Discussion:
whinge about limit poker
(too old to reply)
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 11:02:03 UTC
Permalink
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.

Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker? I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).

I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?

If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
Filth
2004-04-01 11:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker,
have such a fascination with this form of poker?
If you don't like it, don't play it. No-one's forcing you to are they?
--
CBR600RR (Broken)
TFSTR#[1]
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 11:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit tournament
thinking it was no limit).

However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market being
overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to open a debate
about the different types of poker. I could be wrong about limit poker, may
be I'm missing something? If so, please tell me what?
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker,
have such a fascination with this form of poker?
If you don't like it, don't play it. No-one's forcing you to are they?
--
CBR600RR (Broken)
TFSTR#[1]
Filth
2004-04-01 13:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker,
have such a fascination with this form of poker?
They didn't invent poker, the French did. Yanks just pretend that they did,
as they do everything else.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
If you don't like it, don't play it. No-one's forcing you to are they?
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit
tournament thinking it was no limit).
I've done it on the free tourneys, and sometimes on the paying tables.
Post by Edward Bird
However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market
being overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to
open a debate about the different types of poker. I could be wrong
about limit poker, may be I'm missing something? If so, please tell
me what?
You were saying limit is crap and you, like me, can't see how it's fun. Some
people enjoy it and so leave them to it, it's not for you or I to judge
whether their preferred game is crap or not.
--
CBR600RR (Broken)
TFSTR#[1]
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 14:05:28 UTC
Permalink
lol...i sit corrected

however...there will now probably be a barrage of anti french pro bush
messages if some of the previous posts are anything to go by ;o)
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker,
have such a fascination with this form of poker?
They didn't invent poker, the French did. Yanks just pretend that they did,
as they do everything else.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
If you don't like it, don't play it. No-one's forcing you to are they?
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit
tournament thinking it was no limit).
I've done it on the free tourneys, and sometimes on the paying tables.
Post by Edward Bird
However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market
being overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to
open a debate about the different types of poker. I could be wrong
about limit poker, may be I'm missing something? If so, please tell
me what?
You were saying limit is crap and you, like me, can't see how it's fun. Some
people enjoy it and so leave them to it, it's not for you or I to judge
whether their preferred game is crap or not.
--
CBR600RR (Broken)
TFSTR#[1]
Rich M
2004-04-01 14:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Filth
They didn't invent poker, the French did.
Au contraire! Pierre.

Se history de poker is, how do say, elusive. Yes, some say Français,
from poque, but others say Deutsche pochspiel, and a few say the Hindu
pukka. As for my personal opinion, I am looking into certain
persistent ruminations and scandalmongering suggesting that poker may
have indeed been invented in the dark alleys behind the Presto Club in
London.

Rich M
BobbyC
2004-04-01 18:48:38 UTC
Permalink
OK, 2 points:

1 - The French invented Poker, in general, true. However, there are
variations that exist, and they are very different games. The currently
most popular form is called TEXAS holdem for a reason ;)

2 - Regarding fixed limit vs. pot/no-limit. Well, there has been a LARGE
influx of poker players lately, and most are definitely still early in
the learning curve (like me, been playing 3 months, seriously). Combine
low skill with limited bankroll (my budget allows for about $40 a month to
go for poker, so you figure out what limits I play =), and why do you
expect all these people to play a form of the game where it can "all be
gone" in one hand? It's not gonna happen. Give it time, let people learn
more and get more comfortable with the game, and you will see more and
more people migrate over to pot/no-limit. But it will be a slow process.

Bob
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker,
have such a fascination with this form of poker?
They didn't invent poker, the French did. Yanks just pretend that they did,
as they do everything else.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Filth
If you don't like it, don't play it. No-one's forcing you to are they?
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit
tournament thinking it was no limit).
I've done it on the free tourneys, and sometimes on the paying tables.
Post by Edward Bird
However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market
being overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to
open a debate about the different types of poker. I could be wrong
about limit poker, may be I'm missing something? If so, please tell
me what?
You were saying limit is crap and you, like me, can't see how it's fun. Some
people enjoy it and so leave them to it, it's not for you or I to judge
whether their preferred game is crap or not.
--
CBR600RR (Broken)
TFSTR#[1]
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
chippedup
2004-04-02 10:56:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:44:13 +0000 (UTC), "Filth"
Post by Filth
You were saying limit is crap and you, like me, can't see how it's fun. Some
people enjoy it and so leave them to it, it's not for you or I to judge
whether their preferred game is crap or not.
But that is what elitist do, they judge.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Octo
2004-04-03 03:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:44:13 +0000 (UTC), "Filth"
Post by Filth
You were saying limit is crap and you, like me, can't see how it's fun. Some
people enjoy it and so leave them to it, it's not for you or I to judge
whether their preferred game is crap or not.
But that is what elitist do, they judge.
It's a good thing we have the nonjudgmental types like you to keep things
evened out.
Easy E
2004-04-01 17:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit tournament
thinking it was no limit).
However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market being
overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to open a debate
about the different types of poker. I could be wrong about limit poker, may
be I'm missing something? If so, please tell me what?
I believe it is primarily due to bankroll considerations- i.e. what
games are you going to get wiped out at so quickly that you can't play
any more?

In addition, casinos benefit from limit game rakes much more so than
PL/NL games.
unknown
2004-04-01 22:02:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:43:23 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
However, you seem to have missed the real crux of my message. i.e. the
limited choice of no limit games out there due to the american market being
overly flooded with limit only games. Hence why I wished to open a debate
about the different types of poker. I could be wrong about limit poker, may
be I'm missing something? If so, please tell me what?
You're not missing anything. No-limit used to be very popular, but it
kind of died out. It's coming back now. People can stay in money
longer playing limit and it isn't as risky (in their minds.)
chippedup
2004-04-02 10:54:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:43:23 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
Good point. That's why I don't (I mistakenly entered a limit tournament
thinking it was no limit).
Then you would be the moron, would you not?


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
da pickle
2004-04-01 11:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE. But
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit over
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no limit
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 11:59:29 UTC
Permalink
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
events such as Poker Million and Late Night Poker.

As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).

I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S., so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?

I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.

However you are right to say all forms have their own skill sets.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd
be
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and
other
Post by Edward Bird
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE. But
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit over
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no limit
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
Iceman
2004-04-01 16:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...
One reason it isn't is because new players would lose too quickly in NL/PL
games and not become regular players.
Post by Edward Bird
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
Again, try Neteller.
Post by Edward Bird
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S.,
Because it's better for a social game. If the same one or two people won
all the money every time the game would die out.
Post by Edward Bird
so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
NL and PL are more popular in Europe because the games are limited to an
exclusive few. If European cardrooms offered limit poker it would take
over in two years.
Post by Edward Bird
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
I agree that NL is more skillful, especially in tourneys.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 16:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
Again, try Neteller.
I believe Neteller isn't a free service. Call me tight, but I'm reluctant to
pay to cash in/out as well as pay the poker room rakes every time I win a
hand. It's hard enough as it is to make a profit without corporations making
money for doing apparently nothing.

An example of a bad experience happened when trying to cash out from
Paradise Poker. I bought in originally using a credit card. I was then
informed that they weren't able to pay the money back into my credit card
account, and that I would have to take a cheque. I got ripped off with the
exchange rate, and to rub salt into the wounds my bank charged me for paying
a foreign currency cheque into my account!

I haven't had this problem with British poker sites. I don't understand what
the difference is. We're supposed to be living in a world with a global
economy and a world wide web service! I'm even using a mastercard, which is
an American credit card! DOH.

May be things will improve over time...I hope so. The consumer deserves more
choice, and fair treatment. Banks have been getting away with these kinds of
shenanigans for to long, and it's about time governments got together to
sort them out (sorry, little bit of politics).
Iceman
2004-04-01 17:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at
the
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for
poker
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location
(this is
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
in reference to cashing in/out).
Again, try Neteller.
I believe Neteller isn't a free service. Call me tight, but I'm reluctant to
pay to cash in/out as well as pay the poker room rakes every time I win a
hand. It's hard enough as it is to make a profit without corporations making
money for doing apparently nothing.
Oh, maybe it's only free for US accounts. But you guys can use some sites
that we can't - Americans aren't allowed on Ladbrokes or the #1 sports
betting exchange Betfair.
Post by Edward Bird
An example of a bad experience happened when trying to cash out from
Paradise Poker. I bought in originally using a credit card. I was then
informed that they weren't able to pay the money back into my credit card
account, and that I would have to take a cheque. I got ripped off with the
exchange rate, and to rub salt into the wounds my bank charged me for paying
a foreign currency cheque into my account!
I haven't had this problem with British poker sites. I don't understand what
the difference is. We're supposed to be living in a world with a global
economy and a world wide web service! I'm even using a mastercard, which is
an American credit card! DOH.
It costs a bank money to do international transfers or currency exchanges,
so they pass the costs on.
Post by Edward Bird
May be things will improve over time...I hope so. The consumer deserves more
choice, and fair treatment. Banks have been getting away with these kinds of
shenanigans for to long, and it's about time governments got together to
sort them out (sorry, little bit of politics).
I agree - ideally anyone could play on any site or use any deposit method,
but that's a ways off. If Europeans could play on US sites easily, we'd
have a lot more pot-limit Omaha games and tourneys.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 19:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Oh, maybe it's only free for US accounts. But you guys can use some sites
that we can't - Americans aren't allowed on Ladbrokes or the #1 sports
betting exchange Betfair.
If Neteller's free...no problems...cool. I'll have to investigate it again,
but as far as I can remember I think it'll cost me...but I may be wrong.
Post by Iceman
It costs a bank money to do international transfers or currency exchanges,
so they pass the costs on.
The bank I'm with is a multi national (HSBC). Call me naive, but they don't
actually have to change any currency. They hold large amounts of both
currencies. In fact they MAKE money by speculating on currency. This is one
of the reasons that I'm pro a single European currency (although it's
against Britains interests as a major banker/insurer). In fact why not have
a world single currency. Use the US dollar. It doesn't matter, it's
arbitrary. But I digress...

As John Lennon said ... may be I'm just a dreamer. It just takes a little
more co-operation and a little less conflict. Hell, we could even have a
world government...

oops wrong meeting...
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:45:29 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
If Neteller's free...no problems...cool. I'll have to investigate it again,
that will be a nice change.
Post by Edward Bird
but as far as I can remember I think it'll cost me...but I may be wrong.
exchange rates will always cost.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
It costs a bank money to do international transfers or currency exchanges,
so they pass the costs on.
The bank I'm with is a multi national (HSBC). Call me naive, but they don't
actually have to change any currency.
uh yes they do. take a class.
Post by Edward Bird
They hold large amounts of both
currencies. In fact they MAKE money by speculating on currency.
are you their auditor then how do you know they MAKE money. most banks
do not make money in the currency market, they use it as a buffer.
just because they hold currency (which is not true, as it is illegal
for banks to hold the currency of other nations in most countries)
does not mean they should not charge you. That is as stupid as saying
the chicken rancher should give you eggs for free because he has some
hanging around and he makes money on them.
Post by Edward Bird
This is one
of the reasons that I'm pro a single European currency (although it's
against Britains interests as a major banker/insurer). In fact why not have
a world single currency. Use the US dollar. It doesn't matter, it's
arbitrary. But I digress...
Wait, you just said that a euro is against your interest; why do you
think that having everyone use dollars would be different. Don't think
for one moment that we would give you ANY CONTROL over our currency.
Post by Edward Bird
As John Lennon said ... may be I'm just a dreamer. It just takes a little
more co-operation and a little less conflict. Hell, we could even have a
world government...
Great, that is what we need. some tin point twit in Africa deciding to
tax all of us for his next hut. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by Edward Bird
oops wrong meeting...
Yes the commies are down the list.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
I agree - ideally anyone could play on any site or use any deposit method,
but that's a ways off. If Europeans could play on US sites easily, we'd
have a lot more pot-limit Omaha games and tourneys.
No not necessarily.

