So the razz hand is with ace high? Is the razz nut hand 2-6 then instead of ace-5?

I don’t think that anyone knows the answer. When TR opened its poker room, “Everyone” anticipated an influx of fishy teenagers giving their $$$ away. IME, this never happened. IMO, the influx of grad students, professors, asst. professors, deans etc., to Encore to degen it up with 1/3 grinders is just wishful thinking. But then again, who knows?

Yup. The razz hand would be 2-6.

Why not just go HOE?

As the saying goes, a rising tide raises all boats. These reports about who-has-what-and-how-many tables are telling us that not all the boats are rising together, so Encore has not brought about a new tide of poker, and I'm not sure what will. Like snowman pointed out, it looks more like Encore is consolidating people from other locales and probably from home and underground games, perhaps temporarily. The collegiate population here is indeed large, but are they going to be a source of "whales"? If "whales" are a combination of deep pockets and poor play, there probably aren't a lot of students fitting both requirements. If they are well heeled and that unskilled, they can always play a skill-free "coin flip" game like baccarat at house commission instead of hemorrhage money playing bad poker plus house rake.

As someone new to cash game poker, some things stand out as really interesting to me. For example, I've noticed advanced players sitting at $1/$3 NLH and wondered what they're doing there playing $1/$3, which should be an entry-level game for entry-level players. The problem I see there is with the "no limit" nature of the tables. If these were limit games, betting caps would limit the profitability of the games for advanced players, forcing them to move to higher tables (where they ought to be) if they want to make worthwhile money. However, because it's "no limit," they get to have their cake and eat it too - getting cheap blinds while being able to play and bet like higher money games when they do go in. The max buy-in seems pretty meaningless as players amass stacks much greater than the max.

I could easily be wrong about this, but the problem I'm perceiving with "no limit" poker is the lack of matchmaking. By matchmaking, I mean matching players to other players of comparable skill level.

It isn't a new idea. Online gaming (video gaming) used to be a free service. That all changed when Microsoft came out with the XBox Live service and started charging a subscription to use it - and people happily paid, because, among its services, it provided matchmaking algorithms that matched players with more evenly-skilled players so that the games were competitive rather than mismatched blowouts, the former being more fun. Online gaming wound up exploding on XBox Live versus on free services that lacked matchmaking (e.g., Nintendo and Playstation 3). I feel this is important if poker actually wants to grow its player base. As an occasional rec fisherman, we throw back small catch in order to have larger catch later. There are state-mandated size requirements for this reason. Having advanced players kill the beginners at the $1/$3 tables might be profitable for those advanced players in the short term, but, in the long run, it also cripples the growth rate of the player base as many beginners don't find it fun or profitable and don't return or find it more fun going back to the friendlier confines and familiar faces of their underground games.

Even stuff like karate and chess have their ranking systems so as not to match newbs with grandmasters.

Limit poker doesn't have matchmaking per se, but I feel the caps serve as a mechanism to motivate people towards bigger tables.

The barrier to entry to being a competent poker player keeps growing wider and wider, even for Texas hold'em which is the simplest version of the game. Online poker is practically dead, both as a developmental league for new players and as a legitimate arena for play, because of legal issues, followed by the rise of technical aids and now algorithms, e.g. Pluribus, that have "solved" poker (at least the hold'em version) - at the mere cost of two Haswell Xeon processors in the example of Pluribus. Humans can move to other, more complicated versions of poker to try to keep ahead of the algorithms, but that also widens the barrier to entry to new players even more. Meanwhile, advanced players lurk on the newbie tables. Where is there left for new players to come and develop their interest in the game, much less learn the more complicated variations beyond hold 'em? Only the underground scene?

Poker peaked with Chris Moneymaker and will very likely never reach those heights again. It does have this going for it though: At their core, gamblers are optimists. And so we wait for these students, from one of the strongest collegiate areas in the country and whose brains are processing at peak levels, to play the fish and whales.

i haven't been to encore yet but there is no way the 1/3 nl tables are stuffed with advanced players.

