NLHE vs PLO - which game takes more skill? (1 Viewer)

[khp]

Which game takes more skill to excel at?

 

[Sunshine]

As I understand it, it depends on what you mean. PLO is "noisier," it has more variance and narrower starting hand values, and so you're less assured that the best player will be positive for a limited sample. But, the "tilt" toward the good players is stronger because the difference in understanding between good and bad players is wider.

At least, that's what I've been led to believe. Total PLO amateur, so take it with a mine worth of salt.

 

[Kain8]

@Anthony Martino coming in to answer like:

 

[Payback]

People who say NLHE haven't played enough PLO...

 

[Leonard]

Really, there can be little doubt that it's PLO. Much more of NLHE is played pre-flop when there are many fewer variables. PLO is a post-flop game and tends to be played much deeper (2-400+ BB deep), meaning that there are many more options. The variance is much higher, which makes it harder on the player to avoid tilt, etc.

Any given game can be harder or easier depending on the players. One could argue that there are fewer bad NLHE players, which might be true in some cases, but with regard to the game itself, it's not particularly close.

Feel free to disagree....

 

[Anthony Martino]

@Anthony Martino coming in to answer like:

View attachment 730813

It depends?

 

[upNdown]

I think it depends. Playing against the average player in the average cardroom, I’d say PLO takes more skill. Playing against pros? I’m just guessing, because I’m more of an average cardroom kind of guy, but I’d guess the answer is NLHE.

 

[khp]

I had always thought that PLO was just NLHE with more variables, and thus the added complexity makes it tougher

 

[davislane]

As a convert to PLO Id have to say NLH. I have no idea how to play with 2 cards anymore and have no idea why people would want to.

 

[JK_Poker]

I’ve been dabbling in PLO and 6plus lately, absolutely loving the change from NLHE.

 

[trigs]

I don't know which one is more difficult, but PLO is the more fun game by far imho.

 

[Highli99]

PLO is much more complicated and much less solved. This should be obvious as it is a 9 card game vs holdem as a 7 card game.

In my experience there are way more “bad” PLO players compared to holdem and thus at this moment in time it takes less of a skill edge to print at PLO.

 

[Goldfish]

different games completely. In plo actions are dictated more by math (and less about playing the player until maybe the river if u think a player missed). The equities between hands are closer so the probability of big hands coming together is more common making it harder to bluff and make moves. Holdem however is all about playing the other players. While math is always important, the ability to read players is paramount in holdem. A great holdem player doesn’t need good cards to win. Just my thought.

 

[Mr Tree]

Really, there can be little doubt that it's PLO. Much more of NLHE is played pre-flop when there are many fewer variables. PLO is a post-flop game and tends to be played much deeper (2-400+ BB deep), meaning that there are many more options. The variance is much higher, which makes it harder on the player to avoid tilt, etc.

Any given game can be harder or easier depending on the players. One could argue that there are fewer bad NLHE players, which might be true in some cases, but with regard to the game itself, it's not particularly close.

Feel free to disagree....

I think I have to agree with this take. There are so many players that start to get lost at sea post flop but PLO is largely played after the flop with multiple callers.

 

[Perthmike]

Has to be plo. I find myself in so many post flop spots where I ask myself how the hell did I get here and wtf do I do now lol.

NLHE is fairly straightforward.

 

[Zr1]

PLO. Stud and its variants Are right up there As well in terms of skill. Holdem is fairly straight forward as far as how to play. NL rewards reading People and the odd ballsy bluff but cant compare it to the other games as far as actually complexity

 

[MatB]

different games completely. In plo actions are dictated more by math (and less about playing the player until maybe the river if u think a player missed). The equities between hands are closer so the probability of big hands coming together is more common making it harder to bluff and make moves. Holdem however is all about playing the other players. While math is always important, the ability to read players is paramount in holdem. A great holdem player doesn’t need good cards to win. Just my thought.

Came to say something similar but you articulated better than I could.

It’s like asking which is more like fruit. An apple or an orange ?

 

[grebe]

I am honestly not sure which takes more skill, but I can tell you this...

If you want to be a GREAT NLHE player, the tools are out there if you are willing to put in the work.

If you want to be a GREAT PLO player, it's getting better, but it's still a bit of the find your own path that it was in the early 2000's with holdem. Definitely less tools to study.

 

[davislane]

I am honestly not sure which takes more skill, but I can tell you this...

If you want to be a GREAT NLHE player, the tools are out there if you are willing to put in the work.

If you want to be a GREAT PLO player, it's getting better, but it's still a bit of the find your own path that it was in the early 2000's with holdem. Definitely less tools to study.

