Thanks BriMC. One could probably infer I do not like to buy in short

i believe it is the Deepstacks(University) Workshop, a poker training program that has online videos and live seminars that was founded by Mike Matusow. The fact the the pros who are going to be there, the Mizarachis, Tristian "Cre8ive" Wade, and Jennifer "Jennicide" Leigh, are known to be part of the Deepstacks team likely confirms this.

Yeah, it's pretty clear also that 1k buy-in hurts 2-5 games in general. Pros/serious players want it because they can play deep/win more - well the reverse is that terrible players will almost never win unless they hit and run. Taking a long-term perspective, I think 500 is better max for 2-5. 5-10 can be deeper. But most regs just want all the money they can get in the short-run without thinking of the long-term health of the games.

Jeff

But how does this effect the tournament? Is it just like a presentation before it starts or something?

I'm really not sure how a 100BB bi could be considered short. I think what you are really saying is I want to buy in for the max, but I can only afford to buy in for 500, and not buying in for the max hurts my ego.

Personally I like the deepstack mainly because I think it is more fun. There is so much more strategy and maneuverability.
I would expect summer to be a lot slower than winter was. It is a locals casino, not a destination for most people. I've also started playing a lot more at borgata because I got tired of paying for motels. I like parx a lot but they are unable to compete with the Borgata on most things. Maybe if they build a hotel some of that may change.
For now though, the Borgata has lower rake, higher comps, better food and drinks and of course free rooms

Haha, DV, your opinion seems to change every time the wind blows. Play wherever you want; you don't need to announce it in both threads each time you change your mind, and you especially don't need to tell us why each room is better or worse whenever your mind changes.

As you say, the B and Parx offer different things to different people. Everybody should play wherever they prefer.

BriMC i was not aware that this is a debate on what i can / cannot afford. Given that you seem to be a really nice guy I would appreciate your not telling me what I am trying to say and what I can or cannot afford. Of course you are probably the greatest poker player in the world and can read ones twitches, eye blinks, finger motions...and tell if they have the nuts or are bluffing.

Suffice to say what i win or lose playing poker is not going to change my life. If i am wealthy already i will not be any wealtheir with what i win or lose in 1/2 or 2/5. Conversely if i am poor what i win or lose at 1/2 or 2/5 will not chnage that either.

My original point is that the some casual players (me included) will move down to 1/2 due to 1K max buyin as we do not want to bring 3K for a night of poker...again noone says I need to bring 3 buyins, but that is what I like to have with me.

By the way sir, if i buy in for $500 and the avergae stack is $1000 or more (which it almost always is) I am buying in short. By definition if I buy in for $999 i am buying in short. Since you are such a gentleman please correct me if I am wrong. My personal philosphy is not to buy in for less then the max buyin and to top off if when need be.

Rather than focusing on calling out sb who offered an opinion, know that if u r playing 100 bbs effective, 200 bb stax need to be in the top 1% of 2-5 nl live players to truly exploit that. Most of the players will be inferior to a solid playing style, so by being 100 deep as opposed to the 200 bbs, all you are doing is giving up immediate value and cutting down variance (all this in a vacuum obv). Try to understand this and not spend the next two minutes thinking about adjectives for posters who are trying to help. Because it is a forum built on helping each other.

i have had this debate with others about the merits of playing short stacked v. full buy-in. Understanding that some people are terrific short stack players and know how to use the short stack to their advatage, my personal opinion is that if you buy in for less than the max you are hurting yourself if you are one of the betyter polayers in the game. Yes buying in for $500 reduces variance, but the reduction in varience if off set by the fact you will win less. If you are one of the better players in the game you cost yourself money in the long-run by not buying in for the full amount. As I am not playing for a living or a great player (a small winner over the years documented on my spread sheet), rather I am playing for fun I want to have the max amt possible on the table.

Also, my post in reply to brimac was in reference to him telling me what i was trying to say. I did not read it as him trying to be helpful. Ofcourse I could have mis read the situation and be wrong.

again, 100 bb is Not playing shortstacked. unless u r playing against a 300bb+ table average against good opposition, which is rare for 2-5 nl.

You are calling yourself one of the better players in a given table but if u call a 100 bb stack in a 200bb cap game a "short stack", then you should re-consider. A short stack is a stack normally below 50 bigs (some could argue even lower), that because of shallow stak can manipulatehis opponents in the sense of 3 b squeezing, jamming flops etc and being able to show a profit doing this, all the while having (mostly uneducated) opposing players having to adjust to the shallow stack in the process and some not knowing how. This is common knowledge obv. well expanded in different sections of this forum.

