Topic: Poker
Dominic wrote to me recently:
"I thought Big Dave D's blog was quite interesting today. The gist of it is that he has been trying No Limit Hold Em recently, and doesn't like it because it requires judgement. I remember Xxxx Xxxxx telling me pretty much the same thing. Yet there will still be punters who play Omaha because they consider it a 'gambling' game."
I never bought into the idea that omaha was the 'action game'. I certainly never accepted that there was as much mental action involved. I don't mind playing it for a few hours and I think it can make an interesting tournament game, but I find cash omaha boring compared to cash hold'em. For a start you don't get anywhere near as many hands per hour.
There was a long period in this country when you couldn't get a hold'em cash game anywhere and you had to play omaha. I thought it created something I called 'lazy professional syndrome'. If you knew that a king-high flush draw was no good, that an 8-card straight draw was not a wrap and that small trips were often worthless then you could beat up those who didn't. You didn't have to try too hard to put people on hands or project much of an image.
Omaha games at the Vic now resemble those 7-card games of years ago. The average age at the table is nearly double that of the hold'em games. Most people look miserable most of the time. There is very little banter.
Two cards good. Four cards bad.
_ DY
at 1:34 PM GMT
Updated: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 1:36 PM GMT
