Quote:
Originally Posted by Dima2000123
If you want the game to grow, you have to suck it up and play in less than interesting structures. Regs wanting to create an "interesting game" is what kills the game for the rest of us. One of the reasons NLHE took off is because low stakes buyins were capped at 100-150 big blinds, even though those are not the most interesting structures for NLHE either.
I think we might be arguing the same point. I don't think the game is interesting when played shallow, and I think the regs are trying to make the game less deep.
PLO is a funny animal. The game plays about twice as big as NLHE, and thus needs about 2x the starting buy-in. While I agree that new players don't want to sit down and risk too much money, there also has to be some play involved as well. I don't think that players taking a shot -- in a new game -- with a couple of $200 bullets want to have it all in the middle and out of the game in their first couple of orbits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IFSATG
That's like saying, for example, that limit holdem is not interesting below 30-60. While it might be your opinion - it's far from accurate.
No, it's not. I'm saying PLO (of any stakes) with 40 big blinds isn't interesting, especially to rec players expecting a few buyins to last an evening. It doesn't matter if it's $500/1000 or $0.01/0.02
Quote:
Originally Posted by IFSATG
As with any form/game/limit structure... the "game play" may change, as cost of the playing increases, however, the interest factor is not part of that equation... for the people that are playing the limits that they are comfortable.
Completely agree. And by increasing the blinds without increasing the buy-in, you are going to make beginning players uncomfortable. If someone has a couple of bullets of $200, and sits down at a 1/2(/5) PLO game, they're going to be unpleasantly surprised how quickly that money gets in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IFSATG
Not everyone plays the game the way you do. That neither makes you correct, nor them wrong.
If you sit 1/2/5 with $200 you are in the wrong game. However, a 1/2 game with $200 would be interesting to people that are comfortable playing, with that amount of exposure.
I think you are arguing the same point that I am. I think $200 is a good (minimum) stack size at a $1/2 PLO game, but it's very short stacked at a $1/2/5 PLO game.