How good are the higher limit games here at Seattle? (I am moving over to Seattle in the Summer).

i'm thinking of going to the seattle area to play some 2/5 nlh.

any suggestions on where to go?

ideally, the table is mostly 100+bb deep. if everyone has $80, it's a no go for me

Table condition is determined largely by day, time, locale, and BI structure.

Out of the 4 variables, we only know locale (Seattle) and BI structure are either 20bb to 60bb (Sno) or 20bb to 100bb (Muck and Tulalip).

Why not? Are you talking strategy posts too or just stories?

No doubt I need to write in a non-tl;dr style. But sometimes there's value to details, yet I don't want the details to be overwhelming and detract from the main point. Typography helps organize.

Well, at least it sounds like they still have the money to go back and play limit. But it's shows that the capacity for sustainable juicy NL games is not endless.

Also this relates to the complaint that everyone has $80 on the table. Typically bad players might buy in max or near max to start, but if they bust out, they're going to rebuy short and just pick a hand to shove and hope to triple up. Often their selection of that "one big hand" is still pretty bad and you can probably get a nice winrate $80 at a time. Their short stacking is good for sustainability, bad for short-term winrate, bad for "playing poker" and showing off your NLHE skills.

I'm mostly a limit or PLO player but I'll play NL if the games are good. Really though I just want to see sustainable games where the weak players are having a good time.

The comment "don't do bolded" wasn't about the typeface. The original story included the OP coaching a bad player. Another poster quoted the story and bolded this text: "I started to coach him and let him know" and in their reply said "don't do bolded" as in "don't coach bad players at the table"

I travel and had the chance to play at Muckleshoot Poker Room recently. There were 5-6 tables running of the 3/5 No Limit Game. I sat down in a full game and was playing for 15 minutes or so and got a tap on my shoulder. I was told that the table was a "must move" I told the staff member I didn't want to move they said I had to?

Is this standard in Washington State?

I moved to the next table and sat down to stacks of $1500 - 2000 and I only had $475. I could not top up my chips? Is this fair.

Anyway, long story short I picked up and didn't leave to happy.

Does anyone know why the poker room does this ? I've played all over the place and with 5 tables running I've never seen a "must move" game.

Thoughts are appreciated,
MVPoker

It's an option for rooms that do not always have more than 3 - 4 tables.

What you should realize is that if there are 5 tables, only the first table is a must move, and you are free to move around the 4 tables.

It's a good way of making sure that all the earlier tables are filled.

Inherited problem of such game dynamic is many of these players will whine like little school girls, because they cannot afford to lose money. If you ever sat in a game full of whiners who should not be playing poker nor be in a casino, you would know how miserable such game is.

Great thing about most poker rooms in Seattle is that whining is minimal, except of course in the lowest stake of limit poker, and most rooms actually provide some value of social interactions. These social interactions will keep the players coming back and games alive.

Moderately so, yes.

• Must moves exist in many other states, usually to get a game started. (I see you alluded to this--yes, it's rare this would be for five games at the same stakes).
• Many places in other states have a "new game is must move for only two hours" rule. Where WA differs IME is, there's a much stronger sentiment that a game should remain MM forever. The rationale is that the main game should be protected from breaking no matter how long it's been going--18 or 24 hours after starting, even.
• WA also has some "may move" games, which were new to me when I moved here. In that case the main game has to be filled, but each player in the feeder game can accept or decline the move in order. If everyone declines, the new player sits directly in the main game. This seems like a good system, usually.

A better question is, why does this bother you? This sounds a lot like a common, besetting leak in many NL players' theoretical understanding.

What advantage do the $2000 stacks have over you? If, magically, the same game existed with the same players, but everyone else had a $450 stack, would that game be more attractive to you? If so, I'd suggest that there may be some misunderstanding of why effective stacks matter in NL cash games. (I am not a NL expert, perhaps you are, but I'm confident I'm on firm theoretical ground here.)

Your primary concern in getting moved should be, "Am I better or worse than the players at this new table?" If you're better than most of them, and their stack is deep enough that you have enough EV to keep playing, who cares whether they cover you by 3x or not? But since you're complaining about the move, I infer it wasn't a softer table. Why would you want to be deeper stacked against good players?

Gotcha. Duh, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, coaching at the table is -EV of course. It's also a good opportunity to reflect on why we feel the need to do something -EV. Ego is human nature and we want our poker knowledge to be respected. This is especially true in the story, where Hero is being berated for perfectly solid play. What would it take to let it go?

