In the long run, if there are no blinds there is no game. In the short run?!?

Last night we played a hand with no blinds at all. A player walked so we played a hand with two big blinds. It should next be small on button, small, big. But the dealer then moved the button to the walking players seat, and we played with a dead button, two smalls, and a big. I didn't notice till hand was completing. Dealer called floor and fix was button was moved to player who should have had it in previous hand, and we played a hand with no blinds to reset button.

Obviously no one should play anything but aces in this spot, because there is nothing to play for. The walker had returned and obviously declined to post to play for nothing.

So Dealer deals the hand and two players limp.

Wish I saw that. That can't ever be the correct ruling.

So who acted first preflop? First to the left of the button or third to the left of the button?

Pretty sure you were there and were first limper, first to left of button with 54s.

Ducey reaches deal with tribes to limit gaming to existing reservations

http://m.kdminer.com/news/2016/nov/2...-existing-re/?


I wonder if this part means anything for Talking Stick poker room.

"The deal officially is between the state and all of the tribes. It offers them some additional gaming opportunities – more poker tables and keno games now and possible additional casinos after 2026 – if they, too, will limit gaming to existing reservations until then."

as for me i wouldnt give them any new casinos unless they followed the state law on non smoking.

Remember when Calfornia poker rooms faught and lost the no smoking law in their rooms.
They starting seeing people they had not seen in years, they told them quite coming because the smoke bothered them. Rooms started seeing 15 to 20 % increase in business.
I guess the casinos do not know there are more non smokers who do not enter their stinking smokey casinos and loosing money every day. Smokers will still come as they do in poker rooms and go outside when they want to smoke. They are use to having to go outside as with any other business they go to.
SMOKING KILLS PEOPLE AND BUSINESS PROFITS.

SOME BUSINESS ARE TO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER

clap, clap on that one. you are so right. es0ecially on the indian casinos as they are usually far apart and have little competition.

Let's just make it clear that CAZ's room doesn't allow smoking and hasn't since they built the new casino (the tent didn't allow smoking in the poker area, but you were in a big tent so you'd smell like an ashtray if you sat anywhere near the rail).

Been a long time since I've been to Gila River so can't comment there.

They haven't allowed smoking in the poker room in Gila River since like '06 or '07.

There is smoking in California Indian casinos. Maybe not in the poker rooms, but there is certainly smoking in the casino itself in spite of California's indoor smoking ban, unless something changed recently.

I always loved smelling smoke for the first time when I went into a Vegas casino if I hadn't been there for several months. It smelled like freedom.
(I can't stand cigarette smoke.)

Anyone heard if the new compact will include an increase in the betting cap or maybe a removal of it entirely?

I dont think so...
True no limit (poker)in AZ would not be good for the long term health of the player bankroll, to many would get busted to fast.

And kill the lhe and mixed game action.

Which states outside of massive California are known for their LHE?

Minnesota, Colorado and AZ. And all have betting limits.

Yes, there are good arguments for and against the existence of betting caps and buy-in caps. Do we really want to go down that rabbit hole? I was wondering about the possibility, not the merits, of changes to the cap.

I said that the Phoenix player pool can't support two major poker rooms and now I will find out if that's true assuming the Glendale casino has plans for a big room.


ETA: If AZ ends up w/ mostly 1-2 and 2-5 NL I'll probably just stop playing. I keep giving the 2-3-300 a try and can't stand it. I know some ppl say that they get in great games but I never seem to be at a table w/ a really big pot more than once an hour or so, if that.

The 2 San Jose rooms got NL authorized a few years ago. There are still plenty of LHE games from 3/6 to 80/160 and during reasonable hours all available tables (20-24) are used most of the time. The people playing NL aren't the old LHE players anyway, they are the old spread limit 5-200 players.

I agree there arguments on each side, but i understand you point was , will they change, no whether they should.
I haven't heard they will, and i would speculate that IF limits changed we would likely see a slight increase in he betting cap at worst/best.
I dont think, that true NL or lifting the limits in Blackjack would be a consideration in either the near or distant future to be honest.

