My (expensive) Omaha lessons continue. I've made about $50 in Hold'em over the past week, but I've dumped at least $150 back into the opps' bankrolls with my Omaha game. Grrrr. I've read that Omaha has a higher overall variance than Hold'em, but this past week has been ridiculous. Just when I thought I was figuring out the game, I learned I haven't. I've been beaten, coolered, and crushed left and right.
So what's happening? Is it me, or am I just running bad?
To find out, I spent a little time going through my PT3 Omaha stats. A few bad beats, true, but mostly I'm either chasing with the second best hand, or I'm just plain getting involved with crappy starting hands. I watched an Omaha video this morning, and the instructor was teaching a student about "hands that look good, but aren't."
Ding, ding, ding, ding!
This is exactly what's happening to me. Or, should I say, this is exactly what I've been doing to myself. Like Hold'em, there are a slew of Reverse Implied Odds (RIO) hands in Omaha that will win you a little, but lose you a lot if they hit. For me, the killer has been my small flushes running into bigger flushes. Left. And. Right. At least a dozen times over the past week I've had Q-high flushes get squashed by K- and A-high flushes. I've also had small, non-nut straights dominated by higher straights.
In other words, I'm playing hands that I shouldn't be involved with in the first place. 6-5-4-3 and JT76 double-suited and QQ77 and other similar crap. Hands that Mr. Multi likes to call, "shiny, shiny bright" hands. Hands that look good.... but aren't.
Say it again, Bug: Hands that look good, but ARE NOT. The equivalent in Hold'em would be all the AT and KT-type hands. Trap hands. Trouble hands. RIO hands. Grrrrr.
I'm learning. Slowly, and not quite so surely, but I'm learning.
All-in for now...