Why is Omaha almost always played pot limit? (1 Viewer)

[ChaosRock]

I get bored to tears by constant "pot" bets, so I once held a PLO game during which you had to state your bet amount -- no "pot" allowed. Each player received ten special challenge chips. To prevent sharpies just naming a huge bet and the dealer having to waste time counting the pot, anyone could challenge the bet amount with one of their challenge chips. If the amount bet turned out to be more than the pot, the bet became an automatic check, and the bettor had to pay the challenger $20. If not, the challenger had to pay the bettor $20.

I enjoyed that game....PLO without the "pot" copout.

I do not mind the "pot" bet personally as long as it is followed by either the amount or by an honest attempt to calculate the amount. What I do mind, and a LOT, is a "pot" bet followed by a blank stare and an implicit demand someone else must tell him/her how much the pot is.

All in all, everyone with some practice and effort will know the pot every time or can calculate it in less than 5 seconds. I also think it is a good habit to have to always know how much the pot is, even for no-limit and limit games. It's an integral part of any poker game.

 

[redwine]

I think it was already touched on, but it is indeed all based on equities and pot odds.

Consider having AAxx in omaha (or some other similar dominant hand), you're going to be somewhere around a 50/50 ~ 60/40 favorite versus other playable ranges, we’ll say 55/45 to simplify. What this means is that for you to price out the 45% equity range, you have to be betting 4.5x pot (4.5/(1+4.5+4.5) = 45%). So the “correct” equilibrium play becomes… bet 4.5x pot… and so you start converging to a game state where if you have a good starting hand you want to be putting in huge bets preflop with little incentive for postflop play. All this is further compounded because your probability of getting AAxx in omaha is 2.50% (compared to 0.45% in holdem)… which doesn’t sound like a lot but in a 9-handed game that means SOMEONE is the hand has AAxx 20+% of the time! Now throw in KKxx, AKQJ, other rundowns, and you literally have a game where the equilibrum outcome is a preflop shovefest in the vast majority of hands dealt. To prevent the massive overbetting which everyone should be doing if playing correctly, pot-limit is enforced. I would think that “encouraging action” is a consequence, not the motivation, for pot-limit betting. 


Now consider hold’em, when you have AA, KK, there are almost no hands that have even a 25% equity versus them (except the other AA’s and KK’s). So the bet size threshold for getting opponents to make a mistake (and thus YOU making money) is a LOT lower; half-pot (.5/(1+.5+.5)) for the 75/25 example. You end up getting smaller bets in equilibrum, so pot-limit is not needed.

 

[naked_eskimo]

Excellent explanation,redwine. Thank you.

 

[trever]

My group plays all Omaha variants as no limit. Why? Mostly because they feel keeping track of the pot is cumbersome and it slows down the game. We have tried it and everyone complains.

My friends solved this by saying "I bet the pot" and then staring at me until I tell them how much it is.

 

[pltrgyst]

All in all, everyone with some practice and effort will know the pot every time or can calculate it in less than 5seconds.

There is $684.75 in the pot. Seat 1 bets 538. Seat 2 pots. Seat 3 is all-in for 763. Seat 4 pots. Seat 5 is all-in for 2913.50. How much to you in seat 6?

Your 5 seconds is up...

 

[ChaosRock]

There is $684.75 in the pot. Seat 1 bets 538. Seat 2 pots. Seat 3 is all-in for 763. Seat 4 pots. Seat 5 is all-in for 2913.50. How much to you in seat 6?

Your 5 seconds is up...

$36,147?

Gotta confess it will take a few seconds more than 5 in this case. In reality, that's all in and the chips are counted later.