"However, because it's "no limit," they get to have their cake and eat it too - getting cheap blinds while being able to play and bet like higher money games when they do go in."

No in higher games pots and stack sizes would be way bigger
What passes for a decent 1/3 nl player would almost always bleed money in bigger games. The reason these people are playing 1/3 nl isn't because they're advanced players and it's super profitable to play 1/3. it's bc they can't beat bigger games and/or are broke.

Mind you there is a difference b/w advanced and not terrible. I'm sure there are plenty of 1/3 nl players who aren't terrible.


You are right in that college kids are not going to be poker whales due to lack of funds. Anyone who thought they would is an idiot.

As you are admittedly new to cash game poker how would you possess the skillset to identify who is an advanced player and what differentiates an advanced player from a punter? What are some of the examples that led you to believe that a particular player is an "advanced player" who should be playing in a bigger game? Have you ever played in a bigger game to recognize the skillset of winning 2/5 and 5/10+ players?


"Cheap blinds" affect bet sizing so they don't play to the size of bigger games. When they do it is due to a whale being in the game dumping and not an "advanced player" utilizing incorrect bet sizing to "bet like higher money games."

There are a number of problems with this type of thinking. The blind levels of a game do cap what a player can buy into the game for so by definition there is less money on the table at the lower stakes. The smaller blinds also affect bet sizing on each street resulting in smaller pots (again, ignoring the occasional one off created by a whale). These are only two of the reasons why a winning players profitability IS theoretically capped at each blind level.

If this thinking were true we would have a 300max game, a 700max game, and a 1500max game all playing with similar size pots and pros at each level earing the same hourly simply because it is "no limit" which of course is not the case.

I understand your collective skepticism.

What is considered a good standard pre-flop bet? I was under the impression that 3x the big blind is a good standard, but that's not what I've seen.

I've seen some of the same players on $1/$3 playing on higher tables, like $10/$20, later in the day.

Lastly, I actually know some of these guys on $1/$3 and $2/$5, lol, and I know they've been playing cash games for many, many years.

BTW, when I looked earlier tonight, there were 22 $1/$3 NLH tables running, 6 $2/$5 NLH and like a handful of other random games. Can everybody be that bad?

Online, yes. Tournament, yes (actually smaller as levels increase). Cash? Absolutely not. Standard open at 2/5+ is generally 4x open and 5-7x with multiple limpers. As you move higher in stakes you will see less to no limping.


It is common for a cash player to sit in a smaller game while waiting for their seat or their game to be called. I do this all the time as do many others who player higher than 1/3.

Longevity does not necessarily equal skill and longevity at the same stakes oftentimes signals otherwise. Generally speaking you'll see cash players moving up in stakes once they have achieved what they feel is a strong hourly at their stake and/or feel as though they have mentally outgrew the game (whether they are right or wrong this is generally the reason one moves up). In a mature room (or a mature poker market) you will have a higher percentage of professionals at the higher stake games than you will at the lower stake games.

Refer to my previous sentence. Not everyone is "that bad" but you will find a greater percentage of lesser skilled players at 1/3 than you will at 2/5, and a greater pct of LSP at 2/5 than at 5/10, etc etc.

These LSP are what keeps the games alive. It is why 1/3 thrives at Encore and why 10/20 doesn't run regularly anymore with fewer LSP in the games to support it causing those pros who moved to Boston for a bigger game to leave the area.

I think we are describing the same thing, only through opposing perspectives. To you, you're a higher table player just killing time until/if/when you get your table. To me, just trying to get an understanding of the game, you're a ringer playing well beneath your level and that doesn't make me feel any better about it, lol.

Thanks for the explanation, btw.