Funny I see Brits, Nords, Germans, French, Aussies, Swedes, Russians;
on UB, PS all the time.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Iceman
2004-04-02 15:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
Post by Iceman
I agree - ideally anyone could play on any site or use any deposit method,
but that's a ways off. If Europeans could play on US sites easily, we'd
have a lot more pot-limit Omaha games and tourneys.
No not necessarily.
Pot-limit Omaha is the preferred game in most of Europe.
Post by chippedup
Funny I see Brits, Nords, Germans, French, Aussies, Swedes, Russians;
on UB, PS all the time.
I see a lot of them also, even a few Asians and Latin Americans. But for
now at least there are all-European sites that attract many of the
European players, especially for big-bet action.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:07:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:34:10 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
I believe Neteller isn't a free service.
Maybe you should check your facts before you pop off.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Jay Jerome
2004-04-03 07:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:34:10 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
I believe Neteller isn't a free service.
Maybe you should check your facts before you pop off.
He wasn't popping off, you nitwit. He was communicating in a polite
fashion. If you don't have anything constructive to say, why don't you
shut up. Oh... that's right, you're a proud member of the vast boorish
right wing-nut idiocy, which makes you congenitally idiotic.
Post by chippedup
-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:22:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:34:10 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
An example of a bad experience happened when trying to cash out from
Paradise Poker. I bought in originally using a credit card. I was then
so it has nothing to do with neteller? but you still too cheap to use
a free service.
Post by Edward Bird
informed that they weren't able to pay the money back into my credit card
probably because of the credit card company.
Post by Edward Bird
account, and that I would have to take a cheque. I got ripped off with the
exchange rate,
uhh no.
Post by Edward Bird
nd to rub salt into the wounds my bank charged me for paying
a foreign currency cheque into my account!
boo hoo. then your bank sucks.
Post by Edward Bird
I haven't had this problem with British poker sites.
so. hmm maybe you should live in a country whose currency is gladly
taken in trade.
Post by Edward Bird
don't understand what
the difference is. We're supposed to be living in a world with a global
economy and a world wide web service!
What planet are you on? WTF does a global economy have to do with
currency exchange. Your just pissed that the U.N. does not run things
and force us all to use bones or shells for money.

BTW take an economics class before you discuss currency, you clearly
know nothing about money.
Post by Edward Bird
even using a mastercard, which is
an American credit card! DOH.
Not really DOH. First MC charges you exchange rates, Second the card
is issued by a local bank NOT MASTERCARD YOU MORON.
Post by Edward Bird
May be things will improve over time...I hope so. The consumer deserves more
What? DESERVES. Then get off you lazy ass and make it happen.
Post by Edward Bird
choice, and fair treatment. Banks have been getting away with these kinds of
because people like you bend over and say:"do it".
Post by Edward Bird
shenanigans for to long, and it's about time governments got together to
sort them out (sorry, little bit of politics).
Geez another idiot who believes government will save him. Who do you
think controls currency? GOVERNMENT, YOU JACKASS.

BTW maybe you should learn about banks while your at it.



-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Dave P.
2004-04-01 16:41:11 UTC
Permalink
The jury is still out in a lot of minds over which form requires the
most skill. The Sklansky/Malmuth followers seem to think it goes
limit/PL/NL (in order from most skill required to least skill
required) where most other people seem to think PL requires the most
skill, and debate whether limit or NL are more "skill games" or "luck
games". You'll hear people complain that limit is just a grinders
game, where you "get two big cards and bet them" (in the case of Texas
Holdem) or just wait for the nuts and collect your pot. That's all
just your basic poker holy war, in my opinion.

As for why Americans prefer limit while in Europe PL and NL reign,
it's mostly because for years, if you wanted to play poker in a casino
here, you played limit. Casinos didn't spread PL and NL games because
the fish busted too quickly and the games broke up, thus the casino
didn't get their rake. A bad player can certainly last longer in
limit than in PL or NL simply because it takes longer to get all the
chips into the middle in limit than it does in PL or especially NL.

The funny thing is, for most novice poker players (pre-WPT, that is)
their first exposure to poker is in home games where the betting is
almost always PL or sometimes NL. I know my first poker game for
money was a dealer's choice (mostly Stud, since that's what we all
knew "best") PL game in which I lost several hundred dollars. When
these players go to play in a casino for the first time, they're often
thrown by the idea of structured betting. I know I was.

But I'm not sure which sites you've checked out. I know Poker Stars
and Party Poker both have huge amounts of PL and NL tables going,
mostly in Texas Holdem (the game of choice since the debut of the WPT)
but also in Omaha and Omaha 8/b.

-- Dave
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
events such as Poker Million and Late Night Poker.
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S., so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
However you are right to say all forms have their own skill sets.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd
be
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and
other
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE. But
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit
over
Post by da pickle
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no
limit
Post by da pickle
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
Jon Wallis
2004-04-01 17:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
I think you've answered your own question here. Have you ever thought about
how limit HE might contribute to that popularity? Yes, there is a lower
skill factor, yes, bad players lose their money more slowly, and just maybe
that might be why more people play poker in the States. For the vast
majority of players its safer playing limit than NL/PL.
Croupe
2004-04-01 22:47:36 UTC
Permalink
I agree that big bet poker is a more exciting game than limit, but
there is one downside. Big bet poker tends to chew up the weak player
very quickly. If the only game in town is big bet poker (as it is in
most of Europe as your post and others point out) then the supply of
weak players gets used up and the strong players end up butting heads
against each other or the game breaks up - this is mainly a guess, but
that's how it is in my town with one or two wealthy fish funding the
game. This is bad for the house and the players. Of course there
will always be a hierarchy, but the spread in player skills is much
tighter. In a limit game, the fish drawing for his gutshot for one or
two small limit bets and one or two big limit bets will hit every now
and then so the chips can visit over in his stack for a while. Now he
is happy, most of the table is happy (since those chips are in play),
but the guy the beat was put on is very sad :( - we just hope it's
not us who takes the beat.

So there is the advantage - more weak players to compete against over
time. The downside of this is that a solid, mechanical, math based
(some say boring) game tends to be the best strategy up to the 15-30
limit where the game takes on more of a big bet personality.

My 2c - I could be wrong.

Croupe
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
events such as Poker Million and Late Night Poker.
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S., so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
However you are right to say all forms have their own skill sets.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd
be
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and
other
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE. But
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit
over
Post by da pickle
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no
limit
Post by da pickle
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
Linford
2004-04-02 09:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Just be thankful that you live in Europe and are able to play on
Ladbrokes, where it is nearly all NL. What's your name there?
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
events such as Poker Million and Late Night Poker.
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S., so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
However you are right to say all forms have their own skill sets.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd
be
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and
other
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE. But
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit
over
Post by da pickle
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no
limit
Post by da pickle
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
Nima Aghili
2004-04-02 09:38:12 UTC
Permalink
cool newsgroup
Post by Linford
Just be thankful that you live in Europe and are able to play on
Ladbrokes, where it is nearly all NL. What's your name there?
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across. I suppose I was deliberately trying to stimulate a
response. My apologies...genuinly no offence is intended. Indeed I can only
say that I wish that poker in Britain were as popular as it is in the
states...although it has been getting more media coverage recently with
events such as Poker Million and Late Night Poker.
As I commented to 'Filth', a previous respondee, my frustration is at the
lack of choice in the market, and an inability for whatever reason for poker
sites to deal equally with customers no matter where their location (this is
in reference to cashing in/out).
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting. I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S., so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
However you are right to say all forms have their own skill sets.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd
be
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and
other
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
I find stud to be slow and no fun for me. I enjoy limit HE and NLHE.
But
Post by Linford
Post by Edward Bird
Post by da pickle
that is "me." I doubt that anyone can give you an "argument" for limit
over
Post by da pickle
big bet poker ... why should they? Party Poker has all sorts of games at
all sorts of levels. Other sites have lots of games. If you like no
limit
Post by da pickle
and pot limit (which I think is a more skillful game than no limit), then
eschew limit games. It is really quite simple. Why do you feel it
necessary to denigrate those that like limit games? There is an entirely
different skill set required to play all sorts of games.
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:00:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:59:29 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
I didn't mean to denigrate those who play limit poker...even though that's
how it comes across.
bull, you said exactly what you meant.

you are a stud for playing pot/no limit, and we are shit for playing
limit.

Of course you flat out lied about the number of no/pot limit games
online.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:06:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:59:29 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
I am also genuinly bemused by limit poker...as it is less exciting.
There you go again.
Post by Edward Bird
I know
that it is the form played in most home games in the U.S.,
You know nothing. Indian is the most popular game in the home.
Post by Edward Bird
so it may be a
cultural thing and a reason for its popularity over there. i.e. it's the way
Again with the digs.
Post by Edward Bird
you're bought up with the game. However, NL and PL is more popular in
Europe. I simply seek to understand why?
Bullshit.
Post by Edward Bird
I disagree with your point about PL being more skillful than NL. Although
they all require different levels of skill.
Post by Edward Bird
there can be wider session deviations on win/loss, there are a number of
extra strategies that come into play with NL over PL...namely all-in coups
coups. that is it. Euro-trash can't bully anyone militarily so they do
it on the poker table.

you can go all in Pot limit.
Post by Edward Bird
on the flop with big drawing hands, overbetting pots for intimidatory
purposes and better opportunities for bluffs.
The fact that you can't play limit proves it is the more skillful
game.



-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Jay Jerome
2004-04-03 09:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
You know nothing. Indian is the most popular game in the home.
You're joking, right? It's not even in the top 30 home games.

JJ
Jay Jerome
2004-04-03 09:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
You know nothing. Indian is the most popular game in the home.
You're joking, right? It's not even in the top 30 home games.

JJ
Jay Jerome
2004-04-03 09:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by chippedup
You know nothing. Indian is the most popular game in the home.
You're joking, right? It's not even in the top 30 home games.

JJ
Jay
2004-04-02 12:53:12 UTC
Permalink
For full discussion of skill in limit vs. no limit and why limit is
more popular you should probably read Poker Essays I and II by Mason
Malmuth. Then, you can debate on the twoplustwo.com forum with him I
imagine. However, I will quickly address both your questions by
stealing Malmuth ideas.

#1. There are situations where limit is more complex than no limit,
such as flopping top pair and there is a draw on the board. In NL,
you can simply bet enough so they drawing player either makes a bad
call or they fold and you take down the pot. However, often in limit,
you have to decide whether to bet out or go for a check raise. Now
you must consider who else is in the hand and the odds that they will
bet allowing you to check raise. Additionally, if no one will bet,
then often you cannot bet enough to bring the odds in your favor.
However, you still have to bet because giving a free card gives your
opponent infinite odds. In this situation, limit is much more complex
than NL. Before you write down the comments in your head about how
there are more situations in NL than limit, keep in mind that I didn't
say limit is more complex than NL, I simply said there are situations
that are more complex.

#2. There are far less NL games than limit games simply because NL
games give a much larger advantage to the better player. However, NL
is clearly much more exciting to watch, thus it is now seen constantly
on TV. This has translated to more NL action. Still, the Bellagio
only spreads a few NL games as compared to several limit tables, and
many other casinos in Vegas only spread NL on the weekends. I believe
that this is the most action you will ever see for NL. The fact
remains that most of the money you make in poker will come from weak
players. And, weak players simply cannot beat a NL game regularly
enough to continue to return. Additionally, most tourists are afraid
to sit in a NL game. The ones that do, quickly lose their money, and
do not return. Therefore, the action dries up, and the games break.

