88 hands per hour would be crazy.

Should change the 3/6 to 4/8 though. Games would be closer in size and 4 chip/8 chip games are the most fun.

Would love a 20/40 and a 25/50...

And +1 to the guy that said running two sit-and-go's would be awesome.

I would want to play this if they made it stud/8.

you can always find ways to critique something new. If you do not like the new system you don't have to play it. Of course playing two tableswill affect the game somehow and yes your aguments is right about the guy that walks in to play for $200 he won't be able to play two tables. But its just a mute argument.

For most players this would be such a great improvement. it would be nice if instead of just putting in your negative comments you would actually use the energy to help improve by providing positive feedback and ideas on how to improve.

Opion polls?! are crazy. Opionion polls don't work on new stuff. You think jobs did an opinion poll if people would buy an iphone?

"So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse." ' " -- Steve Jobs

However, there are ways to see if your new idea has a chance. You are not Jobs or Ford.

Ideas always seem like pure genius to the inventor, but you should ask people.. experts in that field. In the sports industry, ask professional players for feedback.

And releasing an idea prematurely is a big risk. It may actually be a good idea, but people naturally attack new things. So make sure the idea is mature enough to withstand all that criticism before releasing it.
In defense of Tim, some things could not be worked out ahead of time. For instance, the Nevada Gaming Commission wants to make decisions on many of the game's particular aspects..

edit.. since I'm on a roll, here.. Just because you get some bites at a Trade Show, doesn't mean it's gonna be profitable. Businesses are always looking for new things to sell to their customers. They will buy a few of just about anything that's new to the market. Repeat orders are a different matter.

I agree. The potential for both parties is so wonderful. More fun and action for fish. More hands and $ for the regs/pro. More rake for the casino.

It just has no downside.

I dont see this being a major attraction in most poker rooms, more of a sideshow/attraction.

That being said, if the goal is more hands per hour, wouldnt a 30 second shot clock achieve nearly the same effect and be immensely more simple?

i would play if you could switch cards between your two hands LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Ok we have approval to play omaha 8 on both games. If anyones interest ed in trying this out tonight post here so we can gauge interest.

If they will spread- I'll probably go - what limits?

$3/6 and $5/10 or both sides $10/20

Aria doesn't have a $4 (or if they do, it's not a standard chip found in their poker room cashier)...otherwise we would have done that instead of 3/6 and 5/10. And if Aria decides to keep the table permanently an order a new chip set with distinct color differences, then the two games can be the same limits...the only reason for the different limits was to get two different chip colors for the two games.

Better game would be Indian.

If you want to play 2/5 NL on both tables, why don't you use:

Game 1: 1, 5, 25 denomination
Game two:2,10, 100 ( this would have to be a 2/4 game)

If area has $3 chips than it could be 2/5 on game two as well.

Another idea: what about roulette table chips that can get declared as whatever u want?

Mason, Tim and I discussed that a couple days ago. Too many potential problems.

Most obvious, would be too easy to walk with a few when they were valued at $1 and reintroduce them when worth more.

I told the Aria floor this exact point. They have a very distinct 3 (hence their 3/6 limit game for one of the two sides of the MAP table), it's a light green, called "mint".

So for either 1/3 or 2/5 nlhe, you can spread two games of it, using 5/25 on one table, and 3/10/20 on the other. Let the ones be interchangeable, they aren't the issue.

They agreed that would a solution, but said that if this game is here to stay, a second chip set of distinct colors would be ordered, so that will be the way to differentiate chips.

Agree with this. Two stacks for limit is unnecessary (just solve the potential allin abuse between both hands, which would be easy), and make the game one limit.

i dunno about that.. I've played limit for many years, and when someone's stack is down to their last 4 or 5 or even 10 big bets, they tend to play a short-stack game, oftentimes raising and/or re-raising to get it all in before the river... while with a bigger stack they are just calling.
And when an opponent sees that short stack combined with aggression, he may choose to raise, just call, or even fold, depending on the situation.

In limit, big stacks overwhelm the betting limits, but smallish stack sizes change one's strategy.

Although there is no "bet sizing" to speak of in limit, there are tactical differences when stacks get short, and there should be two distinct stacks for the two distinct hands, imo.

In addition, I do not approve of a player busting on one side, and having the option to move a few chips to that side, playing a perpetual short stack in that one game. He should be required to commit a full buy-in to that busted game..

