LOL. The games were very, very good in 2006.

I think a very close option is PLO. There is something thrilling about big bet games that I think its hard to copy in a limit game in a cash game format from a recs point of view (why else is limit holdem dead online as a cashgames?). Add in lots of variance and close equities and you get a very nice and fun gambling game with PLO. + Its pretty easy to learn on a fundamental level, esp if you are familiar with Holdem.

Dont think it matter how good a game is for the rec if they dont trully enjoy playing it...

Don't the size of the swings relative to the blinds give you pause? How often in a NL session do stacks go in compared to in PLO? Do casual players like the pressure of playing 100bb or 200bb pots fairly often? Maybe they do. I'd guess they find the game expensive, and while PF hands run closer don't you have to be able to fold a hand post flop to avoid being killed? I think he's looking for a game where it is more difficult to make huge mistakes based on natural loose/passive tendencies.

It could be that PLO is the perfect game. I have no answer to David's question, but it is interesting to think about.

It is a much more popular game in America than ROW, and driving Americans out of the shared liquidity killed many limit games. Basically, anyone who started playing after 2005 was likely to play NL hold'em. It doesn't make it proof that it is the best game, and from DS's POV, I think he's trying to find a great structure first. "Not enjoy playing it" only comes with the prior assumption people don't like a game -- you like what you know. If you started playing due to WPT and only know shallow or MTT NL, that's the game you think is best. That's due to promotion, rather than structure. At least that's the premise in looking for a better game.

Limit will make a resurgence again. When terrible players keep getting tired of losing 2-5 buyins in a session, they'll migrate to limit just like they did in the past. It will be many years from now, but it will happen.

Also, 1bb-75bb (or even 50bb) spread can be a good game. If anything, a spread limit omaha game would work better than fixed limit omaha for all types of players. The times I've played FLO in mixed-limit rotations, more people would walk than in any other format.

If that's really how fun players want to play then why not try a form of poker with not betting/raising? Just deal them a hand, they decide to call the BB or not and then deal the board. No wasting time while 8 guys say "check" 3 times, no horrid regulars trying to raise them off hands. See if its popular.

NLHE is a lot better played 6 max. I have read a lot of 6 max training materials so in my head I think of the position 3 off the button as UTG or early position. In full ring I think of the three extra positions earlier than that as "not in the game", because they're not in 6-max, or "the toilet" because its the best time to miss a hand in a tournament if you need the bathroom before the next break. So yeah, having 7 people watch 2 play post-flop heads up is not much fun, although it help having a dealer who doesn't let people tank.

So they need to have fun a rate that makes their losses worthwhile - either by having lots of fun or losing very slowly. We can quantify the losses but it is hard to quantify what makes poker fun.

They would lose slower at blackjack if they learnt a simplified version of correct play (i.e. when to hit and when to stick, not the card counting stuff) and would be in action all the time, so I think one of the attractions in poker is pitting ones wits against another person, i.e. the interpersonal skill element. That would explain why Pokerstars has around 1000 microstakes NLHE cash tables running at any time - the financial losses are very slow compared to the amount of skill/competition available. So lower limits is part of the solution.

People for whom fun means gambling action are always going to want to play the higher limits and they will lose at a faster rate in poker than they would playing something with house take but no "winning player" take. Logically they should be playing roulette. For others the solution to the problem posed is microlimits.

.

Think you were answered here. As he said, the stakes increase when either a pot of a certain size occurs, someone takes the whole pot (in a split pot game), or someone wins two pots in a row (often the second pot has to be large enough). If you're the person who "wins" the kill, you post the new larger big blind. It is a live poker thing. It can be very good for the game.

Here, the largest legal game has $100 bets. The rooms spread 30/60 LHE. If someone wins two pots in a row and the second pot is > 5BB, the game goes to 50/100. The bad players defend their kill, as they want to play for the bigger stakes and don't mind posting a $50 blind. Even in nitty games, once the kill is on the action gets wild. You'll have nights where it is $200 to see a flop, any time the kill is on.

