I currently play PLO and think its a great action game. I enjoy it more than NL, which I used to, but no longer really play. At micro/small stakes PLO, it seems as though skills such as hand reading and well timed bluffs are not as important to be a consistent winner as they are in micro/small NL. I read an article where Antonious said that "In NL, you need to be creative because you need more than cards to be a winner." In your opinion, does this mean that there is more skill in NL than in PLO or just different skills needed to win at each game?

At microstakes you don't need to be creative in either game. The difference is bluffing in NLH involves things like continuation bets or simply betting with nothing after an opponent checks. In PLO your bluffs are nearly all semibluffs and/or for value.

Odd that Pat would say that as I believe he prefers PLO over Hold'em; I'm assuming your talking about the comparison of the two games. The simple answer is it depends, it depends how bad the players are, and it depends how each game plays to your strengths and weaknesses. Overall I would say PLO is a better game right now between the two, as plenty of new players are coming in and are just learning the intricacies of the game.

NLH has hit a bit of a wall, most players have the basics but PLO is still a fog for most which is great, just playing a solid game brings home the bacon.

i'd say i'm probably twice as good @ NL as i am @ PLO, but it seems my opp are like 10x worse in plo... people do alot of really wierd things...