All this said, I think you need to qualify your question with whether
you are talking about tournament play or cash games. While I
completely believe that my answer to #2 applies to cash games, I don't
think it applies to tournament play. In a freezeout, weak players
know exactly what they stand to lose and are not afraid to play.
Lastly, you admitted that you don't play limit, so why would you want
to debate a topic you don't seem to know much about?
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 13:42:37 UTC
Permalink
This one deserves a reply :o)
Post by Jay
#1. There are situations where limit is more complex than no limit,
such as flopping top pair and there is a draw on the board. In NL,
you can simply bet enough so they drawing player either makes a bad
call or they fold and you take down the pot.
Its a little more complex than that. Given healthy implied odds it may be
correct to call a bet that gives you insufficient pot odds. This can occur
where you have a flush draw with a middle pin straight draw for instance. If
the flush doesn't hit on 4th street, but your straight does, your opponent
will not suspect how strong your hand is. In this instance, knowing how many
chips both you and your opponent have and position become more important.
Betting all in on the flop with top pair to shut out the draws will not work
either. Firstly you can get taken down with a player holding a set,
secondly, if your opponent folds you have failed to maximize your potential
winnings. So, knowing how your opponent bets in certain situations becomes
more important.
Post by Jay
However, often in limit, you have to decide whether to bet out or go for a
check raise. Now
Post by Jay
you must consider who else is in the hand and the odds that they will
bet allowing you to check raise. Additionally, if no one will bet,
then often you cannot bet enough to bring the odds in your favor.
Hence the problem with limit poker.
Post by Jay
However, you still have to bet because giving a free card gives your
opponent infinite odds.
No, I do not agree. Let me give you an example. Say there are three players
in $2/$4 game, and the pot is $12. You hold top pair, but there is a flush
draw on. If everyone checks, and the flush card doesn't hit, you can make a
bet for $4, giving your opponent insufficient odds to make his flush.
However a bet of $2 on the flop can be justifiably called. Now a bet on 4th
street will give your opponent odds of 22/4 (assuming they all called on the
flop).
Post by Jay
#2. There are far less NL games than limit games simply because NL
games give a much larger advantage to the better player.
Which implies it is more skillful?
Post by Jay
All this said, I think you need to qualify your question with whether
you are talking about tournament play or cash games.
My specific example was a single table tournament, which was extremely
laborious even with reduced starting chip totals. Muti tables must be more
like marathons.

While I
Post by Jay
completely believe that my answer to #2 applies to cash games, I don't
think it applies to tournament play. In a freezeout, weak players
know exactly what they stand to lose and are not afraid to play.
Believe it or not, this makes a bad player extremely vulnerable at no limit.
In tournament you'll quite often see bad players sticking all their chips in
before the flops with hands like 33. They may win a few antes, but it
doesn't take long before they get wiped out. Understandably they wouldn't do
that if it were cash chips.
Post by Jay
Lastly, you admitted that you don't play limit, so why would you want
to debate a topic you don't seem to know much about?
I've played poker a long time, and I still have a lot to learn. However, I
am a consistent winner, although there are many players far better than me
out there. I do know how to play limit poker, indeed the first serious poker
book I ever read was Sklansky holdem for advanced players which I read and
reread. The reason I bought up the subject was simply to examine the
cultural divide (and not for any anti american reasons), and to state my
case for no limit (which I find more exciting). The post was based upon a
recent experience wherein I noticed how different and apparently slower the
action seemed in the limit tournament to the no limit tournament, and how
annoying it is to get sucked out on by calling stations (although this
happens in all forms of poker).

I'm gratified at some of the responses I've had, and have changed my opinion
on the subject. There clearly is a place for limit poker amongst beginner
players where the risks (they believe) are less, and the game will last
longer, giving them more opportunities to improve their skills.
da pickle
2004-04-02 15:01:31 UTC
Permalink
"Edward Bird" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:85ebc.12037$***@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

<snip a lot ... some of which is well reasoned>
Post by Edward Bird
I'm gratified at some of the responses I've had, and have changed my opinion
on the subject. There clearly is a place for limit poker amongst beginner
players where the risks (they believe) are less, and the game will last
longer, giving them more opportunities to improve their skills.
This "conclusion" may give some the idea that you might be a little arrogant
and obnoxious. Limit players must be "beginner" players whose misguided
belief will let them improve their skills so they can move up to where the
"skilled" players play. Interesting conclusion from all that has been
written in this thread. Sounds just a tiny bit condescending, however, to
me. But maybe I am just a beginner that plays both when the table is right.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 15:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Interesting to have so many personal comments. Please keep to the thread. I
was merely re-interating statements made by previous posters about the
reasons limit is prefered: i.e. less risk..beginners don't get wiped out so
quickly etc. Have you really read the threads?

Your right, it does sound condescending. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to
be sympathetic to their requirements.
Post by da pickle
<snip a lot ... some of which is well reasoned>
Post by Edward Bird
I'm gratified at some of the responses I've had, and have changed my
opinion
Post by Edward Bird
on the subject. There clearly is a place for limit poker amongst beginner
players where the risks (they believe) are less, and the game will last
longer, giving them more opportunities to improve their skills.
This "conclusion" may give some the idea that you might be a little arrogant
and obnoxious. Limit players must be "beginner" players whose misguided
belief will let them improve their skills so they can move up to where the
"skilled" players play. Interesting conclusion from all that has been
written in this thread. Sounds just a tiny bit condescending, however, to
me. But maybe I am just a beginner that plays both when the table is right.
da pickle
2004-04-02 15:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Interesting to have so many personal comments. Please keep to the thread. I
was merely re-interating statements made by previous posters about the
reasons limit is prefered: i.e. less risk..beginners don't get wiped out so
quickly etc. Have you really read the threads?
Your right, it does sound condescending. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to
be sympathetic to their requirements.
Yes I have read the thread. I was just saying that it sounded
condescending. I accept that it was not meant to be. When I reread many of
my own posts, especially after others respond, I realize that my original
intent was not expressed in exactly the way I intended. I certainly agree
with most of your posts and the responses to this thread.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 15:42:02 UTC
Permalink
No problems. I'm reluctant to start threads now though as it seems to be
make you a target for critisism (not from you especially but from certain
other users). May be this is how politicians feel when they get interviewed
by news reporters? If so, they have my sincerest sympathys.

May be I'll choose a less contreversial topic for my next posting lol.
Post by da pickle
Post by Edward Bird
Interesting to have so many personal comments. Please keep to the
thread.
Post by da pickle
I
Post by Edward Bird
was merely re-interating statements made by previous posters about the
reasons limit is prefered: i.e. less risk..beginners don't get wiped out
so
Post by Edward Bird
quickly etc. Have you really read the threads?
Your right, it does sound condescending. It wasn't meant to. It was
meant
Post by da pickle
to
Post by Edward Bird
be sympathetic to their requirements.
Yes I have read the thread. I was just saying that it sounded
condescending. I accept that it was not meant to be. When I reread many of
my own posts, especially after others respond, I realize that my original
intent was not expressed in exactly the way I intended. I certainly agree
with most of your posts and the responses to this thread.
da pickle
2004-04-02 15:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
No problems. I'm reluctant to start threads now though as it seems to be
make you a target for critisism (not from you especially but from certain
other users). May be this is how politicians feel when they get interviewed
by news reporters? If so, they have my sincerest sympathys.
May be I'll choose a less contreversial topic for my next posting lol.
I hope the quickness that many (sometimes me too) jump on some part of a
post will not discourage you from posting whatever it is that suits you.
This is an open forum. But if you do not want to be a "target" for
criticism, then this group is not for you. You seem like a pretty strong
guy to me. I suspect you can take the shots. Keep posting ... this is a
good group.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 15:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Keep posting ... this is a good group.
Damn right it is! There are some real characters around, which is a
reflection on the type of people attracted to poker (and also confirms my
own experiences in casinos where I've met some of the whackiest people the
world has to offer). Of course, there are a lot of aggressive, bad tempered
players out there, but they've haven't put me off yet! In fact I normally
play up to them lol (although you have to be shrewd enough to know when
things are likely to become violent).

Some of the posts have really amused me...especially the aprils fool stuff
like Re_ what a hand _) which is pure genius! There is a definite sarcastic
and dry sense of humour than runs like a seam through the whole
group...definitely my style.
da pickle
2004-04-02 16:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Keep posting ... this is a good group.
Damn right it is! There are some real characters around, which is a
reflection on the type of people attracted to poker (and also confirms my
own experiences in casinos where I've met some of the whackiest people the
world has to offer). Of course, there are a lot of aggressive, bad tempered
players out there, but they've haven't put me off yet! In fact I normally
play up to them lol (although you have to be shrewd enough to know when
things are likely to become violent).
Some of the posts have really amused me...especially the aprils fool stuff
like Re_ what a hand _) which is pure genius! There is a definite sarcastic
and dry sense of humour than runs like a seam through the whole
group...definitely my style.
Edward .... are you in London? Play at the Victoria (I think that is the
name ... up from Marble Arch)? My wife and I played for a few days last
year. I really enjoyed it. I must say they took some of my money (net) but
I won a few pots. My inexperience with pot limit omaha cost me. I look
forward to your posts.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 16:13:51 UTC
Permalink
No I'm in the midlands, although we do have a grosvenor casino nearby at
junction 10 on the M6, which has some good comps, but few decent cash games.
Unfortunately there are never enough house dealers, and I don't trust
punters dealing in ring games, which is why Internet poker is ideal.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Edward Bird
Keep posting ... this is a good group.
Damn right it is! There are some real characters around, which is a
reflection on the type of people attracted to poker (and also confirms my
own experiences in casinos where I've met some of the whackiest people the
world has to offer). Of course, there are a lot of aggressive, bad
tempered
Post by Edward Bird
players out there, but they've haven't put me off yet! In fact I normally
play up to them lol (although you have to be shrewd enough to know when
things are likely to become violent).
Some of the posts have really amused me...especially the aprils fool stuff
like Re_ what a hand _) which is pure genius! There is a definite
sarcastic
Post by Edward Bird
and dry sense of humour than runs like a seam through the whole
group...definitely my style.
Edward .... are you in London? Play at the Victoria (I think that is the
name ... up from Marble Arch)? My wife and I played for a few days last
year. I really enjoyed it. I must say they took some of my money (net) but
I won a few pots. My inexperience with pot limit omaha cost me. I look
forward to your posts.
Peg Smith
2004-04-02 18:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:57:52 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
There are some real characters around, which is a
reflection on the type of people attracted to poker (and also confirms my
own experiences in casinos where I've met some of the whackiest people the
world has to offer).
Speaking of wacky people, why don't you head back over to that thread
where you said that flopping a set is 10:1, I said it was 7.5:1, and
you got real snotty in telling me I was wrong. Remember? You told me
to get my facts straight? There's some good information (facts!) in
that thread.

Peg
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 18:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Jesus christ! ...the odds of flopping a set IS 10/1. The odds of hitting AT
LEAST one of your pair cards is 7.5/1. Let it go ffs.

The semantics of my post still make sense REGARDLESS of the precise odds
anyway.
Post by Peg Smith
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:57:52 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
There are some real characters around, which is a
reflection on the type of people attracted to poker (and also confirms my
own experiences in casinos where I've met some of the whackiest people the
world has to offer).
Speaking of wacky people, why don't you head back over to that thread
where you said that flopping a set is 10:1, I said it was 7.5:1, and
you got real snotty in telling me I was wrong. Remember? You told me
to get my facts straight? There's some good information (facts!) in
that thread.
Peg
Bill Patterson
2004-04-02 19:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Jesus christ! ...the odds of flopping a set IS 10/1. The odds of hitting AT
LEAST one of your pair cards is 7.5/1. Let it go ffs.
Uh, doofus, you were wrong and you still are.

Holding pocket pair, odds of flopping a set card are:

= 1 - (odds none of the three flop cards hits you)
= 1 - (45/47 * 44/46 * 43/45)
= .125
~ 12.5% chance
~ 1 in 8 chance of flopping a set card to go with your pair.

It's ok to be ignorant.

It's silly to remain militantly ignorant once you've been shown to be wrong.

It's downright humorous to repeatedly tell other people to let it go as you
(again) repost the same wrong answer.

--Bill
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 19:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Am I speaking the same language? Do we have a misunderstanding?

A set = three of a kind NOT four of a kind and NOT a full house.

The odds of flopping EXACTLY a set are 10/1...

The odds of flopping AT LEAST a set (i.e. 3 of a kind, a full house, four of
a kind) are 7.5 / 1

Do you agree or disagree with that?

If you agree, please apologise for calling me ignorant...
Post by Bill Patterson
Post by Edward Bird
Jesus christ! ...the odds of flopping a set IS 10/1. The odds of hitting AT
LEAST one of your pair cards is 7.5/1. Let it go ffs.
Uh, doofus, you were wrong and you still are.
= 1 - (odds none of the three flop cards hits you)
= 1 - (45/47 * 44/46 * 43/45)
= .125
~ 12.5% chance
~ 1 in 8 chance of flopping a set card to go with your pair.
It's ok to be ignorant.
It's silly to remain militantly ignorant once you've been shown to be wrong.
It's downright humorous to repeatedly tell other people to let it go as you
(again) repost the same wrong answer.
--Bill
Peg Smith
2004-04-02 23:58:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:36:05 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
Am I speaking the same language? Do we have a misunderstanding?
A set = three of a kind NOT four of a kind and NOT a full house.
The odds of flopping EXACTLY a set are 10/1...
The odds of flopping AT LEAST a set (i.e. 3 of a kind, a full house, four of
a kind) are 7.5 / 1
You got us on the semantics of the question. Mea culpa. Now tell us,
please: of what practical use is the first number? Is there ever a
time when you'll hope for *only* a set, and *not* hope for better?

