it’s a worse tournament game than NL, but what advantages does it have over NL as a cash game? I think the biggest advantage of PLO over NL as a cash game is that equities run closer together than they do in hold’em. It’s reasonable in lots of situations in a NL cash game to get lots of money in preflop as an 80 percent favorite.

In PLO, you could take what many consider the best possible hand in PLO, A-A-K-K double-suited and put it up against a total piece of trash like J-7-5-2 rainbow, and J-7-5-2 has 29 percent equity, roughly the same as A-K versus K-K. Change that to J-7-5-2 with a non-dominated suit and you have about 33 percent equity. Double suited with non-dominated suits? 37 percent equity. Now, put A-A-K-K double suited against a reasonable hand like 10-9-8-7 double suited non-dominated suits and you have 40 percent equity. These closer equity spots preflop make for better situations for players that are playing more hands and mixing it up more often. In addition, even after the flop when someone has made a big hand, they are often up against another very big hand that has lots of equity. Only in hands where it’s set over set with no backdoors, flush over flush, or higher straight against lower straight do you see very big equity differences. Again, as a result, weaker players have a better chance of making money in the short-run and their money lasts longer as long as they can sustain a prolonged downswing.

I also tend to find PLO games to have more gambling going on, players being more involved in the conversation, and a more jovial atmosphere because of the looser nature of the game itself. Because hands promise so much more potential in PLO, the atmosphere is livelier and more hopeful. When I am forced into a no-limit game, people tend to seem grumpy to me. I’m fully willing to admit that this could be a result of my grumpiness when being subjected to a game where I only get two cards to start.
If you’re playing in a casino that offers both no limit hold’em and pot limit Omaha, perhaps give the new game a chance. Over the next few issues, I’ll give you some tips on how to transition to PLO and what the pitfalls of such a transition could be. Hopefully I can convert a few players over to what Joey Ingram calls “The Great Game.” ♠

Gavin Griffin was the first poker player to capture a World Series of Poker, European Poker Tour and World Poker Tour title and has amassed nearly $5 million in lifetime tournament winnings. Griffin is sponsored by HeroPoker.com. You can follow him on Twitter @NHGG