@Leo-Unibet As promised, some theory about tournament structure in Omaha and why deeper structures suit this variant more. I hope this is especially relevant with the announcement of UOS X and the impending IPO event. Let's imagine a fairly standard short-stacked situation in a mid-late tournament setting: it's folded around to Hero on the button with a top 10% hand and 12.5bb. Hero can make it up to 3.5BB raise, we'll assume that SB folds and the BB has a hand in the 10-30% range, i.e. a top 30% hand, but not the top 10% among them. So Villain can fold, call, or jam for near enough effective stacks. (Before we continue with the Omaha analysis, let's just consider the equivalent situation in Hold Em: with a 12.5bb stack and a top 10% hand, Hero can jam if he wants, or he can min raise to try to induce a jam from the blinds. Either way, he likes the spot. Villain has the opposite problem. He's got a dodgy call if Hero jams, and (although he doesn't know it) a poor equity rejam if Hero min raises with his 10% range)). More about Hold Em later. In Omaha, let's look at the equity on the flop Villain has with his 10-30% range against Hero's10% range. Here's the flop equity graph from ProPokerTools. It charts Villain's range against Hero's range on a whole bunch of flops and then sorts them according to equity. In other words, it's a frequency chart - so against Hero's top 10% range, Villain will flop around 66% of equity or more, 20% of the time against Hero's range. Around 40% of the time, he'll flop 45% equity or more. The key thing to take away from this graph is how smooth it is. Despite Hero having a really good hand and Villain having a decent but not amazing hand, there are a whole BUNCH of flops Villain is happy with and not so many our Hero is happy with. If you don't believe me, take a look at the exact same equity match up in Hold em: So, same hand ranges, different poker variant. The graph is a lot less smooth. There's a precipitous drop around the 20% of flops mark. On around two thirds of flops, Villain certainly doesn't have enough equity to call a jam, and should worry that a donk bluff bet is playing into Hero's hands. So there, in graphical representation, is the idea that "post-flop equities are much closer together in Omaha than Holdem". And just to be sure, here are the preflop equities, once again same ranges, the only thing that's different is the variant: Range 10%-30% hand top 10% hand Omaha 41% 59% Hold Em 35% 65% So what does that mean for tournament structures? First, Omaha is played pot limit precisely because the equities are closer together - if it were no limit, it's simply not in players' interest to hang around if they know they have an equity advantage - wiser to get all your chips in now, because it's that much more likely than in hold em that your opponent will catch up. Second, Omaha players need to be deeper stacked in tournaments in order to manouvre around the subtle differences in equity on flops. In Omaha a raise preflop is only a prelude to what happens on the flop - and therefore players need deeper stacks to make sure those decisions are not standard all-in-or-fold, see who wins situations. Whilst I understand that for small buy-ins, Unibet might not want to run tournaments that last all night, I think there is an understanding in poker that mid and large buy ins get the structures they deserve. I have to say that some of the structures for the 25 and 50 buy ins have been pretty much crapfests. What's particularly disappointing is that it hasn't been a question of some higher buy ins with good structures, some with worse - they've all been universally too fast, unlike in Hold em where the structures have been varied. The most influential factor in tournament structure is length of blind level. So please do consider some longer blind levels for some of the Omaha tournaments in UOS X.
... View more