There are tools but they are really expensive as most PLO training these days, and NLH for that matter, utilise a solver to analyse "spots". Really important as the biggest change to NLH has come via the concept of "ranges" and running sims. Its only relativlely recent that sims have been available for PLO analysis due to the software not being available or the necessary hardware to compute all the permutations. Its definitely the golden age of PLO imo as all the recreational players / whales / gamblers shift to PLO because the equities run alot closer than NLH so they feel like they have a better chance to win. Print the money while NLH players are paying the expensive lessons to learn the great game of PLO!

 

[Anthony Martino]

There are tools but they are really expensive as most PLO training these days, and NLH for that matter, utilise a solver to analyse "spots". Really important as the biggest change to NLH has come via the concept of "ranges" and running sims. Its only relativlely recent that sims have been available for PLO analysis due to the software not being available or the necessary hardware to compute all the permutations. Its definitely the golden age of PLO imo as all the recreational players / whales / gamblers shift to PLO because the equities run alot closer than NLH so they feel like they have a better chance to win. Print the money while NLH players are paying the expensive lessons to learn the great game of PLO!

Those equities run a lot closer..........PREFLOP. But since PLO they can't just shove all-in pre (most of the time) you need to account for equities post-flop, which change very significantly.

I still say "it depends". I feel like NLHE will have more bluffing opportunities, but PLO does have situations where bluffs can be run, everything is really game and opponent dependent. I do find in my area that the PLO games are far more juicy and profitable for me personally.

 

[davislane]

Those equities run a lot closer..........PREFLOP. But since PLO they can't just shove all-in pre (most of the time) you need to account for equities post-flop, which change very significantly.

I still say "it depends". I feel like NLHE will have more bluffing opportunities, but PLO does have situations where bluffs can be run, everything is really game and opponent dependent. I do find in my area that the PLO games are far more juicy and profitable for me personally.

even postflop equities are much closer. very rarely do you get 80/20 etc. unless the players are really really bad.

 

[Anthony Martino]

even postflop equities are much closer. very rarely do you get 80/20 etc. unless the players are really really bad.

Players ARE really really bad. I've gotten spots where I'm a 90% or greater favorite or my opponents are drawing dead

 

[Moxie Mike]

Which game takes more skill to excel at?

I think the 'to excel at' part is the key part of the question. I'm going to assume this means more than just being a winning player over the long run... we're talking about being the best player at virtually any table you're seated at.

The problem is there are so many variables when comparing the two games that it's almost an unfair question. PLO, as @Anthony Martino noted doesn't have the baked in option of allowing a player to jam all in at any time... so the PL element makes it much more difficult for a player to protect their hand in an effort to realize their equity.

Another element is that PLO is often 3-4 handed (or more) in RAISED pots. That happens in NLHE too but heads up to the flop happens far more frequently than in PLO. So navigating those multiway pots is far more nuanced.

Another aspect is the simple fact that being OOP is far more difficult in PLO. Fundamental aspects that are critical like protecting your hand are not as easy as it is in NLHE.

So I'd say PLO is the more difficult game to EXCEL at, since getting good at PLO makes NLHE almost formulaic.

PLO is much more complicated and much less solved. This should be obvious as it is a 9 card game vs holdem as a 7 card game.

In my experience there are way more “bad” PLO players compared to holdem and thus at this moment in time it takes less of a skill edge to print at PLO.

The bad players in PLO are bad in similar ways to their counterparts who prefer NLHE. They play too many hands, disregard the importance of position, chase draws on dangerous boards, fail to read hands properly, tend to be calling stations, etc.

 

[legonick]

Probably PLO, but the bluffs are "easier" to believe there. Doesn't mean it's the better game.

 

[UrLVguy]

I think the 'to excel at' part is the key part of the question. I'm going to assume this means more than just being a winning player over the long run... we're talking about being the best player at virtually any table you're seated at.

The problem is there are so many variables when comparing the two games that it's almost an unfair question. PLO, as @Anthony Martino noted doesn't have the baked in option of allowing a player to jam all in at any time... so the PL element makes it much more difficult for a player to protect their hand in an effort to realize their equity.

Another element is that PLO is often 3-4 handed (or more) in RAISED pots. That happens in NLHE too but heads up to the flop happens far more frequently than in PLO. So navigating those multiway pots is far more nuanced.

Another aspect is the simple fact that being OOP is far more difficult in PLO. Fundamental aspects that are critical like protecting your hand are not as easy as it is in NLHE.

So I'd say PLO is the more difficult game to EXCEL at, since getting good at PLO makes NLHE almost formulaic.



The bad players in PLO are bad in similar ways to their counterparts who prefer NLHE. They play too many hands, disregard the importance of position, chase draws on dangerous boards, fail to read hands properly, tend to be calling stations, etc.

Yep, totally agree with this. PLO for sure.