Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruler of the East
Sorry Ari for being on your thread. I hope to make it to Parx after the tournament. I hear very good things about your room and can't wait to visit it.
Stan
We have poker royalty in our midst to highlight the real point for capped buy-ins:
to protect the casinos.
In the old days many of the NL games were played uncapped. What the casinos found out was that the worst players were eaten alive too quickly. . . the money flowed from the worst players to the best players too fast. A bad player that sat down too deep and lost couldn't rebuy. . . and thus couldn't pay rake. Instead of 10 tables, you now had 5. It was bad for the casino's bottom line.
So, at the expense of the good players, caps were brought in. The bad players now couldn't sit down 500BB deep, or try some pseudo-Martingale strategy to chase their losses. Instead, they now spend an entire evening paying rake and filling the seats, controlling their losses one buy-in at a time. Much much better for the casino's bottom line.
Are the caps better for the good players? Overall, absolutely. A healthy game that's always running is the best situation. On an individual situation-by-situation basis, is it better for a good player if a fish isn't allowed to buy in for 400BB? Absolutely not. It's the short view, I know, but it's pretty much a fact.
By the way Stan, I think you'll feel right at home at Parx. It's where one of your old 5/10NL, five of your old 2/5NL, and ten of your old 1/2 tables are running. Seriously, the first time I walked in I recognized every other player from the Borg.
Looking forward to making it back to AC soon.
Last edited by Mike Haven; 01-21-2011 at 09:41 AM.