Peg
Edward Bird
2004-04-03 00:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peg Smith
You got us on the semantics of the question. Mea culpa. Now tell us,
please: of what practical use is the first number?
None at all...I'm just pedantic.
Post by Peg Smith
Is there ever a time when you'll hope for *only* a set, and *not* hope for
better?

No. Happy now?

I respond to questions immediately. Numbers may not be absolutely
accurate...I don't run simulations. You were right in essence...but came out
a touch aggressively, so I became defensive (although what I wrote was
absolutely true and correct I was being pedantic. The important odds are, as
you say 7.5 to one for connecting to the pair).

Please can we be friends? :o)
Peg Smith
2004-04-03 01:05:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:10:46 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Peg Smith
Post by Peg Smith
Is there ever a time when you'll hope for *only* a set, and *not* hope for
better?
No. Happy now?
I respond to questions immediately. Numbers may not be absolutely
accurate...I don't run simulations. You were right in essence...but came out
a touch aggressively, so I became defensive...
Bullshit. I said, "Nope. It's 7:5-1."

If that was too aggressive for your sensitive nature, I'll henceforth
not respond to your posts.

<ploink!>

Peg
Edward Bird
2004-04-03 01:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peg Smith
If that was too aggressive for your sensitive nature, I'll henceforth
not respond to your posts.
Aah. I was hoping we could get to know each other better, and who knows
where it could have lead us...
Peg Smith
2004-04-03 00:06:40 UTC
Permalink
BTW, what the heck is a whinge?

Peg
Edward Bird
2004-04-03 00:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Moan, gripe, complaint...

although websters lists it as "to whine" lol

please don't comment on that ;)
Post by Peg Smith
BTW, what the heck is a whinge?
Peg
jarrett40
2004-04-03 02:59:06 UTC
Permalink
"Edward Bird" wrote > Am I speaking the same language? Do we have a
misunderstanding?
Post by Edward Bird
A set = three of a kind NOT four of a kind and NOT a full house.
The odds of flopping EXACTLY a set are 10/1...
The odds of flopping AT LEAST a set (i.e. 3 of a kind, a full house, four of
a kind) are 7.5 / 1
I don't think you understand the meaning of "set". I'll try to be
non-judgemental [very difficult for me!] and explain it to you.
A set is a pair in your hand and one on the board.
One in your hand and two on the board are "trips", which some people
mistakenly call a set.
Odds are 7.5 /1 of flopping a set.
Hope this clears it up for you.

jarrett40
Iceman
2004-04-02 15:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay
Post by Jay
However, often in limit, you have to decide whether to bet out or go for a
check raise. Now
Post by Jay
you must consider who else is in the hand and the odds that they will
bet allowing you to check raise. Additionally, if no one will bet,
then often you cannot bet enough to bring the odds in your favor.
Hence the problem with limit poker.
It's not a problem, it's a challenge. So you need to check raise or to
wait until the turn to raise to knock people out; with a strong hand
there's the dilemma between protecting it and wanting more money in the
pot.
Post by Jay
Post by Jay
However, you still have to bet because giving a free card gives your
opponent infinite odds.
No, I do not agree. Let me give you an example. Say there are three players
in $2/$4 game, and the pot is $12. You hold top pair, but there is a flush
draw on. If everyone checks, and the flush card doesn't hit, you can make a
bet for $4, giving your opponent insufficient odds to make his flush.
He can still call $4 into a pot that will contain $20, plus the chance of
getting called on the river when he makes his hand.
Post by Jay
Post by Jay
#2. There are far less NL games than limit games simply because NL
games give a much larger advantage to the better player.
Which implies it is more skillful?
There are two definitions of skill that are often confused:

1. The strategic complexity of a game
2. The advantage a better player has

No one disputes that NL is more skillful by definition 2. But I would
argue that limit is more strategically complex.
Post by Jay
Post by Jay
All this said, I think you need to qualify your question with whether
you are talking about tournament play or cash games.
My specific example was a single table tournament, which was extremely
laborious even with reduced starting chip totals. Muti tables must be more
like marathons.
I've played a few limit single-table tourneys, and they do tend to last
longer because there's less action on the early rounds and it's harder to
eliminate people, and you get to the higher levels with lots of people
still in.
Post by Jay
Post by Jay
Lastly, you admitted that you don't play limit, so why would you want
to debate a topic you don't seem to know much about?
I've played poker a long time, and I still have a lot to learn. However, I
am a consistent winner, although there are many players far better than me
out there. I do know how to play limit poker, indeed the first serious poker
book I ever read was Sklansky holdem for advanced players which I read and
reread. The reason I bought up the subject was simply to examine the
cultural divide (and not for any anti american reasons), and to state my
case for no limit (which I find more exciting). The post was based upon a
recent experience wherein I noticed how different and apparently slower the
action seemed in the limit tournament to the no limit tournament, and how
annoying it is to get sucked out on by calling stations (although this
happens in all forms of poker).
You are a good enough player to understand that those types of players
lose massively in the long run even if they are frustrating to play
against in the short run.
Post by Jay
I'm gratified at some of the responses I've had, and have changed my opinion
on the subject. There clearly is a place for limit poker amongst beginner
players where the risks (they believe) are less, and the game will last
longer, giving them more opportunities to improve their skills.
Not only for beginner players, but also for people who want to maximize
their profit, and who go to where those bad players are. Give me an NL
game full of idiots anyday, but since those virtually never occur, and
you're lucky to have two fish in a typical NL table, limit poker is often
more profitable for a skillful player.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 15:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Not only for beginner players, but also for people who want to maximize
their profit, and who go to where those bad players are. Give me an NL
game full of idiots anyday, but since those virtually never occur, and
you're lucky to have two fish in a typical NL table, limit poker is often
more profitable for a skillful player.
Agreed. The best players are typically found on the high states limit games
online (i.e. $200/$400 tables). It's not exclusively for beginners. [make
mental note: be careful what you write as the people on this newsgroup are
all lawyers ;o) ]

I'm exhausted now!
ramsey
2004-04-04 09:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
No, I do not agree. Let me give you an example. Say there are three players
in $2/$4 game, and the pot is $12. You hold top pair, but there is a flush
draw on. If everyone checks, and the flush card doesn't hit, you can make a
bet for $4, giving your opponent insufficient odds to make his flush.
However a bet of $2 on the flop can be justifiably called. Now a bet on 4th
street will give your opponent odds of 22/4 (assuming they all called on the
flop).
It is still a mistake not to bet on the flop. Your objective should be
to maximise your expected return from the pot - not the probability of
winning the pot.

Simplifying slightly assume that you have only one opponent and there is
$9 in the pot. You have a straight and he has a flush draw so you will
lose if and only if the flush is made.

If you check the flop then EITHER
1/5 of the time the flush comes on the turn and you fold
4/5 of the time it doesn't come, you bet and your opponent folds
(because he has insufficient odds to call).
Your return in this case is 9*4/5 = $7.2.

OR you check the flop and bet the turn and your opponent makes the
mistake of calling with insufficient odds.
1/5 of the time the flush comes on the turn and you fold losing $0.
4/25 of the time the flush comes on the river and you fold losing $4
16/25 of the time you win $13
Your return in this case is -4*4/25 + 13*16/25 = $7.7

If you bet the flop then EITHER
1/5 of the time the flush comes on the turn and you fold losing $2
4/25 of the time the flush comes on the river and you fold losing $6
16/25 of the time the flush doesn't come and you win 9+2+4 = $15.
Your return in this case is (-10 -24 +240)/25 = $8.2

OR your opponent mistakenly folds on the turn in which case your return
increases further to $8.4

So not betting the flop reduces the chance of winning the pot from 80%
to 64% but increases the amount you win on average by $1 (if your
opponent plays correctly).

The bottom line is that not betting the flop is a BIGGER mistake than
calling with insufficient odds on the turn (or folding with sufficient
odds).

You will sometimes see the same argument applied pre-flop: i.e. if you
raise with good hands pre-flop then everyone will call anyway and the
pot will then be big enough to justify them calling on the flop with
just about anything. Therefore it is better to just call pre-flop and
you can either get out cheaply if you miss or your opponents will not
have the odds to call if you make top pair or better. The argument is
still fallacious - not raising with the best hand pre-flop is a bigger
mistake than calling with insufficient odds will be on the flop.
--
ramsey
Edward Bird
2004-04-04 11:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Good post, thanks for correcting me. Your theory (explained well using the
Sklansky method I note) especially applies to my example, as with top pair,
the flop bet may get other inferior hands like 2nd/3rd pair out of the pot,
and avoids giving them a free card for trips/2pair.

Its highlighted to me that I am overly conservative on the flop, and that
I'm potentially missing out on some value long term. Thanks again.
Rich M
2004-04-01 12:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
Most online poker players lose money over time, and they know it.
Some want to learn and get better, and play as many hands as possible,
and lose as little as possible in the process, and they can do this in
limit games. They know that play money games do not teach good
habits.

Some people view gambling as a form of entertainment. They can spend
$8 for a movie, or spend $8 to play some poker, but at least poker is
interactive and challenges their mind, and you never walk out of a
movie with more money in your pocket. Play money games do not get
their adrenaline pumping.

Without those who are willing to suffer losses while learning, and
those who are willing to suffer some losses for entertainment value, I
agree that you probably would see less participation in limit games,
although I find them interesting and challenging and strategically
different enough to still enjoy them.

Rich M
Marc
2004-04-01 12:31:25 UTC
Permalink
"Edward Bird" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:KESac.5942$***@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
Big bet poker is for hardened gamblers. It has zero entertainment value for
the casual player who doesn't want to risk the night's bankroll on a single
play. Of course it takes more skill and more nerve, that is why it will
never become popular outside the tournament format, where a casual player
can make "big bet" decisions without the real danger.

-Marc
"Pay him... pay that man his money"
inkyredbone
2004-04-01 16:00:42 UTC
Permalink
The suckers have a chance in limit and they have no shot in big bet.
Playing limit a sucker will have one little run when his 67and 9j and k6s
get there and he wins seven racks of chips. That happy memory will keep him
going for the 200 racks he will subsequently lose chasing that high. In no
limit he will be lucky to hang on to his stake for 2 hours no matter how
many pots he wins. And that is why limit is popular, everyone gets a turn.

Inkyredbone
Post by Marc
[snip]
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have
such
Post by Edward Bird
a fascination with this form of poker?
Big bet poker is for hardened gamblers. It has zero entertainment value for
the casual player who doesn't want to risk the night's bankroll on a single
play. Of course it takes more skill and more nerve, that is why it will
never become popular outside the tournament format, where a casual player
can make "big bet" decisions without the real danger.
-Marc
"Pay him... pay that man his money"
sunofafish
2004-04-02 20:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Hey Edward, i find no limit poker boring, players sitting around
waiting for the nuts, long pauses all the time. Explain to me the
skill envolved when 5 amateurs are at the table and their only stategy
is to go allin preflop?

Look at the Party Poker Million 3 (limit tourney) for example: May be
50 big names, 500 online qualifiers. Thats a 1:10 ratio. Final Table
4 big name pros, 2 OQ's. Though a very small sample according to
these numbers big name pros are 20 times more likely to make the final
table then online qualifiers.

If u want Edward I will play you heads up limit holdem at any limit u
want above 20/40 and you can prove to me that there is no skill and no
excitement.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 23:01:02 UTC
Permalink
I'd agree that at higher limits the game starts to get more interesting (as
was previously mentioned the strategy becomes more like NL/PL). Also there
are fewer fish present in those type of games so your less likely to get
family pots and people calling you doggedly with long shots.

Also tournament strategy NL is different from ring game NL. Large stacked
players in NL tourneys will call small stacks with marginal hands to knock
them out. Likewise small stacks are unlikely to call all in with a
marginally favourite hand.