Agree, there is plenty to "fun game". The 15/30 Bellagio LHE game used to get a number of blackjack players. They were comfortable with the $5 chips. The comment was often "this is way cheaper than playing blackjack". Who knew that familiar red chips made the game good for someone?

genuinely missed that post. i'm an idiot sorry, guys!

If you're ever in Colorado, you can see why limit can be an amazing game. Since they play with $5 chips, it is amazing how long it takes to stack pots.

Wait, are you saying you guys play 30/60 with red with a 2/3 kill? 6/12 in red? That has to be maybe the only 30/60 in the country without $10 checks. Those games must be insanely good.

It's the nits that insist a game never go above 4/8 chip. There was a 40/80 here that got bumped to 60/120 that was absolutely amazing with $10 chips and with the 100/200 kill, it got insane on weekends. It got replaced with 75/150 (3/6) and it killed a ton of action.

You guys ever play holdem, either Limit or NL, with each player receiving their own personal river face down? I hadn't either, until last week. It was a private 1/2, and we had a blast, it is actually identical in some ways to 7 Stud, in that first two cards are face down, the flop and turn which would mimic 4th through 6th streets (kind of), and the river (7th) face down.

I have no idea what the practical implications of this game are strategy wise since I have only played a couple of hours, but we had a blast! There was a whole lot of checking oop on the river, and a lot of bluffing.

This game as well as plain seven card stud are indeed games that allow the non expert to temporarily overcome greater skill. If you think about it, it should be obvious. When the last card is up, that information is more valuable to the expert than the amateur. I actually was going to mention this game next. (Seven card stud may be better yet since one of the two starting hole cards is often essentially random. Unfortunately however amateurs have gotten lazy and don't want to be bothered to remember folded cards. Possibly the sites could offer the game where the folded cards remained displayed off in the corner.)

Limit 7 Stud is by far the best game to keep the poker ecosystem happy. Ton of variance, a lot of justifiable "chase" situations, plenty of situations that allow for expert play. I don't think that it is a coincidence that in the pre NL days, the stud variations were where the really big action was in Vegas. I really thinks this game keeps everyone happy.

I am not saying this because I am an old time stud player looking to get my game going. Anyone who has ever played this game semi seriously know it is the best combo of creating loose action, giving rec players a chance to book some nice wins, and allowing for expert play to prevail in the very long run.

In the 70's and 80's these were THE games in LV. I was wondering David, why these games died? You were in LV when you could find regular razz, split, and high games at all stakes ranging to the 400/800 level. The greats made a lot of their money in these. You, Chip, Danny, Roger Moore, Puggy et cetera. Now you are lucky to find a 30/60 a couple of times a week. What happened?

As I said I think that it was partly the fact that in holdem you don't have to memorize cards.

As for limit vs no limit, I must admit that I am surprised by the fact that amateurs are not turned off by the fact that one big hand can result in a swing that will make the other hands in the session pale in importance as to their final outcome. I guess its because they are often ground down during that session and want to know that they have a chance to get it all back at once.

For the people I know who play NL as fun players, the chance to win a big session based on one great hand is emotionally better than getting stacked is bad. Maybe like a slot machine? You remember over setting someone or getting that "really aggressive guy" to stack off versus your AA.

Again, if everyone on TV only plays NL and the talking heads all say that it is real poker, that's what the new player wants to play. The irony being that it is Mike Sexton saying that at a super shallow WPT final table where the structure is set up for it to be a silly shove-fest. The amaeteur isn't turned off by the structure of the game, because there is exactly one game of poker in his mind and he's playing it. How many people come to NVG and say lollimit = not real poker? That's even when their heros are all transitioning to limit mixed games. Heck, it started with the Doyle quote in rounders. That was when NL as a cash game happened like in 1 or 2 places in the country.

Would it be fair to describe the problem is as follows?

Recreationals like the excitement of potentially doubling their stacks in no limit/pot limit games.
The skill edge of pros in NL/PL games means recreational players will go busto too quickly.

