Mason has been railing on 2 chip 3 chip games for like 8 years at least. To this day I still have never seen a proper explanation for why those games are inferior to 2 chip 4 chip or 1 chip 2 chip games. Why is this such a secret? What exactly is it about them that makes them die off faster than other games? He usually alludes to complex statistical analysis but I just can't believe that a few paragraphs of explanation couldn't at least give us a slight understanding of why a 20-40 game expects to have a longer life span than a 15-30 game. For those of us who play a lot of live poker, it would be nice if we could give poker room managers at least some reasoning behind our requests that they not spread 2 chip 3 chip games.

wouldn't it be nice if we could get either of those games anywhere near Madison?

Hi Beaver:

In the 2 chip, 3 chip game, the two chip small blind tends to make some players call raises which they should not and which they would not in a 1 chip 2 chip structure. This in turn tends to speed up the whole game and the game burns out at a much faster rate than the more common structure.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi,

Not sure if this is related, but here goes;

More chips (live B&M) equal physically bigger pots; and physically bigger pots, is why some players prefer one game over another; again whether they realize it or not.

5-10 games that use 1-2 ($5) chips are usually not as popular as a step down $4-8 or a step up $6-12, that utilize ($1) more chips/not more dollars. While I think this statement is true in or for Limit games. I honestly don't know about NL.

Thank you for this. Now, just a couple more questions if you have the time to go into detail. Are you saying that because the small blind is more likely to call preflop raises that there are therefore more hands played per hour and therefore the losers are now losing more per hour? See, because by that logic online limit holdem is destined to fail simply because more hands run out at all blind structures. This might actually be true but I've never seen you say anything like that about online limit holdem. Just wondering if I'm missing something. Again, thanks for the reply.

All poker games are destined to fail unless new players show up or the current losing players get more money. Now what was your question?

Mason

Question 1: Are you saying that more hands are dealt per hour in a 2 chip 3 chip game than in a 2 chip 4 chip game?

Question2: If yes to question 1, are you saying that the increased number of hands played per hour has a negative effect on the overall, long term health of 2 chip 3 chip games?

Question 3: If yes to 1 and 2, wouldn't increasing the number of hands dealt per hour cause live ones to lose faster in any game, regardless of the structure? If yes, wouldn't more hands dealt per hour have a negative effect on any game regardless of the blind structure?

Question 4: Is there a window of 'hands dealt per hour' that you consider optimal? It seems to me that we don't want hands playing out too slowly because people get irritated and leave but we don't want hands played too fast because the player pool burns up too rapidly.

I don't speak for Mason, but I'm confident that's not what he's saying. He's not saying those game have more hands dealt per hour, he's saying the number of bets in the average pot is higher. In this context speed -> more action.

This being the case, your other questions are moot.

Look at it this way:

In a 1-chip small blind / 2-chip big blind, or 2-chip small / 4-chip big game, the most common justification for the small blind showing up with a vomit-inducing hand on the river is that "I was halfway in." If you have never heard this, then you have never played live poker (live limit poker anyway).

If being halfway in is enough for this player to call, being 2/3 in in a 2-chip-/3-chip structure is even more of a justification in his mind, meaning this player and those like him will be playing more -EV hands per hour than they normally would, thus increasing their loss rate beyond what it would be in the 1-2 structure.

I'm *not* saying that you shouldn't be playing more hands in the small blind in a 2-chip/3-chip. I'm saying that it is not a justification for playing 95+% of your hands, which some players think it is.

Actually, Mason has stated that in an unraised pot with a 2-3 structure it is correct to complete from the sb 100% of the time. I know players that don't but I agree with Mason and complete 100% in an unraised pot.