I think Omaha is easier to make money in
I'm not someone that studied this format, but from watching a few YT videos, watching some pro players on Twitch and playing it from time to time for 'fun' - IMO, Omaha is tougher to make money consistently... at least from my experience and from the opinion of most poker players I follow - the variance in Omaha is higher then no-limit holdem... maybe at lower stakes and if you play mostly recreational/bad players/whales, while you are a very good Omaha player with good enough bankroll to eliminate the 'luck' factor, you can print money from this format (at least I've had a few friends in the past saying a similar thing as the title of this thread * that it's pretty easy making money playing Omaha); but nowadays it's tougher to find decent cash games at any stakes other than no-limit holdem, so most of the time you'll be 'forced' to play mostly regulars/tough players... this way, especially with the rake getting higher at most sites, it's becoming very tough to make profit both short and long-term...
I'm not someone that studied this format, but from watching a few YT videos, watching some pro players on Twitch and playing it from time to time for 'fun' - IMO, Omaha is tougher to make money consistently... at least from my experience and from the opinion of most poker players I follow - the variance in Omaha is higher then no-limit holdem... maybe at lower stakes and if you play mostly recreational/bad players/whales, while you are a very good Omaha player with good enough bankroll to eliminate the 'luck' factor, you can print money from this format (at least I've had a few friends in the past saying a similar thing as the title of this thread * that it's pretty easy making money playing Omaha); but nowadays it's tougher to find decent cash games at any stakes other than no-limit holdem, so most of the time you'll be 'forced' to play mostly regulars/tough players... this way, especially with the rake getting higher at most sites, it's becoming very tough to make profit both short and long-term...
I can see why people think that. Omaha often has bigger pots, more action, and many players overvalue their hands, which can create profitable opportunities. However, it's also a much higher-variance game that requires strong hand selection, equity awareness, and disciplined bankroll management. If you understand the strategy better than your opponents, Omaha can be very profitable—but it's definitely not "easy money.
"Good morning, everyone. Omaha is a game with a much higher variance than Hold'em. What happened was that variance was on your side; thinking that Omaha is easier is not the correct mindset. Playing poker at a high level, just like the professionals do, is extremely difficult because poker is an extremely complex game. While that is true for Texas Hold'em, it becomes even harder in Omaha."
I’d rather play the hardest, most studied game. The challenge of competing in NLHE against players with so much strategy available is part of what keeps it interesting for me. Finding an easier game just to make money doesn’t appeal to me as much.
Yeah, that's one of the things that makes Omaha so interesting. The swings can be pretty wild compared with NLH, especially when you're getting a lot of money in with strong draws and multiple possible outs.
You can play well for hours and still have a losing day, then have one session where everything seems to fall into place. I think that's why bankroll management is even more important in Omaha. You've got to be ready for those ugly downswings. but need to consider also loosing money and draining bankroll is much easier in omaha than holdem
You can play well for hours and still have a losing day, then have one session where everything seems to fall into place. I think that's why bankroll management is even more important in Omaha. You've got to be ready for those ugly downswings. but need to consider also loosing money and draining bankroll is much easier in omaha than holdem
I think it was mostly a combination of variance and the fact that freerolls are often extremely aggressive. Since you didn’t know the game, you weren’t overthinking ranges or worrying about making “correct” decisions, so you probably played with a lot of pressure and put opponents in difficult spots. In Omaha, having four hole cards also creates many more draws and strong-looking combinations, so all-in situations can happen pretty quickly. With 500+ players, finishing 70th means you survived a lot of eliminations, which is actually pretty funny considering you were basically learning the rules while playing. I wouldn’t take it as proof that reckless aggression is a winning Omaha strategy, though. You probably just ran well and found yourself in a very suitable freeroll environment.
I don't think so. If that were the case, everyone would be playing Omaha instead of Hold'em. I think you feel that way because you've personally been able to make more money playing Omaha than Hold'em, so that's probably why you have that impression of Omaha.
Omaha definitely has a lot of action and attracts many loose players, which can make it profitable. However, the variance in PLO is brutal compared to Hold'em. You can have the nuts on the flop and still be a big underdog by the river. Personally, I think it requires much better bankroll management and emotional control to stay profitable in Omaha in the long run.
