Talk:Omaha hold 'em

Issue: does PLO deserve its own article?

Don't know how this works but this page misrepresents the topic that the vast majority of people who come here will be looking for information about. This article is presumably being edited by someone who does not either play online poker or only plays holdem. If they did play PLO online they would be aware that 1) PLO is the game that the majority of people visiting this page are looking for information about and a small headed section explaining very little that is useful about the game is unhelpful and 2) that since PLO has been refused its own page, this page needs therefore to be dedicated to an explanation of the game of PLO and that the section on Omaha Hi-Lo/8 or Better Split needs to appear lower down the page.

i can say with conviction that at least 90% of the people who come here are looking for a page explaining PLO. while i have read the article and agree there are many similarities between the little played game of hi lo and PLO, i would urge whoever is resisting this page being dedicated to primarily PLO with other variants being discussed within the same article but lower down to accept that they may not be aware of how popular PLO is both live and online. if you really care about the page and making it a useful resource please stop insisting the page is fine as it is.

as for the discussion about strategy... i think an explanation of the rules that includes examples is already strategy. i am confident that the people who actually play PLO every day (ie not the people who insist PLO redirecting here is optimal) would be able to come up with a succinct explanation of the rules and weak and strong starting hand explanations that would be useful to 90% of the people who come here looking for information about PLO

whoever is stopping this becoming a page about PLO: cant your just look up on pokerscout the number of hi lo games? cant you look up how most ppl who get here looking for PLO or pot limit omaha? if you did that i imagine you would accept that for this page to be useful it should either be primarily about PLO and not some variant that you still play at your home game, or that PLO should have its own page as as you can see from all the talk, PLO is the game that ppl came here looking for.

please stop!

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 redirected 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)

Actually from my computer simulations AATT is the best starting hand assuming all-in pre-flop versus 1 or 2 random hands over 1 million rounds. This is due to the opponents getting less straights - tens block more straights than kings. AAKK is strongest for 3 or more random opponents. How close this is to "real" poker with post-flop play is debateable but I think it gives a reasonably close ball-park estimation of starting hand strength. If anyone is interested the starting hand data is at http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poker-games/omaha-high/hand-data.html.

Top 10 hands allin preflop versus random hands
1 Opponent	Pot Equity		2 Opponents	Pot Equity		3 Opponents	Pot Equity
TC AC TD AD	0.715957		TC AC TD AD	0.552116		KC AC KD AD	0.453880
JC AC JD AD	0.711924		JC AC JD AD	0.549446		QC AC QD AD	0.451486
5C AC 5D AD	0.708933		QC AC QD AD	0.548952		JC AC JD AD	0.450929
QC AC QD AD	0.708650		KC AC KD AD	0.546931		TC AC TD AD	0.450613
9C AC 9D AD	0.707821		5C AC 5D AD	0.539803		TC AC JD AD	0.435823
KC AC KD AD	0.706991		TC AC JD AD	0.538013		5C AC 5D AD	0.434995
TC AC JD AD	0.706367		9C AC 9D AD	0.536980		9C AC 9D AD	0.433151
8C AC 8D AD	0.705610		8C AC 8D AD	0.535220		8C AC 8D AD	0.432653
9C AC TD AD	0.704137		4C AC 4D AD	0.534386		7C AC 7D AD	0.429638
6C AC 6D AD	0.704004		7C AC 7D AD	0.533956		4C AC 4D AD	0.429522

--Scotty1968 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think "based on Texas Hold 'em" is doubtful. There were a great many variants of flop games in private poker before they burst on the casino scene. I played games with four cards in your hand and common cards before any Hold 'em games appeared in any rulebooks. On the subject of complexity, Steve Badger, an Omaha enthusiast and professional, has said on his website that Omaha is a game of great surface complexity but that no-limit Hold 'em involves more difficult decisions. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nine or better and "no qualifier" are both variations that have been played on occasion. However, eight-or-better is all you will ever see in a casino. Even in Stud hi-lo the "no qualifier" version with a declaration is almost extinct and the declaration never caught on in Omaha. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Will in New Haven 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I think this is inaccurate.

