Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha8A2
I just think limit was too boring for people....
I actually agree the sense in which "boring" means "doesn't look like what they play on TV" or "Doesn't leave me with the illusion that i could win every chip on the table in a hand or two". But you need those qualifications. Conversely one could argue that poker without showdowns is boring, or poker where i don't get to chase my draws without getting destroyed is boring.
I'm not trying to start a L/NL flame war; i think understanding the motivation of poor players to play a form of poker where they have a huge disadvantage rather than another where (for the stakes) they have a slight disadvantage is really important for us to predict where the game is headed. I agree that LHE is perceived as boring, as so i'd like to better understand how we can take NL's "non-boringness" and package it in some sort of poker the weaker players would enjoy playing after NLHE skins them alive.
(The future of different games is a great topic that i'm sure has been debated a million times on this site, but i don't know exactly where to find some of those threads. BTW, is it acceptable to write my own blog posts and link them in the discussion?)