Apparantly a group of players has been trying to get a 20-40 mix game going on Monday nights at Ft McDowell. Have not called/visited casino to confirm but they claimed it has gotten going a couple times and didn't seem to be bluffing.

I've been interested in a lower limit mix game for a long time outside of Harrah's 3-6 POS game. I'd ideally prefer 15/30 or 8/16 but am willing to take a shot at 20/40. Casino AZ has adamantly refused to start any of those games due to claims the rake would not be high enough. This makes little sense to me considering spread limit games consist of people going into the tank for long stretches frequently...but whatever. If the Fort's able to get it going, good for them.

Its just lo8 and stud 8 apparently... it was running when i went there a couple of mondays ago (stopped in on the way somewhere) but had broken by 830

In the sense that any small live daily can be called anything but horrible, their 50bi+40AO isnt terrible.

3/5 4
5/10 1.
2/3 4

7 shootouts running currently!

Ya, it's a new game? I think it's only a few weeks old. I've heard its good, good action, and plays better than a Pot Limit Omaha.

Does Wild Horse still offer a 1/2 spread?

Yes. I paid 50% rake in it.

That's probably a no go then. Any 1/2 spread in the Valley with a beatable rake? I'm only sitting on 14Bi's for the limit, so probably don't want to jump into 2/3 until I've got some reasonable stability.

Hard to find but lots of home games seem to play 1/2... 2/3 at CAZ seems very normal for many to grind on the min buy in... Might worth stopping by and shoulder surfing to see what u think!

Why don't the AZ casinos have sports betting?

Federal law says no state can have sports betting except Nevada who was grandfathered in.

That's not entirely true.

...for purposes of this conversation, however, the answer is that there are a number of federal laws that complicate the issue, and that the State of Arizona has no laws that allow it.

You and I, of course, are allowed to gamble on whatever we want.

If someone else wants a cut of that action (a book, perhaps), then they need to have a deal with the state -- which nobody has.

Technically there are 3 other states that can do it, but it isn't real sports betting.

http://casinogambling.about.com/od/r.../sportsban.htm

Yay more bull**** government interference. I thought the reservations were "sovereign territory" anyway. Though I guess they're not sovereign enough to allow NL poker games if the state doesn't want them.

"sovereign" on an Indian reservation does not mean what it does in France. That's more of a hopeful euphemism for 'dependent and priviliged'

Do you think true NL would be good for poker as a whole in AZ?

Yeah of course. Less confusion and it would let higher buy in NL games run. Plus, true NL is what's played everywhere else in the world and what was originally played before the law was changed.

Is there any way it would be bad?

What kind of confusion is prevalent now? at least anything that is really detrimental to the game? What makes you think that a higher buy in would be better?( see below)

I assume you mean in Arizona, funny i dealt in AZ for years before that law was changed, and hardly if ever did i deal a NL game, we spread a lot of fixed limit( 100/200 ,150/300 mostly), NL was NOT was was played in AZ casinos then on the whole.

AZ doesn't have the professional player base or the bankroll to support true NL (especially the higher buy-in games) true NL would be bad because the average player couldn't afford the swings and would bust out much faster and not return at ll if not as regularly.

What kind of confusion is prevalent now? at least anything that is really detrimental to the game? What makes you think that a higher buy in would be better?( see below)

I assume you mean in Arizona, funny i dealt in AZ for years before that law was changed, and hardly if ever did i deal a NL game, we spread a lot of fixed limit( 100/200 ,150/300 mostly) IF higher games were spread,40/80 and 60/120 went like gangbusters.
NL was NOT was was played regularly in AZ casinos that i ever saw.

As much as you may think it might, AZ doesn't have the professional player base or the bankroll to support true NL for any extended period of time. (especially the higher buy-in games)
True NL would be bad because the average player couldn't afford the swings and would bust out much faster and not return at ll if not as regularly. The game would dwindle and the action would die much faster than the environment we are in now.

Well I for one am tired of the "No limit is not legal in Arizona" speech followed by a detailed explanation of how spread limit works to the player that's never seen it before when he comes up to the board visiting from out of state. This happens every 15 minutes on a busy weekend night. And I'm not even the one giving the speech.

I have witnessed a player when asked "Hey you wanna play 2-150 spread" reply no. Then in the very next breath asked if he would be interested in 1-2 NL as long as they put a $150 max bet on it say yes.

There is great confusion for the new and desirable player.

Chris Moneymaker.

we havent spread 2-150 ( 5 -150 actually ) in over a year that i am aware of so you are obviously talking about a room i am not associated with. Our room doesnt run in to that confusion much.
anyway...
You you would rather forgo a slight bit of confusion in explaining to players how the game is played to play a game that will ultimately bust the "new and desirable player's much much faster and cripple your ability to earn long term?( because the games will die for lack of players/bankroll)
Good thinking.

They should call it "no limit" with a max bet. It isn't as literally true but gets the job done faster.

Actually, the giant electronic freeway-side marquee next to Gila used to say "No Limit Hold'em" on it. [Despite that not being the truth...]

Not sure if it does today, but I took note of it several times since I live in the area.

The actual difference between NL and SL for the vast majority of games that are spread is marginal at best but I just like the idea of playing the universal game of NL rather than the "we're only spreading this because of Arizona government regulations" SL.

And saying that actual NL would be bad for the AZ poker economy doesn't make any sense. It's like when the NL boom started and people said that NL poker would kill poker because the fish would bust quicker. On the contrary, NL is a more popular game and helped the poker economy grow because that's what people want to play.

don'tjust say it doesn't make sense, explain your thinking, HOW does it not make any sense?
Explain why/how it would make it better for the overall poker economy in Arizona.

It hasn't happened in AZ (as fast/Yet) because NL ISNT played...get it?


It wasn't NL per say that "helped the poker economy grow" it was the fact that a no name accountant from Tennessee turned $39 dollar online satellite win into a multimillion dollar WSOP main event championship that started the "boom". It was not NL that brought the players, it just happened to be the game that was being played.

I think he already did.

The current SL games already emulate NL to the point that bankrolls are impacted roughly the same way. The table buy-ins and blinds are the largest factor.