Depends. They have the best location and the most tables (and thus the greatest likelihood of having a decent game at any hour).

But there are all sorts of reasons to play elsewhere, including: (1) game structure, (2) friendliness of regular players and staff, (3) food, (4) drop / rake, (5) convenience of location to you, (6) jackpots and promotions, etc.

Good luck to you. All I can tell you is that many, many live players have had rude surprises after thinking the laws of mathematics didn't apply to what they were doing.

Hopefully, when you get to the stretch where you discover that I am right, you have a large enough bankroll to ride it out. Otherwise, you will be out of poker and could suffer some serious life consequences. This happens to many players.

Sweet, I just moved to the LA area so I'm shopping around for the best place to play [given all the factors of course].

I have averaged slightly above $20/hr in ~1200 hours over three years in the 8-16 limit game at Commerce. I keep exact records of total won/lost per month, but I estimate the number of hours, so I could be off a dollar or two on the win rate, but I am convinced that game is beatable. In addition, that game pays $1.50/hr in food comps, and Commerce has very good, and reasonably priced, food.

but if u played a real game, instead of LIMIT POKER, couldnt u do far better per hour? with a smaller roll needed? i dont understand why anyone would still play limit unless they were so broke all they could afford is $2-4. anyone good enough to beat limit for $20 an hour could make about twice that in NL for far less risk. beating limit is 100x harder and u must be a lot better at poker to do that.

Is that a joke? Beating limit is 100x harder and you must be better at poker to do that? Limit is a joke compared to NL, all you do is strictly play the numbers/probabilities when playing limit with severely less psychological thought. Robots can play limit to great success

There really should be a containment thread for these idiotic "which is harder, NLHE or LHE" conversations.

To give this post the semblance of content, I hereby notify all commerce regs that I, a relative unknown, will be visiting your poker room next weekend for a few days to give away money. Happy to meet up if anyone wants some beers. I'll be at the 20-40 most likely.

Why? That's a ridiculous buy-in. Buy-in should allow for up to $300, or even more, for the $2/$3 game. You buy in with 33BB (and only 50SB!) and you are setting yourself up for a ****ty situation in trying to overcome the rake, and pretty much any hand such as TPGK warrants an all-in with stacks that small relative to the blinds.

That's not poker to me. That's shenanigans.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'll be visiting LA in a few weeks. Just confirmed with the Commerce that they have a $200 buy in game with 3-5 blinds and a $300-500 buy in game with the same 3-5 blinds. I'm a max buy player and would normally go with the $500, but that ridiculously low $200 game is really intriguing. Are the players in that game bad enough to create an EV equivalent to the $300-500 game, or should I go with my gut and buy in for $500 in the bigger game?

The $100NL Game is really bad. I think you need to be willing to stay at a table a bit to get a decent stack ($250-$350) that can more optimally take advantage of the poor play. It imagine it would be the same for the $200.

Let me know what you think. I'd like an outside view on our wacky set-buy-in games.

Yep. That is why I rarely, if ever, go to Commerce. Until you get several more steps up in the blinds, they don't offer an opportunity to buy-in for 100BB.

I think they do it in order to keep all the degens coming back for more. Most of these guys don't have a lot of money to their name and probably would stop coming regularly if they often suffered $200-1k losses instead of $40-$200.

Vegas casinos offer "standard" 100BB buy-ins for the small stakes games, but in contrast to Commerce, most of those players are tourists that are OK with losing a few hundred bucks at poker during just a weekend in Vegas. And if they want they can buy-in for less. I guess it really affects the business model when you need to rely on "regulars" instead of tourists.

And of course if LA casinos offered 40NL with .20/.40 blinds, they wouldn't make enough rake money

And for all the Commerce bashing that we do, right now - 10:30PM on a Thursday night - there are 85 live games and 14 (that's not a typo kids) 1/2 $40NL tables running at Commerce. Maybe it has nothing to do with what makes poker sense and everything to do with what makes business sense.....

There is a reason that poker is healthier in southern California than in the rest of the US, and it is connected to the fact that they do not have deep stacked NL games available. That format may be great for the good players in the short run, but it is horrible for the health of poker games in the long run, as the fish go broke too quickly.

This was pointed out in old 2+2 books years and years ago.

