True theoretically.

If then the the idea that Is shortsighted, just adapt. True NL in the environment that is AZ Tribal Casinos will only speed the diminishing player pool and game availability/selection (faster than SL, it certainly wont SLOW it down).

More to the point i suppose i am asking how spreading true NL would be better on the whole for the AZ poker economy player/game base than the current SL games.
Do you think spreading true NL would bring a flood of new players?
I don't, it might bring some, but not enough to bolster the games for any extended period of time. It wont make AZ a poker destination because of it.

Realistically true NL will bust players faster than SL

As the table limits and blind values have vastly more to do with players going broke (permanently, from a poker perspective) than the table being 1-2 NL as opposed to 1-2-5-250 SL, I'm not sure I agree.

There are casual players who are confused by what we offer. When I explain to people what poker games are offered here, I can't just say, "1-2 NL." I have to go into a diatribe explaining that bets are capped and you can't limp for 2, and how it doesn't matter 90% of the time...

The game being NL instead of SL would bring in a few players.

The game size, and the danger to "breaking" fish, is almost entire determined by the table limits, blind sizes, and the daily cap on the ATM.

Most casual players don't have a "bankroll." They've got money to spend on Friday night and the ATM will let working Joe's have $300 or $500, and then they can double-dip at midnight.

A purely hypothetical discussion, but look at the strip-mall games offering NL -- they keep the buyins small, and keep their player base (so they can suck the life blood out of them slowly). Broke poker players don't make casinos money. This is the entire reason you offer low-limit.

...but anyway, I don't see NL breaking the AZ poker economy.

Your point s are valid, so are mine.
All i am saying is that true NL will bust the players and diminish the games faster than SL.

At the risk of perpetuating this argument, what do you think a "true" nl game is?

Semantic harder, bro. Wager all your betting discs.

If the blinds and buy-ins were the same, yes, a small portion of people would go broke that wouldn't have gone broke if the game was SL.

But I strongly believe that a 1-2 NL game with the ability to limp for 2 would actually be more inviting to new players and be less detrimental to the poker economy than the current 1-2 5-to-act games.

Legit question that came to mind as i was dealing last night:
How many players do you you think we would lose if it changed from SL to NL because of "fear", probably not quantifiable, or any different that asking how many we'd gain from spreading NL i suppose.

I ask because the were a number of games wherein i go the felling that several of the players felt "protected" by the betting cap.

I guess the test would be to offer both ( if we could) and see the direction players migrated.

Zero

Agree zero... might actually get the tourist who know the game a little to sit down as the NL always seems to be the term the tourists look for!

Zero.

I'll go with "So Close to Zero that it Doesn't Matter" just to be different.

Sooooooo, you're telling me there's a chance...

I think you guys might be surprised, but a moot point regardless ( i heard recently, there is no "mootness" in poker) don't anticpate its going to change anytime soon anyway.

While it's obvious to us that you could craft language in the tribal compacts that would specifically allow "no limit" poker to be played, it probably causes lawyers at the ADOG fits to think about unlimited betting -- and ending up with things like people playing Pai Gow Tiles for a hundred thousand a hand...

I don't even understand what they would mean by the rake wouldn't be high enough; that the game would be too slow so the rake would be less? Then couldn't they just make it a timed game instead? Actually I would think they make less from the 20/40 timed games than from the 8/16 raked games, so why do they bother having the timed games at all? Also, I thought I saw a low limit (maybe 6/12) hilow stud offered last year at CAZ; seems like that would be just as slow as a mixed game (or slower really if holdem was in the mix).

They're not refusing to start a no-limit game for any other reason than their compact doesn't allow for a no-limit game.

Absolutely. The local (3 miles from where I live) cardroom had only spread limit (5-200) and I used to save my play for my trips to Vegas to play 1/2 NL. I played twice as much in Vegas as I did locally. The $5 local drop had a lot to do with it as well.

Just look towards San Jose, where Bay 101 had a $200 bet limit, and voted in NL last year. They kept the spread limit games for several months, but I believe they are all gone now.

But, thanks to dealers complaining about tips, the 1/1/2 (dollar on the button blind) with $2 to limp game is gone. It's now 1/2/2 with $4 to limp. It kind of sucks.

CAZ games are not 1-2 5 to act though, they are 2/3 3
(as well as 3/5 5, 5/10 10)
IF it changed to NL i really don't know if the blind structure would be adjusted back down.( i doubt it would)
We had a 1/2 SL game for a period of time and the blinds/buy ins were adjusted up for a number of reasons players were much happier i haven't heard 1 complaint since.

Thanks. It's nice to see an actual example.

what do you think the difference is in Player/bankroll base from San Jose to PHX

I actually think they're pretty similar, both in terms of population and in terms of free income. While people make more, most of it's going to other bills.

I didn't see a great deal of difference to games I've played at, say, Bay 101, than I did in games here -- at least not a difference that wasn't explained by more so by culture (a larger Asian population) and by buy-in limits.

I don't really know what anyone's bankroll is.

But at the lower limits like 1/2 and 2/5 it doesn't matter much what region you're in unless it's a very poor area. At higher stakes there are probably more people with disposable income in the Bay area, but oddly enough, it seems like the marginal bankroll types were wiped out playing 100/200 fixed limit. During the day and evenings there used to almost always be 100/200 running, but it seldom runs now. And you used to see guys in their mid 20's come in on mid-week afternoons and drop or win 5 grand in 20 minutes and then leave.

Those guys were often stock option pseduo-millionaires. As in "Hey it's the 15th of the month and another ten thousand dollars in options just vested". But the recession has devastated the Sillycon Valley economy, and those options aren't worth much any more.

Tucson update - Casino del Sol's renovated poker room is supposed to have both sides done and ready to go on Wednesday. Guess I'll try again to get 2-5/3-5 going this weekend.

And the rake structure is the main one...

I for one prefer the 2/3 game to the 1/2 game because it plays bigger. The entry level 'NL' game is so much bigger than the entry level limit game, which is why I can make almost as much at a 2/3 game as I can at a 20/40 game in terms of long term hourly rate.

The 2/3 game is just too damn boring for me.

i saw someone asking about the 20/40 mixed game at the fort... a couple guys i play with play in it. i'm not sure exactly what nights it spreads but i know they only charge $3 per half hour with no rake. call the fort for info would be my suggestion... last i heard it ran a couple friday nights ago.

I heard Monday nights from someone who plays in the game regularly. Best time game rate in the country (and therefore the world) probably.