What would be the different implications for my bankroll playing the following games:

$10 Buyin NLO, blinds 0.10/0.20
$10 Buyin NLO, blinds 0.25/0.50

Thanks, please discuss. I have reached a $150 bankroll and ABC Omaha is a less volitile game than ABC NLHE. Thinking about moving to the second game.

Why isn't this reunited with my main bankroll? I'm not allowed to use neteller to move my funds for 3 months because I've never deposited there.

I've only played Omaha a limited amount of times (and I plan on playing more), but so far it appears to me that Omaha is MORE volatile than Holdem. It seems every other hand theres an all in and the pots are huge. There are so many big draws that people push very hard.
Im prettu sue that a very good Omaha player will make more money than a very good holdem player (which is why I need to learn the game), but I think the swings have to be bigger dont they?

I'm sure the swings would be MUCH bigger if I was playing against semi-good competition.

What I do when I play is to "sell" some of my EV in order to "buy" some consistancy. Because the players are very poor at the limit I'm playing, I will fold when it would be minorly +EV to call, say, when I'm on a flush draw on the flop forced to go all in.

I tend to have an easy time of it just waiting until I have the temporary nuts or a 40%+ chance of drawing the absolute nuts, and pushing the chips in. That's why I'm playing NLO instead of PLO, it actually helps me use this technique to minimize the swings.

But on the main topic, it can be applied to NLHE too. Is 20 buyins what you need regardless of blinds? What if the buyin is only 20BB instead of 50 or 100 BB??

Thats a very good question. I think the easy answer is that you need more buy ins if the blinds are higher in relation to stack sizes. But Im not sure thats necessarily true.

Since I started playing 3 tables at a time, my win rate at Full Tilt and Party Poker are exactly the same, even though the blinds are double at Party.

If you read my "handling bad beats" article, then you know why I track this next number

I have 112 all in hands in my last 16000 hands at Party for a ratio of 143-1
I have 56 all in hands in my last 12000 hands at Full Tilt for a ratio of 214-1

What does that have to do with anything? Well, since there alot more all ins at Party because of the shorter stack sizes, you would think you need a bigger bankroll to handle those possible large swings, but since Im a big favorite 76% of the time in these hands at Party and 74% of the time at Full Tilt, Im going to win alot of money in these hands.

So what does this all mean? Hell if I know. Damn. That was alot of work for nothing....lol

I'm playing UB which has half the blinds at $25NL of party. I try to play a tight/aggressive game whenever on. My query is that given the number of wanky min raisers is it worth me playing say a hand like ATs LP if the raise is only min on UB? The hand is costing the same as Party and so long as I give respect to the raiser depending on the post flop play is this worth while. I ask since I know there are many players who play diff blinds and really want to know if they do loosen up on smaller blinds with min table raisers? My post-flop play is solid though I admit I am still learning NL having come from a limit background.

I think you need to steer clear of NLO and pla PLO. I probably have more experience playing NLO and NLO/split than most people as I used to play those games all the time in our home games. NLO can get EXTREMELY out of control, with people going all-in with all kinds of bizarre hands preflop. Because of the fact that in Omaha you are rarely a big favorite preflop, you don't ever want to risk all your money in on a hand preflop. PLO is a far more controlled game and other than the occasional pain you will feel from getting outdrawn because you couldn't overbet the pot, it is a far less volatile game and probably would suit you better.