Here is a different perspective said much simpler. I’ve been six times - all Tuesday afternoons and evenings (so zero prime time play) - I’ve had at least 3-4 hours of 1/3 play each time was there with a couple longer sessions at 1/3. I am admittedly a net 7BB per hour winner at 1/3 (4 BB per hr at 2/5) but by no means a crusher, and I can tell you each visit, the 1/3 game was like pretty much any 1/3 game anywhere you’d play and in fact, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the game availability, action of a Tuesday game, and have won almost every session I played. The 1/3 games are good. I’m sorry to say this but if you can’t see that you are likely terrible. Yes, some of them are rocky and nitty, just like anywhere else, the difference here is you have 20+ games to pick from most of the time

Ok but this isn’t what you said in your OP. You asked yourself why a higher stakes player would be sitting in a 1/3 game and concluded that it was due to the “no limit” nature of the game. I was simply explaining that this was not the case and long term you don’t have to worry about 5/10+ players dropping down to 1/3 to take your chips. If a 2/5 player is dropping to 1/3 full time it isn’t likely you have to be scared of their skill level. Although you will sometimes see 5/10 players dropping to 2/5 due to it being a better game if this player can get past the ego barrier of dropping in stakes which is where many struggle.

Played last night for 4 hours at 1/3. Table was pretty good, a little nitty at times. A couole people wore sun glasses and tanked a lot about $15 decisions so I was worried they might be pros. I avoided pots with them but then regretted that when they stacked off.

Btw I got the new brown rice bowl for $15 before tax and tip. It tasted fine. I'm glad there are some healthier options but the quality wasn't good for the price, IMO.

I’ve had that bowl twice now. Added chicken and steak tips. Total was $25 plus tip. The steak tips were a little tough for the plastic knife. Would definitely get the chicken again.

That is a good point. However, if they were limit games, there probably would have been more variety in them than simply $1/$3 NL or $2/$5 NL when you arrive, which is my underlying point. I am for more variance in the tables, and my hypothesis is that limit would have created that.

Hypothesis can be proven wrong. I’ve logged nearly all my hours at 1/3 and have run into some solid players but none advanced. You can be a good winning player without being advanced at 1/3 and to some extent 2/5.

The advanced concepts just aren’t in play much. It’s still a solid game and I don’t think everyone playing is either broke or bad. I think you are thinking about this wrong and probably haven’t really got a grip on what advanced play is which is fine. You are thinking and asking questions. Most importantly you are forming your own opinions which will help you later on. Don’t be a sheep.

Although I won't be able to play this Sunday, and therefore I don't get a vote, I agree that for now a good mix is HOET to get new players involved. Also, if the 80 game hasn't started yet you may get a few of those guys to sit in with you to help start your mix. They're pretty friendly to new players.

Great post, especially the bolded.

When I began playing live 1/2 at Mohegan I specifically recall 4 individuals who I would term "advanced" who were regs in this game at the time. Of these four, each one is now a 2/5 or higher crusher and/or has several big tournament cashes on their resume. Even if you run into this rare player at 1/3 these type players are not playing in the smallest games for long.

This discussion seems very drawn out for such a simple argument.
I have played 2/5 for 12 years with some 5/10 mixed in at Twin. I was a substantial winning player.
At Encore I have played way more 1/3 than 2/5. I find the 1/3 to be very profitable and the games very juicy. I have been at nitty tables but I know how to adjust and/or change tables.
The 2/5 games may be juicy at night but during the day they are tight and not a lot of action, that is why I’m playing 1/3. I have no ego issues with stepping down because I’m there to win money. Before RhodyGuy steps in to say that they can be good during the day, yes I’m sure there are outliers but my experience is that they are not.
As far as the college kids coming back, why do they need to be whales? Just the influx of new players with a few buyins will be great

Interesting post, if not a troll post. If you’re new to cash games, that makes it pretty difficult to accurately estimate what “advanced” means. Relative to stack size, the blinds are actually cheaper at higher stakes, since the max number of big blinds you’re allowed to buy in for progressively increases as you move up. Also, the purpose of having a max buy-in amount isn’t to prevent players from building stacks greater than the max buy-in.

