No limit sustainability in publishers note

[rjljr2]

Mason Malmuth states that no limit holdem is not good for card rooms, but that he wouldnt go into them in the note. Has mason expanded on this elsewhere?

[MCS]

I believe the short version is that bad players go broke more quickly than in other games, so it doesn't maintain a pool of fish.

[rjljr2]

Originally Posted by MCS

I believe the short version is that bad players go broke more quickly than in other games, so it doesn't maintain a pool of fish.

Sure, Mason said as much in the article. I just wonder what the long version looks like. Do buy in maximums help control some this burn out? Are there dissenting opinions? I tried a few searches on the Brick and Mortar forum, but perhaps my skills are not up to the task.

[Mason Malmuth]

Originally Posted by MCS

I believe the short version is that bad players go broke more quickly than in other games, so it doesn't maintain a pool of fish.

Bad players go broke quickly and come back less often, the games play too slowly, and there is less action. Plus some players get very upset when they lose a large amount on the turn of card, while they don't mind losing the same amount in a much longer period of time.

Also, when some players get ahead, they'll quit because they're afraid they'll lose it all in one hand. While in limit, they might make sure they quit a winner, but at least they won't stop immediately.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Originally Posted by rjljr2

Sure, Mason said as much in the article. I just wonder what the long version looks like. Do buy in maximums help control some this burn out? Are there dissenting opinions? I tried a few searches on the Brick and Mortar forum, but perhaps my skills are not up to the task.

I believe buy-in maximums definitely help, but most rooms have raised their maximums over time.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Donkey111]

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

Bad players go broke quickly and come back less often, the games play too slowly, and there is less action. Plus some players get very upset when they lose a large amount on the turn of card, while they don't mind losing the same amount in a much longer period of time.

Also, when some players get ahead, they'll quit because they're afraid they'll lose it all in one hand. While in limit, they might make sure they quit a winner, but at least they won't stop immediately.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hello Mason,

I have read a differing view a while ago: basically, bad players tend to prefer high variance games like no limit hold'em or pot limit omaha because in these games, they are getting enough big winning sessions to give them the illusion that they are winning players even though they are long term losers. On the other hand, bad players don't play low variance games, like razz, for a very long time because they are losing a lot more steadily and realise more quickly they are losing players. So generally speaking, there is more money to be made in high variance variants like NLH or PLO since you will play more often against bad players than in low variance poker variants; this also could explain the popularity of no limit hold'em.

Note I'm just repeating some opinion I have read. I am too much of a specialist to know better.

[SGspecial]

Originally Posted by Donkey111

On the other hand, bad players don't play low variance games, like razz, for a very long time because they are losing a lot more steadily and realise more quickly they are losing players.

Luckily NLHE players occasionally try razz and rarely realise that they are losing players in that game.

[striiing]

or omaha hi/lo