In the section on Omaha H/L, the following is said:

"One dangerous aspect of playing for the low pot is the concept of 'counterfeiting'. To illustrate, if a player has, for example, 2-3 and two other cards in his hand and the flop is A-6-7, that player has flopped the 'nut low'. However, if either a 2 or a 3 hit the board on the turn or the river, the hand is 'counterfeited' and the nut low hand is lost (the player still has a much weaker low hand however). "

I believe this is inaccurate. In Omaha, you have to use two of your four hole cards. So, even if a 3 or a 2 came on the turn or river, Player 2 couldn't just use the 3 or 2 that hit combined with a 3 or 2 in his hand (whichever is the one that didn't hit) to counterfeit the hand of Player 1, because Player 2 would still have to use two cards from his hand. Counterfeiting like this can happen in Hold Em, because you can use only one, or even none, of your hole cards to make a hand, but in Omaha, you have to use two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.33.148 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your point, but the description is accurate. Players don't use cards in each other's hands in Omaha. 2005 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So you have 23xx and flop comes A67. Your current low is 7-6-3-2-A, the nut low. But if a 2 or 3 rolls on turn, you'll still have the same low (7-6-3-2-A), but it won't be the nut low anymore. For example, someone with 53xx on a A672 board has a 6-5-3-2-A low that beats yours. Got it? 93.139.67.66 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

of what possible use...

is this?

Low hands can thus be read as numbers between 54,321 and 87,654 (with the exception of any number that has a pair, i.e. 54,322). The lowest number that any player can make is the best possible low hand in play.

What's the value of this information? What's the need for this information? Do players generally convert their low cards to numbers? Are Omaha players specially gifted at converting sequences of cards into five-digit numbers? Or are some of them unable to play without somehow making such a conversion?

While I'm at it: http://www.playwinningpoker.com seems like too much of a commercial site to include here, as do the other remaining external links. Do we make some special exception to our usual rule for poker? Are there no strategy discussions available that don't fall afoul of WP:EL? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the text is obvious by scrolling up. This is the single most difficult thing for novices to understand, and the explanation makes it easy to figure out. The person who posted above understood the concept once it was converted to a number. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL. The three websites links are all expert websites, with significant detail, and with below average advertisement too. They are the best possible links, and the very type we want in external links, as WP:EL makes extremely clear. The first link is from a world champion in the game, in fact, the winner of as many Omaha poker tournaments than anyone in the history of the world -- and there are more than 10,000 words of detail available via the link. The second link is by another World champion with an article aimed at explaining basic principles. It is broken up kind of weirdly, but taken together it is again the type of expert link that we want in external links. The third link is from an author of several poker books who explains a significant point in detail. These are the exact type of links that WP:EL calls for. 2005 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who says the explanation makes it "easy to figure out"? I'm a very experienced Omaha player, as well as a mathematician and a computer scientist, and I can't fathom how converting a simple sequence of familiar cards to a five-digit number and then of course filtering out any numbers that happen to have repeated digits is easier than going 7-5-3-2-A. As far as WP:EL is concerned, there's this under "Links normally to be avoided": Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or service. If ultimatebet.com does not exist primarily to sell services, then I guess I'm quite confused. I'm not at all challenging the expertise of the articles being linked to; heaven knows, I've profited by taking Annie Duke's advice (though at the WSOP, I should have imitated "Jesus's" approach at the one really huge Omaha event I tried, and simply ignored most of what was going on for the first six hours or so.) I'd just like to see this quality of information coming from sources that are more in line with our general standards. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you not fathom that 32 is lower than 41, or 65,432 is lower than 74,321? If it doesn't help you personally, that is no issue here. It helped the person above, and it is a common help to beginners as both the reference and many other websites show. And there is certainly no harm in explaining the concept as simply as possible. As for ultimatebet and WP:EL, it would be better if the content was still on annieduke.com, but the section linked to certainly focuses on the text and not anything else. Also, the New York Times exists primarily to sell products and services in the same way as ultimatebet, and that is not what the statement means. We are not the anti-moneymaking police. The point is to not link to something that is merely just selling something. The link here is linking to free, meritable content from an expert. 2005 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I put up a mention of this on the new "external links" noticeboard. This seems as blatant a breach of WP:EL as is possible. I might be wrong, and I'll find out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If being a "commercial" site disqualified an external link, most reliable sources in most articles would have to be removed. Luckily, that's not a criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of an external link or citation here. Rray (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Omaha addition question

I am new to Wikipedia. I was going through old books at my parents house and found a paperback book from The United States Playing Card Company Official Rules of Card Games 63rd Edition Printed in 1980. Reading through the book I found something very interesting, the book cites Omaha as a version of poker but very different to what is played today. The rules are very similar to Texas hold 'em except that there are six betting rounds.

