Talk:Omaha hold 'em

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.

Contents

[edit] Issue: does PLO deserve its own article?

Why was the entire article on PLO redirected here? This article is about Omaha High Low. PLO is a different game! If someone wants information about PLO and gets redireted here, they are going to get a bunch of information which is not relevant, i.e. starting hand strategy for limit Omaha high low.

If the objection was that the PLO article needs more content, I can agree with that, but it's not going to get it if it is just a redirect to this article. William Jockusch 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about High Low. It is about all forms of Omaha hold 'em, and includes a section on Pot Limit. What you wrote about Pot limit was almost entirely redundant to what is covered here. There is no need for multiple articles that cover the same rules. Adding a bit more text to the pot limit section would be fine and a good idea, but there is no need for a new article. One thing though, it is not a good idea to include "strategy". Poker strategy is inherently subjective, and Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view philosophy, which naturally means that advocating AAKK versus 9876 is not something we can do. Again, if you want to work to increase the PLO text in this article, please feel free. Specifically, you could create a subsection between "Omaha Hi/Lo" and "Variations". 2005 08:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no disambiguation page for PLO (and obviously no reference from Palestine Liberation Organization to which PLO now redirects), so you won't find this page very easily now. I suggest to fix this. Kjetilho 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But this article has statments like "3 cards of the same rank is very bad." This is true enough -- but isn't it a strategy point? Why is one strategy point acceptable and another not? William Jockusch 09:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

First, imagine some credible source saying three cards of the same rank is good. Obviously those don't exist. Saying AAJT is better than 222T is not going out on a limb. In general, strategy should be avoided. For example, "you should see few flops and raise when you do" and "you should see lots of flops cheaply" could easily be stated by a reasonable person. It's not Wikipedia's place to recomend that sort of thing. Rules, procedures, history, popularity... that is the sort of thing an encyclopedia is good for. What to do with QJ99 second from the button with two limpers is not. 2005 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, let's stop being retards for a little while and consider what's what. First of all, any statement that reads like "3 cards of the same rank is very bad." is terrible, because of the awful syntax and form. Yes, being dealt three ranked cards is no good, but why? Let's use our heads and change the article so it says something worthwhile. How about "Being dealt three cards of the same rank isn't necessarily desirable, due to the fact that you are only able to use two of those three ranked cards to complete a hand." How 'bout it? Unlike the first revision, my statement doesn't make it seem like the author has autism or something. It'd be stupid to omit strategy entirely and pretend it doesn't exist so we can uphold the nebulous standards of NPOV, so let's go with the basics. Since I'm too lazy to do it, someone else do it. Then I'll change it all around and talk about how terrible you did it, and I'll end up taking all the credit (what little there is to be had). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fubster (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
There is nothing to be said on NPOV if an organization does a computer simulation and concludes that AAKK wins more hands than 9876 or vice versa in, say, a million random hands. This is a reasonable proof although I'd think twice before adding it into an article only about the rules of the game. Saying "see any flop with X points using YZ's point count system" or "you should go all the way to the river with that" not only raises POV possibilities, but it's also too detailed. Put these statements only in a strategy article and try to find a proof before adding them. That's my 2¢. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy?

Regarding the above discussion of strategy: Poker is a highly nuanced game, wherein the direction of play depends quite a lot on one's opponents' style of play and one's capacity to adapt to it (unlike, for instance, craps, or any other entirely mathematically-dependant game of chance). Many, many books have been written on this subject, as most of us know, and they tend to contradict each other in interesting ways. For this reason, even a statement such as "3 cards of the same rank is [a] very bad [starting hand]", though statistically-correct in the long run, really doesn't have a place in these pages, in my opinion, since poker is such a situation-dependent game (i.e., "incorrect" play, in the traditional sense, can sometimes be the best play in a particular situation), and we are, after all, aiming at general knowledge and interest here. Buck Mulligan 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Omaha hold'em, a community card poker game based on Texas hold 'em, is the most complex poker game commonly played in casinos today.