The odds of winning a large tournament are small in any type of game. Also
there are a lot of good so called 'amatuers' out there. Just because they
haven't got as much money as the 'pros' doesn't mean some of them aren't as
good. If they've qualified to get to the poker million final by winning a
couple of satellites on the way, it would naturally imply they've got some
talent.

By the way, I'm yet to play a game of NL against 5 players going all-in
before the flop. I can only assume that they're no longer playing due to a
non existant bank roll.
Post by sunofafish
Hey Edward, i find no limit poker boring, players sitting around
waiting for the nuts, long pauses all the time. Explain to me the
skill envolved when 5 amateurs are at the table and their only stategy
is to go allin preflop?
Look at the Party Poker Million 3 (limit tourney) for example: May be
50 big names, 500 online qualifiers. Thats a 1:10 ratio. Final Table
4 big name pros, 2 OQ's. Though a very small sample according to
these numbers big name pros are 20 times more likely to make the final
table then online qualifiers.
If u want Edward I will play you heads up limit holdem at any limit u
want above 20/40 and you can prove to me that there is no skill and no
excitement.
phreaux
2004-04-02 22:15:12 UTC
Permalink
As a poker player who has lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I feel
I should chime it...

American poker rooms offer very little NL/PL. They know that that
casual player could spend a lifetime playing limit poker without ever
really noticing how poorly they do over time. At PL/NL, the same
player would get absolutely raped on a regular basis. "You can shear
a sheep many times, but skin him only once." Keep in mind that the
card room mgrs just want people to keep playing - they would rather a
player lose $50 in 20 different 4 hours sessions and keep on playing
than to drop $1000 in a minute and quit forever. Whether the rake is
a % of the pot or an hourly charge, the longer the player is there,
the more the cardroom makes more money.

Thus, the American "infatuation" (as you call it) is actually just a
comfort zone with what is familiar.

I believe that if more PL and NL games were offered, more Americans
would play PL and NL. A side effect is some suckers would have to
quit poker after getting killed, but the point remains that if they
spread it, the players would come (pun unintended).

You mentioned how poker is so much more popular in the U.S. than it is
in the U.K. This is due partially to the very reasons I mentioned. A
beginner in the U.K. would be quite scared to play even the GBP1-GBP2
ROE at the Vic, as they will lose their buyin quite quickly. That
same player could learn the ropes at limit with more of a safety net.

Limit poker is good for poker's popularity.

Personally, after living in the UK and playing PL, I would be happy if
I never played limit again.

-American
Iceman
2004-04-01 16:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
Until recently, American B&M rooms spread limit poker almost exclusively.
They didn't want to spread NL or PL since the bad players would lose far
too quickly and stop playing. Few players would be willing or able to
sustain losses in the hundreds of dollars for session after session. In
limit poker, players who have any clue at all won't do that badly, and
even a bad player will have lots of winning sessions. The better players
only win in the long-run.
Post by Edward Bird
I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame.
What sites are you playing on??? Party, Paradise, UB, and Stars all offer
NL and PL. If a site only offers limit poker, don't join it.
Post by Edward Bird
The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
Use Party, and use Neteller to buy in and cash out.
Post by Edward Bird
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
Once you know the basics of both games, limit poker is much more about
strategy and reading hands, while NL is much more about reading opponents.
They're different games, that's all - should we argue about soccer vs.
football?
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it!
Because most bad players only want to play limit, so if you want to make
real money you usually have to play limit. You find idiots in $25 NL and
10+1 NL SNGs, but to earn more than minimum wage you have to play
mid-limit holdem or stud. Personally I play whichever appears more
profitable at the time.
Post by Edward Bird
Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
That book absolutely sucks, and I find it hard to believe that either
author could be a winning player.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 17:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for your constructive responses, and your advice. I agree with most
of your comments, and no, I'm not going to get into an argument about soccer
and football (and not because they are the same (in British terms), or to
say that rugby and US football would be a better argument) but because they
are both a pointless irrelevance designed to distract and subdue the
populace.

What I do disagree with you about is your comments on the book Pot and No
Limit Poker. It is without a doubt the best text I've personally read on big
bet poker (if for no other reason than that there are so few other books
dealing with the subject). A critisism I would have of it is that it tries
to cover too much (i.e.holdem, omaha , 7 card stud, lowball???) in one
small volume and therefore doesn't go into enough depth. Also the psychology
section is dealt with better in Inside the Poker Mind, and Caro's book of
Poker Tells is superior than their section on reading the opponent. However
the information it does give is accurate and very very useful...especially
the value of pocket pairs in holdem, the chapter 'how deep are you'
(crucial), the chapter on drawing hands, position and the quiz sections.
Perhaps they should have stuck to just holdem and omaha and cut out the crap
like poker history and dealing big bet poker???.

What book would you recommend that is superior on the subject of bit bet
poker?
Post by Iceman
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
Until recently, American B&M rooms spread limit poker almost exclusively.
They didn't want to spread NL or PL since the bad players would lose far
too quickly and stop playing. Few players would be willing or able to
sustain losses in the hundreds of dollars for session after session. In
limit poker, players who have any clue at all won't do that badly, and
even a bad player will have lots of winning sessions. The better players
only win in the long-run.
Post by Edward Bird
I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame.
What sites are you playing on??? Party, Paradise, UB, and Stars all offer
NL and PL. If a site only offers limit poker, don't join it.
Post by Edward Bird
The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
Use Party, and use Neteller to buy in and cash out.
Post by Edward Bird
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
Once you know the basics of both games, limit poker is much more about
strategy and reading hands, while NL is much more about reading opponents.
They're different games, that's all - should we argue about soccer vs.
football?
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it!
Because most bad players only want to play limit, so if you want to make
real money you usually have to play limit. You find idiots in $25 NL and
10+1 NL SNGs, but to earn more than minimum wage you have to play
mid-limit holdem or stud. Personally I play whichever appears more
profitable at the time.
Post by Edward Bird
Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
That book absolutely sucks, and I find it hard to believe that either
author could be a winning player.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Iceman
2004-04-01 19:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Thanks for your constructive responses, and your advice. I agree with most
of your comments, and no, I'm not going to get into an argument about soccer
and football (and not because they are the same (in British terms), or to
say that rugby and US football would be a better argument) but because they
are both a pointless irrelevance designed to distract and subdue the
populace.
That's another argument :) But you understood my point.
Post by Edward Bird
What I do disagree with you about is your comments on the book Pot and No
Limit Poker. It is without a doubt the best text I've personally read on big
bet poker (if for no other reason than that there are so few other books
dealing with the subject).
I haven't found any books that cover big-bet well. I've just seen books
on limit poker that were much more comprehensive and really explain to you
the details of the game, and things you have to consider when making
decisions, that go from street to street and situation to situation so you
really understand what to think about, and this book didn't do that at all.
Post by Edward Bird
A critisism I would have of it is that it tries
to cover too much (i.e.holdem, omaha , 7 card stud, lowball???) in one
small volume and therefore doesn't go into enough depth. Also the psychology
section is dealt with better in Inside the Poker Mind, and Caro's book of
Poker Tells is superior than their section on reading the opponent. However
the information it does give is accurate and very very useful...especially
the value of pocket pairs in holdem, the chapter 'how deep are you'
(crucial), the chapter on drawing hands, position and the quiz sections.
Perhaps they should have stuck to just holdem and omaha and cut out the crap
like poker history and dealing big bet poker???.
I agree that they should have cut the crap (most of the first half, and
games no one plays anymore like lowball). Some of the holdem stuff isn't
bad for beginners (but too simplistic), but the Omaha and Omaha-8 chapters
are laughable. The Omaha high chapter focuses on hands that Stewart plays
poorly, while Omaha-8: "Aim for the whole pot" Oh, thank you, Bob, I
wouldn't have thought of that!

"How deep are you" is a crucial aspect of NL play, but the advice he gives
is far too tight. Playing the way he recommends will get you blasted out
of pots by aggressive players, while failing to capitalize on the mistakes
of loose players.

The drawing hands chapter is important for limit players, since draws are
played very differently than in limit. But there and throughout the book
there isn't enough on varying your play because of your opponents and the
situation, and there's too much bashing limit poker and not enough on
distinguishing why you look at a given situation one way in limit poker
and another in big-bet.
Post by Edward Bird
What book would you recommend that is superior on the subject of bit bet
poker?
While there isn't any one now, and much of what makes an expert big bet
player comes from experience and isn't really something that can be
learned from a book, I think the possibility exists to have a much better
beginner/intermediate NL/PL book. Especially in Omaha and Omaha-8 there's
almost nothing of value written anywhere. Someone new to NL/PL needs to
at least learn the basics so they don't get killed before they can even
begin to work on the "playing your opponents" aspect of the game.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 20:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
I agree that they should have cut the crap (most of the first half, and
games no one plays anymore like lowball). Some of the holdem stuff isn't
bad for beginners (but too simplistic), but the Omaha and Omaha-8 chapters
are laughable. The Omaha high chapter focuses on hands that Stewart plays
poorly, while Omaha-8: "Aim for the whole pot" Oh, thank you, Bob, I
wouldn't have thought of that!
I can't really comment on the Omaha section. My Omaha play is (admitadly)
BAD. I come from the school of 6 card omaha, so making the transition to
four leaves me in the wilderness. When is a one draw enough? When is two
pair enough? Why do I keep going bust...oh yes that's right ...because I
keep waiting for the ultimate front and back hand and I'm getting fleeced in
the process :o(
Post by Iceman
"How deep are you" is a crucial aspect of NL play, but the advice he gives
is far too tight. Playing the way he recommends will get you blasted out
of pots by aggressive players, while failing to capitalize on the mistakes
of loose players.
I definitely disagree with you here. In a ten handed holdem no limit game
you HAVE to be tight, otherwise things will go wrong very quickly. There is
a very fine line to be walked here, but this comes down to knowing your
opponent, a skill that cannot really be taught. If you don't know your
opponent, follow Sklansky's advice: Tight and Aggressive gets the money
(although not as much as bluff when you know you can get away with it ;P).
Post by Iceman
The drawing hands chapter is important for limit players, since draws are
played very differently than in limit. But there and throughout the book
there isn't enough on varying your play because of your opponents and the
situation, and there's too much bashing limit poker and not enough on
distinguishing why you look at a given situation one way in limit poker
and another in big-bet.
Agreed. Theory of Poker is probably the best for this I suppose. Although
the same critisism could be filed against Sklansky holdem for advanced
players which focus's too much on limit.
Post by Iceman
While there isn't any one now, and much of what makes an expert big bet
player comes from experience and isn't really something that can be
learned from a book, I think the possibility exists to have a much better
beginner/intermediate NL/PL book. Especially in Omaha and Omaha-8 there's
almost nothing of value written anywhere. Someone new to NL/PL needs to
at least learn the basics so they don't get killed before they can even
begin to work on the "playing your opponents" aspect of the game.
We are in agreement. However it can be taught! May be none of the top
players want to let the cat out of the bag for some reason (i.e. maintaining
their own advantage). Sklansky's tournament poker for advanced players has
some original ideas...although I'm not certain about some of his theories.
There doesn't seem to be a complete book out there. They all have their own
little gems of information.

You're right about Omaha...there's nothing. Ciaffone's book's about the best
I think, although it is very short on detail , and very short in general. I
get the impression when playing omaha of just how much more complicated it
is than holdem and therefore how much more skillful. Indeed Dave Ulliot has
commented that hardly ANYONE knows how to play the game well..hence why he
cleans up in cash games.
Iceman
2004-04-01 20:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
I agree that they should have cut the crap (most of the first half, and
games no one plays anymore like lowball). Some of the holdem stuff isn't
bad for beginners (but too simplistic), but the Omaha and Omaha-8 chapters
are laughable. The Omaha high chapter focuses on hands that Stewart plays
poorly, while Omaha-8: "Aim for the whole pot" Oh, thank you, Bob, I
wouldn't have thought of that!
I can't really comment on the Omaha section. My Omaha play is (admitadly)
BAD. I come from the school of 6 card omaha, so making the transition to
four leaves me in the wilderness. When is a one draw enough? When is two
pair enough? Why do I keep going bust...oh yes that's right ...because I
keep waiting for the ultimate front and back hand and I'm getting fleeced in
the process :o(
6 someone almost always has the nuts with strong redraws, so there's very
little action unless there are morons in the game. 4 there's a lot of
bluffing and scare card play, and you have to make tough calls.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
"How deep are you" is a crucial aspect of NL play, but the advice he gives
is far too tight. Playing the way he recommends will get you blasted out
of pots by aggressive players, while failing to capitalize on the mistakes
of loose players.
I definitely disagree with you here. In a ten handed holdem no limit game
you HAVE to be tight, otherwise things will go wrong very quickly.
Tight, yes. THAT tight, no. Especially when the money isn't very deep
(like in most of the examples he gives), you can't wait for the top 1% of
hands before committing preflop. And postflop he has you folding sets and
non-nut flushes - you have to really know your opponents well, be in a
very deep money game, and be in an absolutely perfect situation before you
could even consider making those plays.