The poster (my interpretation at least), is not referring to you as not being able to understand the concept, so he deduced that it must be an ego thing to have to sit down w/the max. Simply put, while you certainly can do whatever u choose, there is no true logic in yr. argument that the 1k cap forces you to move down.

u only play ur stack...if u have 1,000 BB and the other guy has 50,000 are you short?

stacks are relative. if you buy in for the $1000 max at 2/5 and everyone else at the table has $2,000-$3,000 you are short stacked. By the same token if you buy in for $200 minimum when the table opens and everone else does the same you are not short stacked.

Huh? That's not what "short stack" means. It is not relative. What do you do if they uncap 2/5, will you want to buy in with your entire liferoll or not at all? You don't seem to understand stacks very well, buying in for 100bb when others buy in for 200bb doesn't actually put you at a disadvantage. You seem to have a psychological problem with not having as much money as possible on the table.

I Wasn't trying to offend. Sorry if I did. There were some good responses from everyone, you should read them and take them to heart, it will really help your game, imo.

In the 2-5plo 5:30am on a fri.

no problem brimc. i still disagree with how others define a short stack and more importantly about the benefits of playing with a short stack. I will go so far as to say if you buy in short regularly you are either:

1. playing in a game to big for your bankroll / comfort level
2. playing in a game where the competition is to tough...i.e you are not genrally one of the better players at that level in the room you play in.

This is just my opinion. Also, just my opinion is that 2/5 at the Parx will not see growth so long as buyin is 1000. I hope I am wrong and the games do grow. For me as a recreational player, it makes far more sense for me to play 1/2 and buyin for $300 against far weeker competition than to play 2/5 against tougher competition either buying in short, only taking 1 or 1.5 buyins or playing for more money than I care to take for a night of poker.

I think you are right with the buy in possibly causing problems.

I don't play much NLH but i can relate from a PLO perspective as that is what I play.

Haven't been there in a while but harrahs chester would occasionally spread a 1-2 PLO game, the complaint i had was that it was a 60-300 buy in. Many of us wanted them to bump it to a standard PLO buyin for this level which is usually 100-500. We of course want more money on the table, bigger stacks etc etc.....

Many people commented on here that it was scaring away casual players because it was more intimidating to them with a larger buyin and wouldn't give the game a shot with the higher structure but would if it matched the NL buy in structure of 60-300. As in this situation mentioned by the OP, many of the players could very well afford the bigger $500 buy in but that is not how they wanted to play the game.

Even though effective stacks are whats important different people have different ways they like to play their games and I think there is a tradeoff sometimes with increasing buyins in PL and NL games, you can play for bigger stacks but you also run the risk of scaring off some players who might be intimidated or not want to play in the game as a result of the larger stacks.

While everyone has their own opinion of what short stacked is, raising the buyin from my experience tends to attract some better players and push some other, sometimes bad, players away from the game, as with everything it has its good sides and bad sides.

Another thing to note is that it increases the minimum from 100 to 200 when you play with a max 1000, which i know you don't want short stackers but it does also reduce the player field slightly.

Lots of goofy thinking going on ITT.

I'll just say I the play 2/5NLHE and 1/3&2/5 PLO games regularly at Parx.


I think the structures currently are the best structures for the levels they are, and I think the evidence that they are the best are borne out in 2 simple facts. Nine months ago there was no poker at Parx, today there are 5-7 tables every day of 2/5 and 1 table every day of PLO. If anyone can point to a place in the area that's gone from zero to that or more in under a year, please let me know, I'd love to play there too.

In NYC for a bit and want to take a bus here for a day –*are the Chinatown buses my only options? If so do I have to take the same bus back according to http://www.parxcasino.com/pdf/parx-bus-schedule.pdf ? And how do I find a bus that won't crash and kill me?

i have the same question about the bus schedule , do i need to take a specific time bus back ?

there are plenty of reasons to play a short stack that have nothing to do with the 2 things you've named and a lot to do with being a sound way to beat particular game conditions. for starters, check out rolf slotboom's PLO books or listen to b. greenstien's reasoning for having the shortest or biggest stack at table. even if you don't agree with them or don't want to play short yourself, it's still +EV to be aware of what other players at the table are doing and why they are doing it.

are there any satellites available for the parx open poker classic? i don't see anything about them on their site and i'm wondering if there's something i just don't know about.....thanks

I believe those buses are your only option. You don't have take your scheduled return bus back. And those buses are very safe, they don't speed anymore - not after those two incidents

Does Parx really need the 3%? I'm just wondering what that's for. Is this a state tax er something?