Why? When someone gets down to say 3 or 5 bets, they only get dealt in only one hand. You want two stacks, then what happens when he blows one stack and has 30 bets left on another stack? Rebuy with no money in his pocket? Split stacks? Play only one game now?

That short-stack dynamic still exists because even though there's double the buyin, there's twice the hands. However, I'm not suggesting they do this if there are two different limits being played, but I think two limits is a deterrent to the overall concept.

It's best to look at it as one game with a bigger buyin with double the hands per hour. Plenty of people will be capping garbage to get to the felt for you to be happy.

He gets up ... maybe hit the ATM machine. But he can't sit on a MAP table and play only one game.
Suppose everyone did that? Kinda defeats the basic purpose of the game's layout... wouldn't you say?

If you are shooting for maximized hands per hour, do whatever it takes to speed things up, insure all players remain seated, and keep the hands coming regardless of petty little things like players' "stack sizes". Ignore them if you will.

.. but personally, I prefer poker games that are primarily focused on playing poker... and stacks matter.. a lot.

I don't even know what you're saying. Lots of people are going to bust one stack quickly and then have to leave. The basic purpose is getting double the hands. The only way to do this in a live game is to have two hands. You don't need two stacks (in limit).



Stacks in limit come seldom into play that it's not something worth even worrying about in the context of MAP. Two stacks, and in particular, two limits simultaneously, is destined to fail. Just so you know, I play live limit poker for a living, so there's no need to "condescend" the finer points of the game.

I haven't mentioned two different limits on a MAP table. I have no opinion on that. Off hand, since it it does not detract from the.. poker-ness... of the games, I'd say that I don't object to different limits.

But I do object to minimizing the effect stack sizes have on the game. You might have 25 big bets in front of you, but I'm thinking if I win this hand, you're gonna be down to perhaps 12.. and I'm preparing for that possibility. I'm thinking about how you will play a shortish stack.

OTOH, if you have the option to move (or not move) some of your other chips into that game, my efforts to predict the possible consequences of our current encounter are pretty much wasted.
Essentially, I am not allowed to use an important part of my strategy... a part that does apply under normal limit rules.

Okay, since you're really bent on stack sizes in limit and you said a guy would have to leave the game if he doesn't rebuy, then what do you think is going to happen when a guy buys in for 15 bets in both games, takes a few beats on one game and now has stack sizes of:

4 bets
20 bets

Your argument is that a guy with 4 bets will jam a sub par hand just to get it all in. Yes, that certainly does happen, however, if the guy can't buyin again, he will play ultra tight with those 4 bets to ensure he stays in the game with the 20 bet stack.

A guy losing 13 bets in one hand (that's 5 bets pre, 5 on the flop, 5 on the turn and and 3 bets on the river) may or may not play differently, but it's not going to be because he only has 12 bets left (more than double a min buyin) instead of 30 bets.

The different limits does play a role. There's a lot of limit players that don't even like kill pots; they certainly aren't going to want to play a bigger limit half of the time (but it would be nice).

You bring up a factor that had not occurred to me..

"...however, if the guy can't buyin again, he will play ultra tight with those 4 bets to ensure he stays in the game with the 20 bet stack...."

That could be a possibility opponents should be aware of ... and it probably will apply to MAP (if and when a complete buy-in is required to remain seated). His playing tight might be something to exploit..

Of course, we can't know if he has more money in his pocket. Nor is it a given that he doesn't tighten up just as much in a normal, everyday, single-game with a short stack and no money.

Look at what we're doing. We are discussing short stack play, which obviously involves many twists and turns. There is no denying this is an important part of the limit game.

We're doing it because you think it's an integral part of the game; it happens seldom enough, and the people who allow themselves to get so short are pretty easy to read in what they are doing due to their response to the flow of the game that led them to be short.

If it will make you feel better, perhaps they could keep the buyin the same amount, thus inducing short play more often...

"...the people who allow themselves to get so short are pretty easy to read.."

That sounds good to me. Lets not discourage players from getting short by making it easy to avoid being short.

look.. i know you want to keep everyone in the game, and I'm fine with that. It's a worthy consideration when laying out the rules for MAP.

But I don't want it if it comes at the expense of simplifying the game of limit poker.
Limit is already relatively "simple", ABC poker compared to no-limit.. It's really difficult to put pressure on people in limit. Short stacks are one of the few means of applying pressure.