Lee Jones interviewed by Pokernews

So Lee Jones is of the view that "soccer moms" prefer Candy Crush over poker because it's fun and relaxing, without the testosterone element.

Are women so put off by the "aggression" in poker that they can't enjoy a $5 donkament online?. Feels a bit silly to me, but I don't no any poker playing females personally, pro or recreational.

Thoughts?

My fiancee, while not a "soccer mom" is a poker playing Candy Crusher. She plays more Candy Crush than poker not because of the other poker players but because it is easier for her to play.

By easier I mean the difference in the physical acts needed to start playing Candy Crush versus playing online poker.

I play a lot more Angry Birds than I do poker for pretty much the same reasons.

One more thing. I disagree that a partial answer is to make Limit popular again. If the overall need is to make poker fun, limit is the the wrong vehicle. It's BORING!

Agreed, the only way they could suggest worse is trying to popularize 7 card stud again.

It's be okay if it was NL or PL 7 card stud.

Yea, there's tons of tilting quotes (like the limit idea) in that interview, we have a separate thread going on SSPLO.

Thought this was the appropriate place for the gender aspect

Whats wrong with 7cs? I think that one of the problems with poker today is that there is way too much emphasis on NLHE, like it's the only game on the planet. I also think that no limit is a turn off for new players because their mistakes are so magnified.

I believe it is a better path to get started in poker playing limit games where, as Lee points out, making a bad call or two isn't so disastrous. Beginning players aren't comfortable playing for stacks, and don't understand things like pot/stack ratio or pot commitment. Heck, some of these folks are just trying to remember if a straight or a flush is higher.

Pre-Moneymaker, most of the ladies events were LHE or 7CS and it was how women were getting introduced to the game. I was glad to see the evolution to NLHE, but sometimes I think that we knocked out some of the rungs of the ladder for new folks learning how to play.

Also, from the prospective of an online site that wants to make the fish last longer and stick around, it really would make sense to encourage more beginning players to play limit before moving on.

Shauna

The problem with this line of thinking is rake. Of course sites like Stars would love to see the return of limit as it reduces edges between regs and makes the recreationals lose slower - increasing the effects of rake and resulting in a bigger portion of the pie for Stars.

I don't wanna trash mixed games at all, but it's important to stay vigilant when sites start advocating for changes they claim are designed to protect the fish and cater to their needs.

Stars already spreads multiple variants of limit poker. If recreationals find those games easier/more exciting/less aggro, all they have to do is sit down and play.
Stars also spreads nanostakes NL/PL games where the fish are welcome to bleed their $215 deposit two bucks per stack instead of buying into the Sunday Million - somehow the latter prevails. The nanostakes "regs" are also likely to pay that money back to Stars in rake before they're anywhere close to cashing out.

Cliffs:

-Fish losing fast doesn't mean they are less entertained and less likely to deposit again.
-Fish losing slow is good for Stars, bad for pros due to rake

First off, ignore anything Lee Jones says these days.

He lost all credibility after the way he (and Pokerstars) bungled the EPT Barcelona laptop thefts.

But I take exception to this comment:

Yes and no.

A limit fish will get crushed really quickly, just like a NL fish.

The limit fish will take more hands to lose in most cases (simply because he can't lose his whole stack in one hand), so yes, Stars will rake more from fish playing limit versus NL.

However, your post seems to imply that there are smaller skill differences between Limit fish/regs than NL fish/regs, which I don't find to be true.

I have no doubt the skill differences can be equally big in limit, but like you said they will take a lot more hands and rake to be realized.

FWIW, my wife wasn't put off by any "testosterone" from playing $5.50 SNGs. She was happy to play them and acknowledged that she didn't have an edge on the game. The problem Pokerstars has is that they don't realize that when nobody can see your mistakes, you're much more relaxed. Poker by nature exposes your flaws to at least 8 other people. When you lose at Candy Crush, you just deposit more money quietly and keep playing. Nobody knows.

If they want to attract the average gambler, they need to offer games that are just against the house where nobody can see their mistakes. Poker just isn't that game.

The complaint I hear from players live is constantly that they dislike slow/boring games. Now, that's not every player - we have our limit aficionados who love nothing more than to nurse a $40 stack for hours. But IME, the vast majority want some action, which is better generated by NLHE and Omaha games.

To each their own, but from a popularity standpoint, the swingier games seem to be better. And the limit games still exist for those who dislike the action, but the numbers tell the story. At my room, out of 52 full tables on a weekend, we'll have maybe 6-8 spreading limit games (HE and O8) and everything else is NLHE or PLO.

I didn't mean to imply there was anything WRONG with limit games, or stud, or any of the games that aren't as currently popular. There isn't. But growth in the game seems to be tied to excitement.

I am trying to help my girlfriend learn to play and we talked about Lee's comment...I don't see anything in it at all, he seems like a nice enough guy...however, she is not a soccer mom nor do I see her becoming one any time soon...I personally would love to see more women play just b/c it adds variety in the game in lots of ways...maybe not at my table, but definitely overall it would be nice. Watching Vanessa Selbst make such a great showing at the PCA was awesome and I hope good for getting women to play.

Most limit games are more action packed than NLHE and definitely swingier.

Well apparently not the way they play them at my place.

I think some people just don't feel it's exciting enough unless their entire stack is at risk at any time. That's not necessarily good or bad, but if you're one of those players, limit isn't going to be your game.

Plus, perception feeds reality. People perceive limit as slow, or for old people, and see the young well known names in poker playing PLO and NLHE, and so they shun draw and limit games as "boring" and play PLO and NLHE.

Again, I have nothing against draw or limit or razz or any particular poker game, I'm just explaining what I see on a daily basis in my poker room and where I think that mentality is coming from.