This is pretty misleading. It depends what you mean by "complex". If by "complex" you mean "most number of rules", then I suppose it's the most "complex". If by "complex" you mean "most sophisticated in terms of strategy and skill" then holdem is a much more "complex" game than omaha. Revolver

It can be complex in a third way, in that there are more possible hands in a given situation. It's quite possible, if uncommon, to have top set, a flush draw, and a straight draw all at once. It's not necessarily harder to play or recognize these hands once you're used to the game, but it's arguably more complex than Texas hold'em, where you'll generally have only one hand. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was originally created as a high-hand only game, but the High-low split variant called "Omaha/8 or better" has become so popular that the unadorned term "Omaha" usually now refers to that, while the original game is more commonly known by the retronym "Omaha High".

This might be pretty misleading, too. My main concern is that this statement is a bit "North-American-centric". While it's true that in North America, "Omaha" usually refers to limit hi-lo 8-or-better, in Europe, "Omaha" still refers primarily to pot-limit omaha hi, as limit omaha 8-or-better is not played very much in Europe (as I understand). Revolver

re. "In North American casinos, the unadorned term "Omaha" can refer to several poker games. The original game is more commonly known as "Omaha High". A high-low split variant can also be played. This is called "Omaha Hi-Lo", or sometimes "Omaha eight-or-better", or "Omaha/8"." from some resources I have found, it appears that Omaha came about after hi/lo variants of other Poker games were popular -- and it was hi/lo-8 from the beginning, and the "Hi only" variant is the later addition. Does anyone have any good sources to confirm either historical timeline? 199.214.27.181 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The usage of "Texas hold 'em" but "Omaha hold'em" in Wikipedia is inconsistent, but I'm not sure which is more correct. Anyone know? Neilc 00:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Omaha holdem" is a correct name for the game. When the term "holdem" is used by itself, it is understood to mean Texas holdem. Revolver 23:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the issue isn't the name of the game, the issue is whether there's a space before the apostrophe. Our articles are Texas hold 'em, with the space, and Omaha hold'em, without it, which is inconsistent. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
There are three ways to spell the word. Hold'em is the one in the middle and seems the best choice.2005 10:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I decided "Omaha hold 'em", with the space, is more technically correct as, when the phrase stands alone, "hold 'em" is two words. Therefore I moved the article accordingly. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you got to this conclusion. It's Hold'em. It's a contraction. Allstreetbluff 17:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a contraction, but so what? We would write "You have to know how to hold 'em"; "how to hold'em" would be incorrect. I don't see how it's any different when talking about the name of a game. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some fairly big changes. This article needs a lot of work. Allstreetbluff 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Omaha hold 'em is correct. There should be a space since it's "Omaha hold them"128.6.175.60 20:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last revert

What gives with this? 2005, please describe what you think is wrong with it. Essexmutant 12:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 2005 was thinking, but I've made the edits again taking out anything that could be even remotely controversial. Allstreetbluff 18:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've removed some repetition (repeating the high low versus high only info in the first two paragraphs), as well as the one paragraph that is both factually wrong and POV. No Limit Omaha high was never "very common"; and the whole notion about edges frequently being ver small is completely false and misleading. Besides that, anything talking about No Limit Omaha is talking about extremely trivial minutae since the game has barely ever existed. 2005 01:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph is a non-sequitur, and the discussion of no-limit doesn't belong unless it is in a history section or a theory section. I was trying to fix a very odd reference in the original article, but it is better cut. However, I disagree with you on the factual question. Omaha was originally played no-limit, before the limit structure was really invented, but quickly moved to pot-limit for the reasons stated. And while you can still get big edges in Omaha, many more small (or non-existant) edge confrontations occur than in most other poker games, and it has exactly the effect I described. Allstreetbluff 02:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

Computer models have shown that a larger percentage of Omaha starting hands are profitable compared with Texas Holdem. Nevertheless a key skill is in deciding which hands are worth playing with. The strongest possible starting hand is A-2 suited, A-3 suited, which has been proven to be the most profitable of all starting combinations. A-2-3 is also very strong, virtually guaranteeing the low pot (or a share of it) if the subsequent community cards allow a low split. Other strong hands include A-2 (suited) and A-3 (suited), although both of these, especially A-3 (which often achieves the second nut low or just a draw to one), need considerable care and experience to play well.