Ok but there is a huge huge huge difference between 100bb buy-in and 20bb buy-in. I mean, massive. The latter isn't even hold em to me. I mean even when most of us talk about playing short-stacked, we mean 50-60bb, which is still significantly more than 20bb. You want to talk about capping the buy-in at 50bb for the sake of preserving the game better/longer, sure, we can have that discussion.

But I certainly don't think it's worth absolutely massacring the game as we know it by capping the buy-in at at an extremely low 20bb.

But it's not really up to you or me. Commerce is in the business of making money. All you have to do is to drop in on a weekend night and see 200+ tables in action to see that their business model works for them.

And, all you have to do is watch the limpers at a 20BB table to understand just how bad these players are!

Oh I've played several times at those $1/$2 40NL games and I very well understand how those players are.

You're right it's not up to us, but that being said, that's why Commerce doesn't get my business. And on the Commerce thread on a poker forum, I cant see why we wouldnt discuss their absolutely ******ed buy-in structure.

And I certainly don't think it's a good thing for poker players to start advocating 20bb max buy-in games. To be honest, you might as well start pushing limit poker over no limit if your #1 concern is minimizing the losses that guppies incur at the table in order to keep em coming back

Agree 100%. I play down the street at the Bike or in San Diego County for this very reason. My point is that our complaining here in this forum isn't going to result in a change in buy in structure when Commerce has no business reason to change.

all im saying is no one can seriously claim the $40 NL isnt beatable who plays at commerce would know. maybe not by more than $50 a night over the longrun, but definitely beatable if u put in enough hours a night

You're absolutely right it won't cause them to change their structure, but I do want to notify and give heads up to non-local 2+2'ers or others outside of LA that are interested in learning about our scene

So true. I think the whole not beatable espousing crowd is just a level to keep the other 2+2 players away.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

I am! Play limit poker! Keeps the fish in the game longer, and it's way more fun anyway! Yes, you will have bigger swings as a good winning player, just deal with it! That's what "real poker" is to me, not the ridiculous NL staredown game. People just think that's what poker is supposed to be because that's what they see on TV, and even that isn't even NL cash, it's tournaments for the most part.

I don't get the Commerce bashing over their low buy-ins. They do have higher buy-in games. The $500 buy-in game with 3-5 blinds usually has multiple tables going. Believe me, where I come from ( Milwaukee area), multiple 3-5 tables for a $500 buy-in game is a dream. Who cares whether they spread a bunch of $40 buy/in games? The place has plenty of action in well-structured games regardless.

Hahaha. Look man, I can respect that your game is limit, but to say that "limit" is real poker and NL isn't is just hilarious. NL introduces so many
more dynamics due to the increased freedom of having no restrictions on betting. NL also gives winning players a bigger edge and ability to win more money. Also the fact that you can win, or lose, much more in a hand, increases the gambling appeal that makes poker so attractive to all of us to begin with.

I always thought limit was mostly for the players who shiver and tremble at night at the thought of risking an entire stack in one hand... Or older folks

Obviously I was being a little silly, but my points are valid. Until 10 years ago, basically no one played NL poker. It only became popular when NL tournaments started going on TV.
I did put "real poker" in quotes and said specifically that it was true for me (not for everyone).

Yes, NL players have a bigger edge. That is why it is bad for the health of the game, as I said previously. And, speak for yourself; the "gambling appeal" was never what made poker attractive to me, or most winning players I know. I hate gambling in general, poker is absolutely the only gambling I enjoy.

The other thing people forget is poker games tend to get tougher over time. You have to adapt and continue to play very well over time to keep winning. At NL, this is magnified to a huge extent. Compare NL games from 2005 to now, the games are much worse. Are they still beatable? Yes, but not easily for as much money and there are many bad games. Terrible players get tired of (or can't withstand) losing at nl for too long, there is very little positive reinforcement for them. If anyone things ten years from now nl games won't be even worse, they are kidding themselves.

Limit on the other hand, while tougher than it used to at mid and high limits, is still very beatable with many good games to be had. People can move up on good streaks and hang out awhile. This is bc bad players can go on great streaks and win for awhile, even though in the end they lose. NL players will never understand this concept. It's a different mindset, get it now with no thought for whether they will do well in the future. Or how they will survive when their earn goes down over time and fluctuations go up as games get worse.

Just my take, the new folks love nl but that's because many of them started there and never have know anything else. But in the end the games must get worse over time much more quickly than their nl counterparts.