"Omaha-Each player receives two cards down. Five cards are dealt to the center, face down. There is a betting interval. Then the center cards are turned up one by one, with a betting interval after each. Each player makes his hand from his own two cards plus the five in the center."

It even goes so far as to describe Hold'em as the same as Omaha but after the first betting interval three cards are turned up in the center.

Now clearly I can cite a well established book that was in it's 63rd edition, but there are a couple issues I see that I don't know how to deal with. The book is in paperback and not online, also how does Wikipedia deal with an older book describing something that has clearly evolved into something very different.TomWillM (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can cite the book without an online reference but the cite should be very clear because obvioisly we don't just want people making up old books to post anything they want. Check out WP:Citing sources. 2005 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nuts"

This article talks about 'nuts' a lot without really defining what they are.. perhaps another article explains them better and could be linked or something Mr0t1633 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)'

The article for Nut hand is already linked in the second paragraph of the first section. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting, Style, and Content in question here

Currently there are multiple problems with this article and I'm not sure how to address them.

• There is way too much information on hands and hand rankings. How much of that is relevant? Way too many example hands.
• Why are the Pot Limit Omaha and Omaha Hi/Lo sections separate from a general explanation section? Maybe this is fine, but is there a better organization?
• This article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge of poker at times, and is worded confusingly
• The explanations of each game type are lengthier than necessary and contain sections (ex. "redraws") that are too advanced for an encyclopedic article for someone just interested in information on what Omaha poker is/its importance
• In general, this article is poorly written and the entire "Omaha Variations" section may be unnecessary

A rewrite template will be added, if anyone disagrees with this - that the overall organization, phrasing, and content of this article are questionable - please change it as you see fit. This seems most appropriate at this time.

24.60.245.75 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

The article isn't that long, so "way too much information" is not a very compelling statement. There are multiple example hands, and if the article was longer they could be combined, but as is, the examples help a person understand the game so they certainly do no harm. Not sure why you don't like the Pot Limit and High Lo sections, but obviously they are needed and must be there. Similarly with the Omaha variations section. The section is necessary. As for the wording, some words like "nuts" should not be there, but the article is just like any other and if someone has a better way to say something they should just make an edit. Overall though the article covers what needs to be covered so it is not in need of an overhaul. 2005 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Omaha "hold'em"

In the article, it lists Omaha as an alternate name for the game. The game is actually called Omaha, and never has been called Omaha hold'em. Hold'em specifically is used in reference to Texas hold'em. The game is simply called Omaha, and I think the title of the page should be changed to "Omaha (poker)" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael pallas (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The game is called Omaha hold'em. "Hold'em" is the five cards on the board style. "Texas" is one style. "Omaha" is another style. Pineapple hold'em is yet another style. 2005 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Much of this article appears to be a cut/paste from "A Gambling Guide" by Nicolae Sfetcu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Other way around. That "book" just copied Wikipedia articles for most of its content. 2005 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Omaha straight combinations

If i have QQ72 in hand and 6543 come on the board do i have a straight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazmem (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No. You can't make any straight with that hand because you need to use two of your cards and three cards off the board, and no two of your cards can ever be in a five card straight together. 2005 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing explanation on Low

On this article, it's missing the crucial information that straight and flushes are ignored in the low part of a low/hi game, without that information, the part where it states that the 5,4,3,2,A being the best possible hand does not make sense, as that would be a straight, and weaker than, for example, 6,4,3,2,A. Here is an article mentioning that Straight and Flushes are ignored in Low games: https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/games/omaha/high-low/?no_redirect=1 Ricardo1701 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Big O

In Los Angeles at least, "Big O" is not a five card variation of PLO, it is a five card variation of O/8. TheCraigBerger (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)