And as long as you can get in cheaply and the money's deep, you should
play a somewhat large number of hands preflop since the reward if you hit
them is so high.
Post by Edward Bird
There is
a very fine line to be walked here, but this comes down to knowing your
opponent, a skill that cannot really be taught. If you don't know your
opponent, follow Sklansky's advice: Tight and Aggressive gets the money
(although not as much as bluff when you know you can get away with it ;P).
If you don't know your opponent, judge by the game you're in. $25 buy-in
online games are a lot different than live games where people's stacks are
a few hundred times the blinds.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
The drawing hands chapter is important for limit players, since draws are
played very differently than in limit. But there and throughout the book
there isn't enough on varying your play because of your opponents and the
situation, and there's too much bashing limit poker and not enough on
distinguishing why you look at a given situation one way in limit poker
and another in big-bet.
Agreed. Theory of Poker is probably the best for this I suppose. Although
the same critisism could be filed against Sklansky holdem for advanced
players which focus's too much on limit.
It focuses *entirely* on limit holdem ring games. It's written for a
player of other forms of limit poker who wants to learn holdem (at that
time draw and lowball and 7-stud were far more popular), rather than for a
NL holdem player who wants to learn limit holdem. Ciaffone and Reuben's
book on the other hand is aimed at limit players who want to learn NL/PL.

The market of new poker players or limit 7-stud players who want to learn
limit holdem is far greater than the market of European NL/PL holdem
players who want to learn limit holdem, so it's understandable that he
doesn't approach it from that perspective.
Post by Edward Bird
Post by Iceman
While there isn't any one now, and much of what makes an expert big bet
player comes from experience and isn't really something that can be
learned from a book, I think the possibility exists to have a much better
beginner/intermediate NL/PL book. Especially in Omaha and Omaha-8 there's
almost nothing of value written anywhere. Someone new to NL/PL needs to
at least learn the basics so they don't get killed before they can even
begin to work on the "playing your opponents" aspect of the game.
We are in agreement. However it can be taught! May be none of the top
players want to let the cat out of the bag for some reason (i.e. maintaining
their own advantage). Sklansky's tournament poker for advanced players has
some original ideas...although I'm not certain about some of his theories.
There doesn't seem to be a complete book out there. They all have their own
little gems of information.
I agree. I'm an experienced SNG player, so most of Tournament Poker for
Advanced Players was old news. But I think it would help a player who's
new to tourneys. My main criticism of that book is that (1) he doesn't
discuss SNGs, which are far more common now than winner take all
satellites, (2) there's not enough on how you approach tournaments in
specific games, and (3) the NL discussion is really limited.
Post by Edward Bird
You're right about Omaha...there's nothing. Ciaffone's book's about the best
I think, although it is very short on detail , and very short in general. I
get the impression when playing omaha of just how much more complicated it
is than holdem and therefore how much more skillful. Indeed Dave Ulliot has
commented that hardly ANYONE knows how to play the game well..hence why he
cleans up in cash games.
I agree that it's more complicated than holdem. But two major differences
between PL Omaha and NL holdem are that (1) PL Omaha is a high variance
game, especially when there's a lot of preflop raising, so weaker players
can score large wins in the short-run even if they lose a fortune in the
long-run, and (2) as long as you have some idea what to do you won't do
THAT badly, since most postflop all-in confrontations are close, unlike in
holdem. That explains why PL Omaha games thrive in Europe, while NL and
PL holdem games tend to die out anywhere. Even online with a 50 BB max
buy-in, the NL/PL holdem games have far less action than they used to -
most weak players have gone broke.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
jarrett40
2004-04-01 18:21:05 UTC
Permalink
One reason limit poker is so prevalent is that limit games can go on
forever whereas pot limit or no limit has[usually] a limited life
span. I do know of a pot limit game in Texas that has been going in
one form or another for 40+ years in one location or another but only
once or twice a week in good times and almost dying for months at a
time when some of the players get broke and have to get their
bankrolls pumped up.
Simply put, the players are much more likely to go broke [or badly
bent] in larger games,jeoparizing the existence of the game
itself.That is the last thing in the world a casino would want,
preferring instead that the money go round and round,dropping off in
the hole.So they spread limit games,knowing the players are less
likely to go broke.

jarrett40
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker? I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
Brokergeng
2004-04-01 20:26:02 UTC
Permalink
As other posters have pointed out, its a way for the "little" guy to
play a bunch of hands and not loose everything to one mistake. I'm
one of em. Started playing 2 months ago and yes at times it can be
tedious, but I'm building my skill set for putting players on hands
and building a bank roll so I can one day make the move to NL.

Figure I need to fully understand that yes I might win with J/9
offsuit occasionally but most of the time I'm throwing the money away.
I'm getting better at throwing away that Axo but its still not as
easy as it should be for me to move to NL

Maybe if your money wasn't such a funny color more US sites would take
it (grin). Guess its a law of supply and demand. More demand for
limit right now.

-Geng
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 20:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Fair comments. I'm glad I raised the post now, as I have been genuinly
enlighted. May be I've taken NL and PL for granted as I've been playing
poker for about 20 years (since the age of ten), and the first time I played
limit was when I was 20+, and I got an American computer poker game :o)

However after reading the posts I understand that beginners haven't yet
gained the confidence (nay balls) that I now possess through playing for
1000's hours (I know I'm sad). So keep plugging away, and when you learn
your trade I'll be happy to play you in a PL or NL game or two. And no, I'm
not so arrogant to assume that I'd necessarily win, or even be favourite.

As long as players enjoy the game (whether its limit/PL/NL) that's all that
really matters.

I'll leave it at that now...thanks to everyone that has responded, it's been
an interesting and productive discussion :o)
Post by Brokergeng
As other posters have pointed out, its a way for the "little" guy to
play a bunch of hands and not loose everything to one mistake. I'm
one of em. Started playing 2 months ago and yes at times it can be
tedious, but I'm building my skill set for putting players on hands
and building a bank roll so I can one day make the move to NL.
Figure I need to fully understand that yes I might win with J/9
offsuit occasionally but most of the time I'm throwing the money away.
I'm getting better at throwing away that Axo but its still not as
easy as it should be for me to move to NL
Maybe if your money wasn't such a funny color more US sites would take
it (grin). Guess its a law of supply and demand. More demand for
limit right now.
-Geng
chippedup
2004-04-02 11:41:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:44:09 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
Fair comments. I'm glad I raised the post now, as I have been genuinly
enlighted.
no your not.
Post by Edward Bird
However after reading the posts I understand that beginners haven't yet
gained the confidence (nay balls)
again with the digs.

Hmm who bailed your ass out of the last two time Germany got 'ball up'
and decided to kick you ass?
Post by Edward Bird
that I now possess through playing for
1000's hours (I know I'm sad). So keep plugging away, and when you learn
your trade I'll be happy to play you in a PL or NL game or two. And no, I'm
not so arrogant to assume that I'd necessarily win, or even be favourite.
Yes you are.
Post by Edward Bird
As long as players enjoy the game (whether its limit/PL/NL) that's all that
really matters.
Oh now it matters. Seemed you were more concerned about insulting
anyone who does not agree with you.
Post by Edward Bird
I'll leave it at that now...thanks to everyone that has responded, it's been
an interesting and productive discussion :o)
No it has not.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
WuzYoungOnceToo
2004-04-01 20:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
You seem terribly ill-informed:

1) There is no such thing as an "American" poker site. Such
businesses are not legal (unfortunately) in the US and are run by
off-shore companies.

2) The major on-line poker sites that ARE used by Americans all offer
a large number of no-limit and pot-limit, at least in the Hole 'Em
category. Which sites have you joined that only spread limit?
Post by Edward Bird
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites.
I've already exposed this to be nonsense. I play no-limit Hold 'Em on
Ultimate Bet daily, and have seen a similar (though to a somewhat
lesser extent) selection at Party Poker and Poker Stars. I've heard
(but not confirmed) that there are others as well.
Post by Edward Bird
I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people
This latter comment (as well as similar snide remarks in your other
posts) reveals you to be just another twit engaging in gratuitous
anti-American snobbery...which is far more boring than limit poker.
Edward Bird
2004-04-01 21:22:19 UTC
Permalink
haha. Well what a shame...

I was prepared for this kind of response (i.e. three lines of personal
critisism). We have had a constructive debate up until this point. My
comments about the sites are a generalisation, as I haven't tried all of
them but have tried a reasonable selection now (eight). And no, they are not
ALL limit but mostly. However I am thankful of your suggestions in this
area, and will investigate further.

I wasn't making derogatary comments about americans, I have got nothing
against americans as a nation, why should I? My comments are strictly about
limit poker. I have already apologised in an earlier post (which you clearly
haven't read) if I have caused anyone offence.

It may seem to you that I am ill-informed. Let me assure you ... I am not. I
am aware of how Internet companies operate and of the conservative US laws
concerning gambling. The point is that they CATER for the american market
(and are probably owned by US firms even if they are not located there),
which is easy to tell by looking at their cashing in/out policies. However
this is utterly irrelevent to the subject of the message which was
essentially about limit poker, and the lack of choice and access for
european players (subjects that have also been covered on previous posts if
you would care to read those as well).

There is no need to make personal comments about someone and to resort to
the frankly childish behavious of name calling...i.e. twit etc. Discussions
very quickly degenerate into slanging matches and both parties are left
feeling angry. There is far too much of this kind of thing in this
discussion group already.

I'll almost positive that if you read through all of the threads on this
discussion you would see that I have been quite fair (although perhaps my
knowledge of individual web sites is lacking).

If I have offended you personally, I will take this opportunity to
apologise. I would welcome any comments you have about the limit versus no
limit debate :o)
Post by WuzYoungOnceToo
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
1) There is no such thing as an "American" poker site. Such
businesses are not legal (unfortunately) in the US and are run by
off-shore companies.
2) The major on-line poker sites that ARE used by Americans all offer
a large number of no-limit and pot-limit, at least in the Hole 'Em
category. Which sites have you joined that only spread limit?
Post by Edward Bird
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites.
I've already exposed this to be nonsense. I play no-limit Hold 'Em on
Ultimate Bet daily, and have seen a similar (though to a somewhat
lesser extent) selection at Party Poker and Poker Stars. I've heard
(but not confirmed) that there are others as well.
Post by Edward Bird
I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people
This latter comment (as well as similar snide remarks in your other
posts) reveals you to be just another twit engaging in gratuitous
anti-American snobbery...which is far more boring than limit poker.
Jeff Porten
2004-04-01 21:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker? I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame.
And what I'd like to know is why it's the other way around on your side
of the Atlantic. Granted that the Euro is doing very well against the
dollar, but it's not like we're a backwards economy. Yet.

Still, when an American walks into a casino, they prefer to play limit
(and frequently low-limit), while a Brit prefers to be able to bet the
house. Why is that? It's facile to say, "you get to play longer and
preserve bankroll". So the presumption is that Americans are
cheaper/frugal/wiser/know better the value of a dollar? Hogwash.

I think that we're actually touching on interesting questions of social
mores and comparitive risk perception. It's not about the bucks, it's
not about the bankroll, it's about the morals.

Observation #1: for most of the last century, casinos in Europe were
places you only entered wearing a tux. Or at least, James Bond in
Monte Carlo was the deliberate public image. Meanwhile, casinos here
had a public image of "all you can eat for $1.99!"

One might argue -- I'm not sure if I am just yet -- that the former
image attracts the "wager it all on one roll" crowd, whose interest is
in the thrill of the wager. Give him that adrenaline surge, that's
what he's there for. The latter image attracts the type who is more
likely to spend the rest of the night throwing up after losing a big
bet, rather than recounting the tale at the bar to his cronies.

