While venturing to put the world of Omaha poker in proper perspective, let us take a closer look at the exciting action game high-low Omaha. High-low Omaha, or Split Pot Omaha, is where the player with the lowest five non-paired cards, EIGHT or lower, gets half the pot. Like most high-low variations, high-low Omaha is substantially different in philosophy from straight high Omaha.

I characterize straight high Omaha as a very skillful game, where overall results should proportionately reflect the ENTIRE RANGE of skill levels of the various players. Otherwise put, the more skillful you are, the more you rate to win. Although there is a high luck factor on the infamous last card, there are also a number of delicate mathematical and judgemental situations in straight high Omaha where a player’s skill level makes a substantial difference.

At high-low Omaha, the greater skill of experts over good players has much less financial impact. At high-low Omaha, the most consequential difference in skill level occurs somewhere between fishhood and medium players. Just about any medium player who knows enough to play only good hands and avoid big disasters is capable of cutting up the fish and getting a share of their money. Most simply put, high-low Omaha is a con-game where the medium-to-expert players split up the fish (loose player) money.

Therefore, let me state unequivocably that if there were several plump fish available (eg. the kind that seem to stay in on almost every hand), I would actually rather be playing high-low Omaha, which is quite efficient at affectuating the transfer of money. It seems however, that plump fish are getting harder to find in a high-low game.

High-low Omaha IS essentially a classic fish versus fisherman exploitation, because it is nearly impossible for a bad player to win at high-low Omaha. In effect, all the good and better players are simply sitting back, playing good cards, waiting for their turn to split up some the fish money. Although fish love high-low Omaha at first because of the action, they soon cool off after a few big losses. So what happens when all the fish have gone? Playing in a high-low Omaha game with no fish has been compared to fishing in an alligator pond with no fish!

It seems to me that in high-low Omaha, the success of experts over good players is essentially a long term proposition. The expert’s edge is sufficiently small that on any given occasion (depending on the actual skill differential of course), the expert might be, say, at least twenty to forty-five percent likely to lose (and if the expert is not as good as he thinks he is or if the other players are better than he thinks, his true odds would be worse). Then, of course, we must

also subtract a few percents for the house rake (which the difference in skill level also has to overcome). Since no good gambler likes a dubious game if there are better opportunities around, if there are no more plump fish left in the high-low game, my suggestion is to look for greener pastures (even if you are one of the best players remaining in the high-low game).

Summarizing, the impact of the skill differential of experts over good players, is more financially significant in high Omaha than in high-low Omaha. Otherwise put, the expert wins over good players more consistently at high Omaha than high-low (could this be one reason why many medium good players like high-low?). Although these concepts might be controverted by some of my high-low afficienado friends, they themselves admit that on a bad night, all their good “moves” can’t save them from the unholy bath waters. It is an amazing coincidence how my bad nights at high-low Omaha (and believe me, everyone has bad nights at high-low Omaha) have correlated with the lack of bad players in the game. On a bad night, it is easier to lose less in straight high Omaha than in high-low.

The main reason is that in high-low there is a much lesser predictability of results with non-lock hands. Thus you have less control. In straight high Omaha, any good player knows approximately what competition he is likely to be facing. In high-low it is much harder to judge what your opponents have. It can be disasterously expensive when you are unlucky. And you win less when you are right. Put in its simplest form, there is much less correlation between what the opponents have and what you think they have - and that greater judgement gap can cost you serious money.

Thus my advice regarding high-low Omaha, especially to the inexperienced, is quite simple. Although very interesting and exciting, although lots of action, if you play poker to win money, stick to high Omaha where your judgement is a bigger factor and you can win more consistently (unless of course, there are several fish to be cut up). But even if you are a diehard high-low enthusiast, you should master the important high Omaha concepts (like driving and seizing the initiative), since whenever the flop contains two or more high cards (nines or higher), you are essentially playing straight high Omaha.