It seems to me that no limit holdem is kind of a victim of its own success, but I can't see how the clock can be turned back. Once someone's had the pleasure of winning a whole stack in NLH, winning 10 big blinds in a fixed limit game can't really compete.

I believe there is also one more turnoff for recs in limit games - most rec players really, REALLY hate when their big hands get cracked. That's why they are often overbetting them, which makes playing vs them so easy. Countless times, I've seen a rec player overshove aces pre or a set postflop, and then proudly showing it - and be genuinly happy to take down a small pot, because "who knows what will come next". You can't do that in limit games, which will results in their aces and sets lose very often, and thus frustrating them.

What can compete with that is guaranteed TIME to be in action. along with the opportunity to play more starting hands. You guys seem to forget that No limit was much more prevalent in 1980 than it was in 1985. If your theory was right it would have continued its upswing indefinatly

I think this thread highlights a key socio-cultural difference between live and online poker players.
Online, most recreationals just want to win big pots... fast. Hence the "zzzzz" comments occasionally posted in the chatbox. Hardly anyone actually chats any more. I don't play live very often, but I would assume that the social interaction element is much more important in that sphere. Making your "entertainment dollars" last a couple of hours is more important than doubling up in 5 minutes. In that respect, fixed limit games probably do have a future in the live arena. Online, not so much, because online players typically just want a quick adrenalin rush.

EDIT: FWIW, I'd love to see more limit games online, if it meant that poker's long-term liquidity was assured, but I can't see it happening.

I really think the buy in caps, designed by the card rooms to protect the rake, have kept NL going pretty strong at the low levels. The trend toward higher and higher maximums, including a lot of No Cap games in LV, sows the seeds of NL's ultimate destruction. 1000$ caps at 2/5 currently in effect at the Caesars properties are a very bad sign for the recs and the casinos alike. Of course, stronger players love the increases in maxes, but specifically because they have such a huge edge on casual recs as the stacks get deep. If this trend continues, I promise, live poker will evolve into something very different pretty quickly.

Fashions change and nothing we say applies to everyone all the time.

Time in play is important, that's why micros are so crazy popular that its hard to sit down if you don't click the "or equivalent table if this one is full" checkbox. But say I arrive in my local casino, the Olympic, with 1000 euros. Now if I sit at the 0.50/1.00 euro table with a 30 euro buy-in (Eastern Europe so different scale of money) I get plenty of time to play before I donk off 33 buy-ins, but maybe that isn't satisfying for Mr 1000 euros - I want more action so I go to the Monte Carlo where they spread 1/2 , or maybe I go to Jan Bendik's room where you can probably sit with the full 1000 euros on the table.

Obviously David, you have a lot more experience in poker and have thought a lot more about all this than I have and probably have models predicting how long it takes me to donk off 33, 5 or 1 buy-in at the different levels, and numbers for limit play, but I want to know what fixed limits you are comparing to NL - so Mr 1000 euros who is not satisfied playing 0.50/1.00 no limit and is satisfied buying in for 200 - at what fixed limit does he feel he is getting enough action - doesn't it have to be really high? Obviously this is more of a psychology question than a mathematical one.

Interesting about remembering cards in 7 card stud. In the UK where I am originally from, Bridge, where memorizing cards played is crucial, was probably the most popular game before NLHE - my mother had an afternoon ladies home game with tea and cakes and my father was a strong recreational player and could remember the whole deck of cards as it played out. He never played seven card stud and it never gained mass popularity though but at least in the UK it is fair to say it didn't have a decent chance. Card memorization though shouldn't be any more of a barrier to popularity than opening hands memorization. I.e. a lot of recreationals aren't going to bother, as they don't with so many aspects of good card play.

Wasnt no limit uncapped whenever it was spread back then?
Thats pretty much an unsustainable game.

Correct Mr. Sklansky

Limit Omaha High has been spread periodically over the years but never caught on.

Action game without an ante whenever it was spread, usually around the 4-8 limit, but...