I think new (and even experienced) players often mistake who is advanced and not by who is winning and not by the actual decisions involved in a hand or session. At 1/3 the other day as I was waiting for a 2-2 PLO seat I got stacked by a guy holding AhKc when I had JTss on a 8s9s3h board when he c-bet out of position and I raised him on the flop and he proceeded to a 4d turn and check called my shove. I had been observing him play every hand for 45 minutes and what he flipped over and had a few reads on when he was weak vs strong because I could replay every street and what he did right after showdown. On the flop I was pretty certain he had a hand like two big broadways or maybe 44-77 and by the turn I was certain he had at best a very weak hand almost impossible to call a shove. He wins and the whole table thought I was the worst player there but this table had 7 newbies and one OMC (even OMC thought I was crazy).

I have underestimatedly played 20 8 hour sessions a year for the past two decades which is over 3200+ hours of 1/2 and 1/3 more recently as preparation for when tournaments were not running or when I only had 2 hour or some short time interval to spend at poker between other responsibilities and obligations and I have seen all kinds of wackiness. I've seen pros like Toto Leonidas playing while waiting for 15-30 O8 at the Orleans dust off 6 buy ins in < 1 hour while making every perfect play that just didn't work out and I've seen it happen to non-famous 25-50 crushers at the Bellagio as well and it is often a treat for me because all these great winning players do some very nice sizing, check-raises, floats, etc... all moves that would never be comprehended by anyone at the entry levels on what they're supposed to accomplish and I have a front row seat.

What usually happens is a fish is on an obvious flush draw and will make runner runner straight like holding Qd9d on a Tc2d3d flop vs TT when it runs out 8h Js or some other rare occurrence.

Sizing doesn't matter at 1/2 or 1/3. It is our responsibility to gauge players thresholds. Positionally un-aware players will fold limped hands to $18 at Encore 1-3 but never fold to $15 when I raise out of the bb. This might work for me but not you because we all have different images. Also opponents at all levels look at me with different lenses. At 1-3 I am probably viewed as a random tourist while at mid-stakes they're aware I am an experienced player and at high stakes they all just think they can run over me on every hand. This is not to say that's how they will view you.

I have no idea what compels a person to play poker but in my observations at Encore there are a lot of these guys on a Fri/Sat night. Think a group of 2-4 Bradley Cooper's character in Wedding Crashers but in the 21-28 age range with attractive girls on Fri/Sat nights out to gamble/drink/club who will all come in for a quick session after dinner and before clubbing or whatever. I would say 50/50 they go to 1/3 or 2/5. I think everyone has an ego in this world and I believe anyone who has seen poker on TV thinks they can be the world champion. I mean, it is just betting and raising and pushing chips forward and bluffing and reading people, how hard can it be?

I do not notice this Sun-Thu. I have no idea what makes a person want to go play poker at FW, MS, TR, Chasers, etc... any time other than an affinity to cards, competition, etc... but I would assume the reasons to play at Encore will be less complicated. It is so much easier to get to Encore if you're anywhere in the greater Boston area. Everyone will say OMG parking charges but that is only weekends and they broadly advertise it is free all week and free with 3 hours of playing on weekends. Most kids Uber there anyways. I also hear random side conversations all the time at the Buffet, by the main bar, at the pit cashier, etc... how nice the place is and they're definitely coming back. Time will tell if we'll get more new players.

Troll post? Look at all the replies already who have admitted to sitting in the $1/$3. Sure, "advanced" is relative to one's current standing, but are you, at least some of you, not advanced? Do I still have to prove that part of the post?

I for one am definitely not advanced. Read PierreFermats post above for an example of the kind of things I wish I could notice about opponents. As much as I love to think about exoloitive strategy and coming up with creative plays, optimizing ranges etc, in practice at the table I'm just trying to play ABC poker well, and identify who to stay out of pots with if I can. I think there are a lot of players like me who are interested in playing well and trying to get better, but are not advanced as far as observation skills or strategy, and who are around break-even at 1/3.

Okay I'm not reading this whole thread and IDK if it's been discussed but why does my account only show 9.78 compdollars whens I've logged around 40HRS of play I thought this was $1/hr comp system? I haven't use my points for anything yet and it shows that... I know 40 hrs isn't much but shouldn't I have around that much in points? I always make sure the dealer logs me back in when I'm back to the table wtf is going on here?