I've never played in a great 2/3 game, it's usually a table of 5-6 limpers, someone raises the flop, and everyone else folds. I won't play it anymore unless I'm waiting for a 3/5 game to open and I'm trying to kill time. Have you heard how big the poker room is going to be in Glendale? It's MUCH closer to me so I'm hoping for some good games and tourneys there.

I have no idea how big the room's supposed to be. My view is rather simple: Talking Stick has a lot of games and if the other casino draws players like you bec it's closer then Talking Stick will not have a lot of games. IIRC you hate the Talking Stick tourney structure (I apologize if it's somebody else) but I really don't think they will be much different. OTOH, I want everybody to be happy so GL.

You had it right, except for the state tourney, which I love, I hate their tourney structures. I understand why they do it, but whatever. I honestly wouldn't worry too much about losing a lot of players from talking stick, I live about an hour away with no traffic, which means I make it out there maybe once or twice a month.

Another inexplicable rule change, you can now only be on three lists at a time. So if i come in and want to get on both 20 lists so i get in a game quickly, i have to choose either the 40 holdem or 40 mix list. And no 75 lists at all.

How are they going to get higher stakes games going if they won't let you get on a list?

This was always the rule pre bravo for the jackpot eligible games. I'm not entirely sure if the rule stayed in place since the bravo system upgrade tho, haven't been in town to play much since then.

This is a tough spot and I don't know whats going to happen when lists get manipulated (which they will) and players get shut out. One nice thing about bravo is you can protect yourself from the above by being on most lists. Now what happens if I get on 40 Holdem, 40 mix and 75 mix lists (all games that run often and Ill always play) and everyone decides to start a 75 holdem list to shut out people on 3 lists. or they start a 100-200 list knowing people can't sign up.

In the past the floor has been pretty fair about using existing lists for new games or just refusing to make a 1-2 list in conjunction with 75 for example.


On the other hand I can understand why the rule was put into place. There are just to many people that get on every list just in case a huge action player comes in or there game gets worse etc. when they have really no intentions of playing the game.
This is a big problem because (1) it creates way more work for the floor people than is necessary and (2) its hard to start games when there are 9 people on a list for a game and 6 of them have a 5% chance or less of ever playing the game.... so I think the rule is really in place to force people to only sign up for games they actually intend to play, which is entirely reasonable.


So the real question is how to implement a system where player A doesn't put himself on the list for 13 games while also making sure he doesn't get screwed over if a new game he will actually play does start


One possible option (we've done it in the past a few times) is simply to have a list for green chip limit games: so if you are on the list and either a 75 mix or 150-300 holdem starts you get the first right to sit in that game. This is fair but extremely problematic, especially when you want to start a game and there is disagreement over mix or holdem or 7 handed vs 9 handed when there are >7 names on the list but these problems can just as easily arise when there are >7 names for 75 mix list.

The greater problem is this list will be clogged up with lots of people having no intentions of playing as its a great insurance policy in case a great game starts and 30 names will be on the list but we won't be able to start a game if its called down

The other problem is that there are plenty of players that put themselves on lists for games they aren't going to take and then when the floor calls down a game (either interest check or to start) they give the thumbs up knowing full well they will never take the game, but they just want to stay on the lists (I've been guilty of this myself but once I get into my main game at least I always say no or take me off all the lists. But I am somehwat guilty of always getting on list for other game when there is both a mix and holdem running to proetect myself from my game ever breaking)

If you are playing 25-50 spread and they do an interest check for 20-40 OE for example, its ok to say no, you don't want the game. You don't need to give a thumbs up just to stay on the list.

There aren't a ton of ways to fix this problem outside of forcing somebody to take a game/seat if they say yes (which is unebforable and not very practical) or simply by not allowing people to get on those lists to begin with. And I think thats likely the reason they implemented that rule, to help rectify this problem, which I can somewhat get on board with

I may not play the 40 mix list when they call the list or have an open seat, but i would at least like the option. I may not like the lineup or games. If the list is 4 people but there are three others who will play but weren't allowed on the list how will they they know they can start a game?

If someone thumbs up for a new game, when the game starts just have them picked up from their current game and sell that seat. Problem solved.

When it comes down to floor convenience vs. customer satisfaction with why would convenience win?