The section above mentions A-2 and A-3 suited twice. someone fix the wording and merge the two parts. I did a little adjustment, but it may need a little work. 70.111.207.230 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. An Omaha hand has *FOUR* cards. Raw A-2 suited means, A-2 suited + any other 2 cards.

It is confusing though and open to interpretation, a better way would be to say A-A-2-3 double suited. - Ribbo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.25.24 (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ribbo:

The terminology "A-A-2-3 double suited" is less specific than the way it was previously worded. To give an example, it could include the hand where the two aces are both clubs, and the 2 and 3 are both hearts. This would be a weaker hand than the one described when you say, "A-2 suited, A-3 suited". Deepfryer99 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you have two cards of the same suit and same rank in one deck? Admiral Norton (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, damnit, nevermind. I'm retarded. My example would apply to a hand like AK23, where you would want to be more specific about which of your "high cards" are suited. But obviously not with AA23. Deepfryer99 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High vs. Hi/Lo vs. Texas

Anyone have any comparisons between Omaha Hi and Hi/Lo? I think Hi is better in smaller groups so that everyone doesn't stick in until the end to see if they got the low pot. And also that Hi/lo is basically for games with a high number of players (over around 6 people). High, works for both small and large groups. Texas, is equivalent to High, I'd say, since in Omaha, you have to use 2 cards in your hand and 3 on the board. 128.6.175.60 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

Should there be so much (unnecessary) jargon used? I'm referring to things like "Likewise, with trips on the board...", and "...the fourth jack in his hand can make quads...". Wouldn't it be better to stick to the "standard" terms: "Likewise, with three of a kind on the board..." and "...the fourth jack in his hand can make four of a kind..."? 222.154.133.237 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that jargon should be rewritten into standard terms.--Toms2866 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comparing to Hold'Em

This article seems to goto awful extensive lengths to compare everything about the play of this game to Hold'em. Has it been decided that Hold'em is the definative poker? Almost every example says 'like hold'em' or 'unlike hold'em'. Also, the 3:2 card ration between the board and the player's hand seems to be over-emphasised. do the three examples really need to be listed? Isn't the principle clear from the explaining paragraph? This isn't a guide to play, it's merely an encyclopedia entry. If necessary, then they should at least be reduced. For example, the second sample hand again repeats "since must play only three of the board cards." I think that's clear by that point in the article. TheHYPO 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'T' of Hearts?

In the Redraws part of the Pot-limit Omaha section, it refers to T♥. Is this supposed to be the Ten of Hearts (or Two of Hearts, or Three of Hearts), or is this a reference to something else that I'm not getting? I'm a little confused by that symbol. If it is the Ten of Hearts, I think it should be changed to 10♥ to be consistent (and clear). If it is something else, could someone please explain it to me? Poolboy8 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Poker terminology is correct here. Tens are always displayed as a T rather than a 10. This is to keep all the symbols to one character for hand history purposes - Ribbo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.27.220 (talk) 10:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-Low vs Omaha/8?

The article basically says that Omaha High-Low is the same thing as Omaha Eight-or-Better. Is this always the case? What I mean is, I'm fairly sure that I've seen games of Omaha High-Low where the lowest hand always won half the pot, even if it was not an 8-low or better (basically like Razz, which is not an "eight or better" game). Can anyone clear this up? Deepfryer99 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Omaha High-Low and Omaha/8 are essentially the same thing. Omaha High/Low without the 8 qualifier is very rare. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting error was reverted

"In order for anyone to qualify low, there must be at least three cards of differing ranks 8 or below on the board. For example, a board of K-8-J-7-5 makes low possible (the best low hand would be A-2, followed by A-3, 2-3, etc.) A board of K-8-J-8-5, however, cannot make any qualifying low (the best low hand possible would be J-8-5-2-A, which doesn't qualify). Statistically, around 60% of the time a low hand is possible."

This text is saying that 2-3 gives a better low then A-4 on the board K-8-J-7-5. But ofcourse the low A-4-5-7-8 beats 2-3-4-7-8. I tried to correct this but it was reverted. Why man? :(

It should list the best low hands as A-2, follow med A-3 and then A-4.

It was corrected because you are wrong. 87532 is lower than 87541. 32 is a smaller number than 41. 2005 (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Im starting to understand why I am a losing player at omaha hi-low. =) Ty for the explanation