Observation #2: someone who's playing for an adrenaline surge, and who
is noncompulsive, will likely not value the length of time he gambles.
For the more conservative player, the adrenaline comes from a series of
small wins and losses over time; so there the value is instead -- did I
get my rush eventually? And if I lost money, did I enjoy myself? That
last bit over here tends to mean, "How long did it take me to lose that
money?"

What's considered to be a "normal" gambling session in Europe? (Poker
or non-poker.) My observations in America is that for most people, the
limiting factors are time or money; given a long weekend and a fat
wallet, people will stay in the casino nonstop and will leave only to
eat or perform minimal bodily maintenance. Speaking for myself, I *do*
have an unconscious time length in mind when I sit down for nonpoker
gambling. There's a certain amount of time a $20 *should* last in a
video poker machine to be satisfying. Alternately, I've sometimes been
frustrated by an early, large win! So it's not merely a matter of
money. Other people might think differently.

This is probably why gambling is so enduring; scratch the surface of a
simple game, and you find half a dozen cultural laws playing themselves
out.
chippedup
2004-04-02 10:11:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:02:03 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was.
Was it as boring as this post?

Then I can at least imagine what you felt.


-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
chippedup
2004-04-02 10:54:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:02:03 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker?
It is fun, can be played with friends and does not require a bank to
play.
Post by Edward Bird
I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
Your either lying or stupid. I belong to three, and they all have
no/pot/limit for Holdem/Omaha/7stud/ one has Lowball (Ace and deuce).
Post by Edward Bird
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites.
Total bullshit.
Post by Edward Bird
I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
for you.
Post by Edward Bird
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
arrogant euro trash.
Post by Edward Bird
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot!
I don't have that problem.
Post by Edward Bird
I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
Funny the way you say they play they would have to lose money. I hope
you are not representative of Europe. if so, then no wonder we have to
bail you people out.
Post by Edward Bird
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game).
Wow another cheap shot by the Euro-trash.
Post by Edward Bird
If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
Why do the Euro-trash, who can't fight for themselves and always come
back to us whining for help; want to tell us how stupid we are and how
we should be like them? Your losers, were not.
Post by Edward Bird
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
I play a 500/1000 game. Is that a small bet game to you also?
Post by Edward Bird
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
Horrible book.
-------------------------------------------------
A proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-------------------------------------------------
Terry
2004-04-02 12:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker? I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
Its biggest appeal is that loose players really do believe that any 2
cards can win and see enough draw outs to stay loose - until they lose
all their money.

There is alot of skill required to play limit (and indeed NL / PL)
poker well. Enough to result in profit over time against weaker
players.

If you do not think limit can be a great game to play then load up the
party poker client and check out some of the low limit games - pay
attention to the sorts of cards people play and stick around with.

I personally love playing PL and NL but confine myself to limit (for
ring games) because I really do not want to put significant amounts of
my poker 'bank' at risk on any one hand.
Travel
2004-04-02 12:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Thu, Apr 1, 2004, 12:02pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)



"I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many
times have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game,
just so they can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to
get the limpers out of the damn pot! I believe limit players
are.........."
..........................................................

Well, for one thing , you don't know how to play limit. If you can't
adjust to loose play, you suck.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 13:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Well, for one thing , you don't know how to play limit.

Interesting observation from someone that's never seen me play limit poker.
I'd be interested to know where you got this information? Strike that, I'm
not at all interested.

If you can't adjust to loose play, you suck.

hmmm. True. However there's nothing that can be done in some situations in
'no foldem holdem', and it's very boring to sit for 3 hours waiting for the
absolute nuts.
Travel
2004-04-02 14:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004, 2:47pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)

-"Well, for one thing , you don't know how to play limit."

"Interesting observation from someone that's never seen me play limit
poker. I'd be interested to know where you got this information? Strike
that, I'm not at all interested."-

I don't have to see you play. You're statement (which i quoted in the
above post) identifed you as someone who wrongly believes that
tightening up and waiting for the nuts is the way to play loose games.
............................................




-"If you can't adjust to loose play, you suck."


"hmmm. True. However there's nothing that can be done in some situations
in 'no foldem holdem', and it's very boring to sit for 3 hours waiting
for the absolute nuts."-

I rest my case.



You stated that you learned limit Hold 'Em reading Sklansky. This could
explain your short comings with regard to loose games.

But it doesn't explain why you can't think for yourself... and continue
with a losing strategy.

Loose games are made up of bad players. This should be very profitable.
If you can't beat these games, you're as bad as they are, but for the
opposite reason.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 15:18:42 UTC
Permalink
"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:14879-406D7A7A-***@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net...
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004, 2:47pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward Bird)

-"Well, for one thing , you don't know how to play limit."

"Interesting observation from someone that's never seen me play limit
poker. I'd be interested to know where you got this information? Strike
that, I'm not at all interested."-

I don't have to see you play. You're statement (which i quoted in the
above post) identifed you as someone who wrongly believes that
tightening up and waiting for the nuts is the way to play loose games.

Interesting as you made the comment before I made my last post?

In games where players are calling all bets through the flop, there is NO
point to drawing to anything other than the nuts...as you will make your
money from people drawing dead.

-"If you can't adjust to loose play, you suck."

"hmmm. True. However there's nothing that can be done in some situations
in 'no foldem holdem', and it's very boring to sit for 3 hours waiting
for the absolute nuts."-

I rest my case.

? er??? Which is?

You stated that you learned limit Hold 'Em reading Sklansky. This could
explain your short comings with regard to loose games.

What? I make the most money in loose games, as does any decent player! It's
the people who consistantly call your bets when you hold the best hand that
are considered loose. As I stated the problem arises when you have 9 player
drawing out on you, not just one. Their combined odds become considerable,
which is why the best hands so often lose after the fifth card has hit in
limit holdem. The whole thing becomes equivalent to playing bingo...(but
with the better players getting slightly better odds and therefore winning
slightly more money in the long run, but very boring in the process). The
point was not about whether 'I' personally win or not, but on the game
dynamics in general.

As for David Sklansky, he is a widely respected poker author, especially in
the field of limit poker. However you seem to know something he doesn't. Do
you have a book available for sale?

But it doesn't explain why you can't think for yourself... and continue
with a losing strategy.

? How can you make statements based on no legitimate information? You have
no idea how much I have won or lost.

Loose games are made up of bad players. This should be very profitable.
If you can't beat these games, you're as bad as they are, but for the
opposite reason.

hmm.

May I suggest that you keep personal comments to yourself, and stick to the
thread of the discussion in future. Your comments are personally offensive
and do not further the general debate. If you feel angry, go for a jog to
burn off energy. Don't come onto this newsgroup with negative comments about
people, because as I stated earlier "I'm not at all interested."
Matt I.
2004-04-02 16:09:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:18:42 +0100, "Edward Bird"
Post by Edward Bird
What? I make the most money in loose games, as does any decent player! It's
the people who consistantly call your bets when you hold the best hand that
are considered loose. As I stated the problem arises when you have 9 player
drawing out on you, not just one. Their combined odds become considerable,
which is why the best hands so often lose after the fifth card has hit in
limit holdem. The whole thing becomes equivalent to playing bingo...(but
with the better players getting slightly better odds and therefore winning
slightly more money in the long run, but very boring in the process). The
point was not about whether 'I' personally win or not, but on the game
dynamics in general.
This is true ('the better players getting slightly better odds and
therefore winning slightly more money in the long run, but very boring
in the process') if you continue to play 'by the book' (ie,
tight-aggressive, and very tight preflop) in such a game. If you
adapt to the game conditions, and play more premium drawing hands (Ax
suited and low pocket pairs being the prime examples) cheaply preflop
and aggressively postflop when you hit, you can make a LOT more money.
At least IMHO (and experience). The implied odds in such a game are
crazy.

You don't want to go up against 9 calling stations with top pair (or
even an overpair). You want to go up against 9 calling stations with
four to the nut flush and a backdoor K-high straight draw when they're
all drawing dead if you hit.
Edward Bird
2004-04-02 16:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt I.
You don't want to go up against 9 calling stations with top pair (or
even an overpair). You want to go up against 9 calling stations with
four to the nut flush and a backdoor K-high straight draw when they're
all drawing dead if you hit.
Agreed AA,KK etc. go down in value in those kinds of pots, the premium
drawing hands start to really become worthwhile. I'm not advocating nuts
play pre-flop...that is a clear loser in limit (but a big winner in a
lose/maniac no limit game). Likewise I wouldn't recommend playing 67 suited
early in an agressive short handed game at limit poker.

You are right to say it is important to be flexible in your playing approach
to games, and vary it according to the conditions and to not be formulaic
(which is where Sklansky comes undone). This is the mark of a good poker
player.
Travel
2004-04-03 10:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004, 4:18pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)

"In games where players are calling all bets through the flop, there is
NO point to drawing to anything other than the nuts...as you will make
your money from people drawing dead."
...........................................................

This is a lot of double talk.

First you say you don't like loose games because you're waiting around
for three hours waiting for the nuts; because loose players -never- go
out.

Well, that sounds like a complaint to -me-.

Then, in the next post, you indignantly exclaim that you win the most
money of any game, playing in loose games. That -doesn't- sound like a
complaint.

Which is it.

If, as you say above, you only draw to the nuts, then why are you
waiting around. Play more hands. Fold at the flop, not pre flop. Which
is the way to beat loose games.

Sklansky recommends waiting for premium pre flop hands, tightening up,
playing fewer hands.


Btw, you seem to have no problem dishing out the glib remarks, with the
faux apologies notwithstanding, but you don't seem to be able to take
it.

I don't know what the deal is with Da Pickle, but you strike -me- as
being a pompous ass.

Hope this helps.
Edward Bird
2004-04-03 11:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Me:

"In games where players are calling all bets through the flop, there is
NO point to drawing to anything other than the nuts...as you will make
your money from people drawing dead."
...........................................................

"This is a lot of double talk."

No it's not...it's perfectly logical. What's the point of drawing dead? You
would advocate that? If you're going to draw hands in a family pot situation
(found in typical low stakes limit games) you need to be drawing to the
nuts.

"First you say you don't like loose games because you're waiting around
for three hours waiting for the nuts; because loose players -never- go
out.

Well, that sounds like a complaint to -me-."

Yes...it is a complaint. It's the whole reason for the thread!

"Then, in the next post, you indignantly exclaim that you win the most
money of any game, playing in loose games. That -doesn't- sound like a
complaint.

Which is it."

It's both. Both arguments are not mutually exclusive. Any good player will
make money in loose games, because on average the hands that they bet with
will be superior. However, I would prefer a NL loose game that a low stakes
limit family pot type of game. In terms of hourly rate the NL game is more
profitable (however they are both loose games). The fact remains that I
personally find the limit structure boring. That's my opinion. I'm not
stopping you from playing it if that's what you like. I just tried to
stimulate a discussin about the merits of each type of game!

"If, as you say above, you only draw to the nuts, then why are you
waiting around."

This sentence is a non-sequiter.

"Play more hands. Fold at the flop, not pre flop. Which
is the way to beat loose games. "

Sklansky recommends waiting for premium pre flop hands, tightening up,
playing fewer hands."

Only true against observant opponents otherwise, Sklansky is right.


"Btw, you seem to have no problem dishing out the glib remarks, with the
faux apologies notwithstanding, but you don't seem to be able to take
it."

Actually I'm immune to critisism, especially when it refers to my character
and not the content of what I have to say. The reason I make apologies is
because I don't deliberately set out to offend people, unlike you it seems.
Do you have a problem with people apologising as well? Is it something you
personally avoid? You must be a superb poker player if you can even tell
when apologies are false over the internet.

I can't help it if people take critisism of a type of game or style of play
that they like personally ...that's their problem not mine. Also, I'm
allowed to change my opinion through the course of a thread. I do not
entrench myself in a position and refuse to budge from it (although I will
exhaust an argument first, and then when I'm satisfied I'll become
converted). After all, that's the point of a debate. If no one changed their
opinion, what would be the point of a discussion? We could all lock
ourselves away and pretend we were right about everything. That's half of
the problem of the world we live in.

"I don't know what the deal is with Da Pickle, but you strike -me- as
being a pompous ass."

hmm..this sounds a tad hypocritical.

