Agreed. I play 2/5 all the time and about 80% of the time I buy in for $500. On the rare occurence when the table is really stacked will i buy in for more. But buying in for $500 is plenty at that game. As I think playing a little shorter in the 2/5 game is better bc I don't think that the players buying in for the max are that skilled at playing deepstack poker, from my experience.

I'm sure it's probably not true, or will not get approved. Because that would be too awesome

If the players who buy in for the max aren't skilled at deepstack poker, then shouldn't you be buying in for the max as well?

Indeed, I was. Learned to never play Queens like in 1/2 again. Got real lucky. Had it coming to me, though. Lost a $1000 dollar pot last weekend at Harrah's with QQ. Flop was 10 Q 10, three way all-in. A5 suited, AA and my queens. Turn was the last Ace. I'll be down tomorrow.

Leave the NL game structures alone. They are the best around. There is no need for a 1/3nl or whatever you guys are discussing, seems silly IMO, keep things simple. Leave the current buy-ins alone as well. Being a 2/5 player I think current setup is great, it lets players do what they want. They want to buyin for $200, great, $1000 great as well. Personally I buy in less then $1000 but don't consider myself a shortstacker, just a regular player. Some regs buy in for the full $1000 but it seems mostly for show. Many of them are still hesitant to play huge pots so the $1000 seems like an ego thing in many cases, not all, but the large majority.

Straddles are a great addition. It just gives players more options. If you like to straddle, awesome... if you don't straddle, then don't. Pretty simple stuff. The only players this should annoy are players who like to see flops real cheap and not play big pots.

Adding 1/3NL is a dumb idea.

Id say that less than 10% initially buy in for $1k. I usually buy in for about 7 or 8.
I like being able to have the flexibility of buying in for 600 or 1000 based on who I see at the table, and how I see people playing.
I think one big benefit of 1k max is that when you start a new game the average is usually 5-600. Places that are 500 max the average is usually about 400.

Side note... Ive heard it mentioned before that it is better when there are equal amounts of 1/2 and 2/5 running. Why is that considered good? Id think every limit up should be about 1/2 the amount of tables as the previous limit. you dont expect to see the same number of 4/8 limit and 30/60 limit

1st paragraph - I like that flexibility as well. I have bought in short (400-600) to test the table a few orbits and get a feel for the players. Then you can add money if you need/want. If people are extremely loose aggro, I add chips to the limit. If I am at a tough, grind it out TAG table, i'll stick with what I have.

2nd paragraph - If there were as many 2/5 nl as there were 1/2, people would be table changing every hand trying to find a better fit. It would be quicker to get your first seat but annoying as people try to change like a chinese fire drill.

Was playing some 6-12 O.E. today at PARX. Really nice game and I think I may start playing this instead of limit holdem.

I've played 3 times since the straddle was implemented. It's been a big hit at most tables. Casual players seem really into it. Well done, Parx.

I like the 500 max also, but I don't think that's the reason the Borgata has more 2-5 games. It probably has more to do with the fact that the Borgata 2-5 is a time charge as opposed to the rake games at Parx.

definately like the sounds of this idea....although lately with the straddle implemented alot of the 1-2 tables ive been at have been playing pretty good, almost playing like a short stacked 2-5 game

lol yea people are flocking to the 2/5 at Borgata because its a time charge game, that's the first thing their looking at.

BI for $1000 makes the game a lot better for good players.

I'd rather have 3 awesome tables with a lot of money in the hands of rec players who will stick it all in with TPGK, than 20 so-so tables where the average stack is $300 and you can't punish people for making the same mistake.

Besides, you always have the option of buying in for less, which gives you a very real advantage should you way to take it.

all for 1/3 with 500 max. need somehting in the middle as 2/5 1000 max is to big a jump from 1/2 with 300 max.

I know one can buy in for less, but many recreational players like to buy in for the full amount. I have posted about this in the past and personally do not like buying in short. On Sat i took a look at the 2/5 tables and am guessing that there was 10K plus on them. average amount on a 1/2 table is probabaly like 2K....there needs to be a median point or people will never move up

ok here is my suggestion for structures:

1/2
1/3
2/5
2/7
3/8
5/10
6/12
25/50

or how about lets just sit at a table and the blinds gradually increase every hour...

wtf is this? you can't have gradual jumps like that - it's too confusing. it's fine the way it is. the games need separation in levels...i'll say it again but if anything you gotta try to get higher and higher games in this room, not create middling ones where no one moves up

besides i can't multiply by 3 - i'd never know what what going on

Considering that a rake game takes approximately $50 more per hour off of the table than a time game, it certainly should be the first thing they look at.

lol too confusing?


there are people complaining that the 2-5 1000max is too big...so why not the 1-3 500max...it has the potential profit of a 2-5 that would have a 500max, but with more play.


1-2 is never going away...having a 1-3 500max option would be nice...and you should definitely leave the 2-5 1000max...that game will grow more over time and be great...as for the rake, some people like getting up for 30-40 minutes to get something to eat during their 8 hour session, or just to cool off if they get heated...a timed rake isnt beneficial for everyone...a timed rake forces you to sit through every hand and even getting up to piss technically costs you money.

the borgata 2-5 is bigger because they get more players and they have been well established as the best poker room on the east coast for years...that isnt going to change overnight. it has little to do with the buy-in or the rake...some people also hate to change casinos.



and button straddles would also be a great addition.

^ Migs leave it alone with the 1/3 and button straddles already. I think it's a horrible idea. The 2/5 game will suffer greatly if this 1/3 is implemented causing the 1/2 "shot takers" to go to the 1/3. The casino can't spread every game level players want. That's what differentiates one casino from another. Parx is known for 2/5 with a 1k max. Some like it, some hate it... If u hate it, there are many casinos in AC that will fit your need (or Del Park, since ur so stuck on this Mississippi button straddle that IMO makes the game play tougher w about 150bbs).

If you want a 500 buy in nl game then sit with 500 at 2/5. I don't think it's that much of a big deal. If anything, it's easier to play a shorter stack.

I think Parx has done a great job in spreading great limit increments in NL, PLO, and especially LHE. Keep up the good work.

The bolded parts are EXACTLY why the 2/5 game at Parx is one of the best games at any live stakes in the region.

As to your other point: I don't particularly care if good players find it hard to move up. Sorry to be blunt about it, but this game is about winning money.

Please stop with all the 1/3 NL non-sense. It would kill the 2/5 game.

Depends on your personal strength as a player. If you're better at regular 100BB stacks it makes sense to buy in smaller. If you are a shortstacker etc. Everyone's game is different

so even though you can spot huge mistakes people are making deeper you still think it's an advantage for you to buy in shorter?

can we please start a parx regs thread where we can talk without getting deleted? anyone? i'd have more to add to this one.

My statement hand nothing to do with me. I said I typically buy-in for 100BB because I prefer it. I'm just more comfortable with it since most places in AC (where I played mostly) were 100bb max BI. Now I do buy-in deeper but it depends on the table and many other things.

Any chance parx could add a 2/4 limit game to the mix? Ty