Forgive the armchair psychology but these are questions I ask myself. I really think this reflection helps my game as much as studying a few hand histories.



===
I can control myself in "standard" games like HE and O8. But when it comes to rare games like triple-draw, I give advice under my breath at times when it's debatable whether I should. But I really love that game and want to see it thrive, and giving out little bits of knowledge feels like an investment. If I drive everyone to go watch DeathDonkey's videos then maybe I lose my edge, but experience says this doesn't really happen.

I mean, this is a TD game where people are making all kinds of fundamental mistakes like open-limping and failing to bet draws when one card ahead. So maybe it's not giving away the store to say, slightly away from the table, that 8654 isn't a good starting hand.

But that's different.... I can maybe come up with a TD example analogous to 99 vs AK but this is already tl;dr.

No problem

Armchair psychology not just forgiven, but encouraged -- I totally agree with you. I'm pretty new to poker as a game of rigorous study (after years of casual play) but already I've felt the urge to open my mouth about strategy at the table, and you totally nailed the reason why - I want to be recognized for my effort to learn to be good at the game. Learning to recognize ego-in-action and to not react from that place seems to be pretty key to playing a disciplined game.

I know absolutely nothing about triple draw beyond the basic mechanics. Can you recommend any good books or other resources for learning basic strategy? I'm a long ways off both in terms of skill and bankroll from taking a shot at the 15-30 TD or mixed game I've read about here, so I doubt I would actually play the game, but I love reading about poker.

Thanks for the feedback. I hope sharing my own internal monologue proves useful.

Separate post in case 2+2 wants to scold me/delete this for talking about external products, although I don't know of any restrictions.

"Triple the Gold", 8 vids from Deuces Cracked. Best imo AINEC. DeathDonkey, 2016 bracelet winner in triple draw mix. Free 7-day trial, or well worth subscribing for one month to DL this content. Pity they no longer do any new mixed game content.

Negreanu's section in Super System 2 is helpful if pretty basic.

2+2 "draw and other" forum ldo.

Maybe Ken Lo's mixed games book has something helpful, but I Haven't read it.

Thanks!

That's not standard FME at Muckleshoot. Could it possibly have been a misunderstanding? No reason you can't top off to max buy-in at any point in time, regardless of table changes.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Re: Muckleshoot "Must Move"

Effective Stacks "matter" on many levels. My point was that you get moved to a game that is not of your choosing. Then the "must move" table suddenly if "off" no more must move and players move to "said" table.

It's not a complaint btw I just found it very obvious that the floor staff was manipulating the must move to feed the "locals" This may be less obvious to a random guy who is just coming in for a few drinks and some Poker.

I understand "must move" games to a "main game" full. However, with table changes and becoming an instant short stacker it's a real "homer" move.

Like I said before... I play all over Cali, Vegas, Florida, I've seen must moves in small rooms that have 2 games but never 5 + tables with a list. If there are 5 games and a list.. just let next player on the list go to the open seat. It's faster and leads to more racked hands. If the games get short then put the must move on.

I spoke with a guy offline regarding this issue and seems like it's a recurring theme for Muckleshoot and many players are going elsewhere. He mentioned Fortune in Renton and Toolaylup north of Seattle.

Thanks for the input,
MVPoker

You misunderstood what he meant.

He's saying he cannot add enough $ to put himself in a favorable position against $1500+.

That's by far the best phonetic spelling of Tulalip I've seen. Thanks for the grin.

Fb


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What do you mean, "favorable position"?

In a cash game the $1500 stack has no inherent advantage over a $300 stack (in fact it's the opposite, slightly). It's not a tournament. No one can make you leave the game if you have enough money in your pocket to rebuy.

Maybe the player with the $1500 stack is really awful at poker so you regret not being able to win more of her money, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Also, bad players have a psychological leak where they may fold to "hang onto their stack" as though they're in a tourney, but again, that shouldn't apply.

Sorry if I'm just misunderstanding. Like I said, I'm not great at NLHE but I thought this was pretty basic theoretical knowledge.

Reading comprehension failed.

I was merely relaying my interpretation of what he said.

It was unclear whether "favorable position" was your assessment or his, but I do appreciate the clarification. I'm still curious whether this is my theoretical misunderstanding or MVPoker's.

Ftr I read the initial post as though he felt he should be able to top up to 1500-2000

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I'd always happy to move to a table with more money for what it's worth.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

It's operating procedure to protect the main games; there is no conspiracy to "feed the locals".

If it were like most other rooms, you end up with a slew of table change requests and games breaking. The golden hour of lists to just fill every empty seat is a fantasy.