Omaha is generally considered more difficult and interesting than Hold'em due to its complexity and variance. In Omaha, players receive four hole cards instead of two, which increases the number of potential hand combinations and makes hand reading more challenging. This also means stronger hands are often required to win at showdown, leading to more dynamic and action-packed gameplay. Hold'em, while simpler to learn, relies heavily on strategy, patience, and psychology, making it accessible yet deep. Ultimately, the difficulty and interest depend on personal preferences and playing style.
I like them both, Holdem is simpler, and Omaha has more complicated rules. So holdem is easier to play and safer. But the difficulty of Omaha makes it faster, you don't need so much time to play. So if I play cash games I play more omaha, but if I play tournaments I play more holdem.
Omaha is definately more interesting than holdem, and I guess a bit more difficult aswell. I have only played it a little bit on WPT which was during this one losing streak and I was doing better there than on holdem games which are the ones I normally play.
Omaha is more interesting and difficult, simply because there are more possibilities to consider.
I find the biggest mistake for newcomers is that they sometimes don't understand that they can only use two cards in their hand and they must use three cards dealt on the board. Hi-Lo also makes decisions more difficult than just Omaha Hi and Hold'em.
There is also more action in Omaha.
Holden is easy, Omaha is more complicated, you have to think a lot and you can always use just two cards when playing with 4, I think it's more complicated.
It's true, Texas Holdem with the new generations becomes more difficult, but there are always opportunities, on the other hand Omaha remains a more mature game, but the risk seems greater to me, because there is more probability on Omaha than Texas.