"Hope this helps."

lol. Yes, great help thanks...
Travel
2004-04-03 13:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2004, 12:17pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)

I wrote:
-"Sklansky recommends waiting for premium pre flop hands, tightening up,
playing fewer hands."

Response:
"Only true against observant opponents otherwise, Sklansky is right."-
.....
This statement makes no sense. You're not -answering- questions or
explaining anything; you're -"fielding"- questions with book buzz words. =


And he's not right, he's wrong.

Why don't you explain the loose limit game strategy you use without the
bullshit. Starting hands, betting, position strategy ect. All at once.
Without taking advantage of parsing and changing your story per
question.
Edward Bird
2004-04-03 15:25:40 UTC
Permalink
My Response:

"Only true against observant opponents otherwise, Sklansky is right."-
.....
This statement makes no sense. You're not -answering- questions or
explaining anything; you're -"fielding"- questions with book buzz words.
.....

You're right. On its own, that statement makes no sense. However there are
no book buzz words. The statement needs to be put into context with your
comments about playing more flops:-

"If, as you say above, you only draw to the nuts, then why are you
waiting around. Play more hands. Fold at the flop, not pre flop. Which
is the way to beat loose games.

It becomes necessary to play more hands against observant opponents, as they
will easily put you on premium hands whenever you enter a pot. Playing more
hands in this situation makes you more difficult to read.

And he's not right, he's wrong.

Why don't you explain the loose limit game strategy you use without the
bullshit. Starting hands, betting, position strategy ect. All at once.
Without taking advantage of parsing and changing your story per
question.

My starting hand strategy is pretty much per Holdem Poker for Advanced
Players. I'm assuming that you've read the text, so I'm not going to churn
out paragraphs of information you are already aware of. I do try to mix
things up (I don't stick to his ideas religiously), and I will try and adapt
to a given table's dynamics. However I agree with Sklansky's ideas, and they
have proven profitable through the test of time for me. He is (I think)
widely respected throughout the poker community, and is one of the most
thoughtful, easy to under stand authors around. I'm not claiming to be a
world champ, or to know more than Sklansky. Limit isn't my game...but I can
usually win using Sklanskys strategies against mediocre opposition that
haven't spent time researching holdem poker.

I don't think I've changed my story over a long series of posts. Anyway, how
I play limit poker isn't the point of my original post! I've only been
responding to the questions I've been asked, out of courtesy, even though
they get further and further away from the original topic and eventually
descend into ridicule and cheap jibes.
Travel
2004-04-04 09:43:38 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
-"If, as you say above, you only draw to the nuts, then why are you
waiting around. Play more hands. Fold at the flop, not pre flop. Which
is the way to beat loose games."


Repsonse:
"It becomes necessary to play more hands against observant opponents, as
they will easily put you on premium hands whenever you enter a pot.
Playing more hands in this situation makes you more difficult to read."
........................................................

Wrong answer, -way- off.


Well, it took me a while, or rather it took -you- a while, but you've
finally, dialectically, hung yourself.



Also, i noticed you once again, didn't outline your loose game limit
strategy.

Instead, once again, you copped out and referred to Sklansky's book.
(but thanks for that revealing nugget above)

As i said, on loose game limit Hold 'em, Sklansky's wrong. (and now back
to -my- original point).....

..You don't like limit Hold 'em because,
-you don't know how to -PLAY- limit Hold 'em.

Still waiting to hear what you consider playable starting hands in loose
game limit Hold 'em....

Position strategy also, but i think we'll pull one tooth at a time. :-)
Edward Bird
2004-04-04 10:45:20 UTC
Permalink
In limit holdem, position is less important than PL/NL.

Therefore, before the flop I'm inclined to play suited connecters from any
position in a loose game, family pot. Pairs go down in value, especially
small - medium pairs. As long as I stick to good starting hands, I know I
can beat this type of game. As I said I will fold non-premium hands (ie.
fold 68, play 67) as I'm giving myself the best chances of hitting the flop.
In this way, I'm only commiting money to the pot when the odds are most
favourable. When I fold it costs me nothing. How can that be wrong?

The only difference would be in tournament poker, where antes are increasing
at regular interval. In this instance you need to get involved in more hands
to avoid being ante'd away. Obviously this doesn't matter so much at the
beginning (say if antes are 10/20, but your starting stack is 1500), but the
principal should be applied more as the antes increase (again this applies
to multi-way pots and not in pots with 2-4 players seeing the flop).

I hope this is explicit enough for you. If you consider the above strategies
wrong, I would be pleased to hear you advice as to how I can improve my
play?
Travel
2004-04-04 13:05:20 UTC
Permalink
"It becomes necessary to play more hands against observant opponents, as
they will easily put you on premium hands whenever you enter a pot.
Playing more hands in this situation makes you more difficult to read."
......
Well, above is the first -concrete- statement you made in an earlier
post with regard to -loose- game strategy. It's right out of "tight
game/good players" advice. What could this have to do with loose games.



Yes, you play more hands in a loose game, but definitely not for that
reason. It's mind numbing, i don't know where to begin to explain why
that strategy would not only be wrong but irrelevant at the same time.
.............................................................


"before the flop I'm inclined to play suited connecters from any
position in a loose game, family pot. Pairs go down in value, especially
small - medium pairs. As long as I stick to good starting hands, I know
I can beat this type of game. As I said I will fold non-premium hands
(ie. fold 68, play 67) as I'm giving myself the best chances of hitting
the flop. In this way, I'm only commiting money to the pot when the odds
are most favourable. When I fold it costs me nothing. How can that be
wrong?"
........
Above is your second and latest concrete statement.


Where did the suited connectors come from all of a sudden? Have you been
coached since the first statement....

Also, all of a sudden, you're redefining premium hands. You're
conveniently calling them "non-premium" hands.

Non-premium hands! who do you think you're kidding, they're trash hands.
In other words, you're trying to get away from your original statements
that you play only premium hands and have to "wait around three hours"
to get them.

Well, anyone can see the sea change of difference between your first
statement and your second statement, as weak and logically fragmented as
it is.

You need a better coach btw.

You're a long way from a convincing loose game strategy explanation.

And you'll get some argument around here about hands dropping value in a
loose game.
Travel
2004-04-04 13:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2004, 11:45am (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)



"I hope this is explicit enough for you. If you consider the above
strategies wrong, I would be pleased to hear you advice as to how I can
improve my play?"
...........................................................

Hey, you started out on this thread saying you win more money playing
loose games than any other game. But, you were bored with it because it
was beneath you're ability.

Your're true artist.

We're still waiting for you to tell us how you win all that money in
loose games waiting for AA and KK. We're waiting for -your- strategy, to
help us with -our- game.
Edward Bird
2004-04-04 14:07:12 UTC
Permalink
I was assuming some poker knowledge on your part so that you would
automatically put the phrase 'premium hands' into context.

i.e. for a multi-way pot as I stated pairs go down in value, suited
connectors go up in value. A premium hand in a no limit game would be 99...
as most money will be made hitting trips on the board against a player with
a top pair AK for example. However a premium hand in limit would be 76s for
example. As it has a good chance of hitting a nuts draw on the flop e.g. K45
flops, and because of the limit structure it makes it affordabel to call
through the flop (in multi-way action).

This isn't a new idea for me. I'd like to see where I said I sat around and
waited for AA/KK? Anyone who did that would lose. Did you seriously think I
was advocating that in a family pot?





"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:13750-40700B40-***@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2004, 11:45am (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward Bird)



"I hope this is explicit enough for you. If you consider the above
strategies wrong, I would be pleased to hear you advice as to how I can
improve my play?"
...........................................................

Hey, you started out on this thread saying you win more money playing
loose games than any other game. But, you were bored with it because it
was beneath you're ability.

Your're true artist.

We're still waiting for you to tell us how you win all that money in
loose games waiting for AA and KK. We're waiting for -your- strategy, to
help us with -our- game.
Travel
2004-04-04 15:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2004, 3:07pm (EST+6) From:
***@blueyonder.co.uk (Edward=A0Bird)



"This isn't a new idea for me. I'd like to see where I said I sat around
and waited for AA/KK? Anyone who did that would lose. Did you seriously
think I was advocating that in a family pot?"
...........................................................


I think it -is- a new idea for you.

I think you -were- advocating premium hands, as defined by everybody but
you it seems.

(67s is a primium hand? in what, fish? not in a tight game -OR- a loose
game)

Which includes but is not limited to AA,KK.



I think you play loose game limit poker the same as a tight game.

I think someone put you on to the suited connectors idea and you're
throwing them in now.

I think this is why you're leaving out other foremost and obvious
elements of playing loose games.

I think you're not aware of them because they aren't in Sklansky's book.

I think you're trying to disguise the premimum hand screw up.


I think you can't explain this screw up statement below and you're
avoiding it.

I think you're a weasel.

.......
Quote:
-"It becomes necessary to play more hands
against observant opponents, as they will easily put you on premium
hands whenever you enter a pot. Playing more hands in this situation
makes you more difficult to read."
.....
=A0"=A0Well, above is the first -concrete- statement you made in an
earlier post with regard to -loose- game strategy. It's right out of
"tight game/good players" advice. What could this have to do with loose
games."-

da pickle
2004-04-03 13:03:01 UTC
Permalink
"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:20152-406E9292-***@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...


<snip most of the post>

"I don't know what the deal is with Da Pickle, but you strike -me- as
being a pompous ass."

Hey, how'd I get in here? What sort of "deal" are you talking about?"
(Pssst .... Birdman, how'd he know about the deal?)
Travel
2004-04-03 14:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2004, 7:03am (EST-1) From:
***@nospamhotmail.com (da=A0pickle)
"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:20152-406E9292-***@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
<snip most of the post>

"I don't know what the deal is with Da Pickle, but you strike -me- as
being a pompous ass."

Hey, how'd I get in here? What sort of "deal" are you talking about?"
(Pssst .... Birdman, how'd he know about the deal?)
..........................................................

Because i can detect "deals" as well as "faux apologies"
right-through-the-internet, how else.
da pickle
2004-04-03 14:21:07 UTC
Permalink
"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:11396-406EC563-***@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2004, 7:03am (EST-1) From:
***@nospamhotmail.com (da pickle)
"Travel" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:20152-406E9292-***@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
<snip most of the post>

"I don't know what the deal is with Da Pickle, but you strike -me- as
being a pompous ass."

Hey, how'd I get in here? What sort of "deal" are you talking about?"
(Pssst .... Birdman, how'd he know about the deal?)
..........................................................

Because i can detect "deals" as well as "faux apologies"
right-through-the-internet, how else.


But what has that got to do with ME?????
Steve Waugh
2004-04-03 16:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Nolimit is all skill game, just like chess.
I am an IM in chess.
I hated chess because there is no money in
chess except for the top 3 players in the world.

I play poker to make money.
Not to prove that I am a better player.
In that sense limit is where money is in.
Post by Edward Bird
I recently made the big mistake of entering a single table limit holdem
tournament on Ladbrokes poker, instead of the usual No Limit game. I simply
couldn't believe how tedious and boring it was. Even though the players are
given fewer chips than the equivalent No Limit tournament, it seemed to drag
on for ages.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans, as the inventors of poker, have such
a fascination with this form of poker? I have joined several American poker
sites and they virtually all only offer limit games, (even for Omaha!),
which is a real shame. The choice for no limit and pot limit games is
therefore somewhat limited (if you'll excuse the pun) to Ladbrokes, Victor
Chandler and now recently William Hill...all European sites. I believe
Empire Poker have big bet games, but they don't offer straightforward
buy-in/cash-out procedures for non US residents (another shame).
I don't believe the argument that limit is more skilful...how many times
have you been drawn out on by an inferior hand in a limit game, just so they
can make one bet on the river [DOH!]? It's impossible to get the limpers out
of the damn pot! I believe limit players are simply scared to lose money or
they want to make the game last longer (in a similar fashion to someone who
covers 95% of the table in a roullette game). If this is the case, why not
play in 'fun' games that don't involve any money?
If someone can give me a good argument for limit over big bet poker, I'd be
happy to hear it! Otherwise I can only recommend to most Americans and other
misguided people that they read Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart
Reuben & Bob Ciaffone, be converted, and break the chains of tradition!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...