Live from the Two Plus Two Studios - The 2008 World Series of Poker coverage continued this week with a live update from the heart of the Rio poker room by Greg “FBT” Mueller. Greg talks about his second place finish in Event #11 – NL Hold’em shootout and shares some interesting stories from this years series. Bracelet winners Tony Rivera and Svetlana Gromenkova are feature guests this week along with Mirage Director of Poker Operations Donna Harris who shares her industry insider insight including the the history of Las Vegas Poker, the Mirage Poker Room, and her poker room management perspective on limit vs no-limit. Mike and Adam also give away the password for the June 15th Poker Stars VIP Club freeroll.

first

So far so good. And by so far I mean I enjoy a TT scarf reference in the intro.

This is in reference to the comment made by Mirage employee Donna at 1:18:00.
Limit & Nolimit are the same??
I beg to differ.
Just because preflop gets capped to 100 does not make it nolimit.
There is flop, turn and river betting.
Bet sizing is everything.

wow this lady sounds bitter, and completely out of touch with the poker world.

I started out playing LH when I first turned pro and played it for almost 2 years. Then I switched to NL a couple months after UIGEA because the limit games dried up. I still think limit is a more interesting game from a strategic/intellectual standpoint, but they're very different games and require very different skills.

People take way too much time in every game because that's what they see on TV and they like to pretend every decision is for a million bucks. It has nothing to do with limit vs no limit.

I don't even understand why she's complaining about the deep stack tournaments. It's a big problem that better players win more often? THATS THE WHOLE POINT! That's why people play them as opposed to short stack tournaments. Most people aren't playing poker purely to gamble. They choose poker over pit games because it's a skill-based game. The more skill is the determining factor in who wins, the more attractive it is to most poker players. If people hated it when a poker tournament takes up 9 hours of their life, they simply wouldn't play, and the tournament wouldn't exist.

The only logical reason I can think of that she's discouraging people from playing deep tourneys is because she's looking at it from the house's perspective, where deep tourneys are less profitable because they take up more table time.

No need to ditch the strategy. Cowboy up and talk a little LHE or LO next week Adam LOL. Actually that would be pretty cool. I would rather listen to a little good strategy about LHE, a game that I never play, than Sklansky's nonsense about playing NLO8 because it is stupid. Also definitely missed the forum static. I feel like the entire conversation with the lady from the Mirage could have been scrapped and you could have talked about this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...d.php?t=212302 Even if you have already talked about it and I missed it then it is surely worth discussing again. LOL

Exactly my thoughts as well. I don't have time to go Vegas nor to do Tourneys here in Los Angeles. But if I did, I would love to play a deep-stack tourney. I want play time too! It's not just about the money. It's about the love for the game.

As for her comments about the different games of poker, I do think that No Limit can get boring if you play it patientlyor with discipline. I have been checking out Stud at the live tables and Omaha online.

Thanks for the multiple guests. I enjoy hearing what's happening around the poker world from different perspectives.

Davids advice about NLO8b was fantastic, its a game that actually goes regularly online that so few people know about. Expand your horizons, as you play bigger these little tips will help you more and more.

Donna's point of view is actually shared by many in the poker support industry, she sees things from the casino/poker room's needs. Its fine to disagree, but its also important to explore why she has developed her opinions.

I understand it from a business point on her end, but don't spin it as if it is an awful thing for the player. The Venetian is doing the Deep Stacks because of DEMAND, it is what they want. Imagine a new golf course comes along and instead of just getting 18 holes you get all the golf you want in 24 hours and the competing course with the traditional 18 hole fare tries saying all the golf you can play is bad for the player.

Great show as always. I also found that donna harris interview pretty weird. Seems like biting the hand that feeds to slag NL cash games as "boring." I guess limit poker is the Mirage's niche, but to say you're absolutely sure that NL cash will die in the future seems a little much.

I do know people who say they enjoy the cardroom more playing limit hold 'em or stud; usually they say NL cash is full of wannabe pros wearing sunglasses and giving each other the staredown for minutes at a time, whereas limit games have a more social, relaxed aspect. Fair enough but I've tried a lot of games and still like NL cash best, and I think a lot of other players do too.

Deep stack tournaments also seem like a good thing to me, I don't really play live tournaments ever but if I was going to shell out for one I might want a deep stack to "get my money's worth."

I guess I'm in the minority. I really enjoyed the Donna Harris interview. It was very interesting listing to someone on the inside of a Las Vegas poker room. I also found her pre-poker boom stories interesting.

I'd like to suggest you get Doug Dalton(Bellagio) or Kathy Raymond(Venetian) on in the future to give their opinions.

That lady seemed very angry at NL poker and tournament poker especially. You know what If I won 350,000 in a tourney that took 3 day, I would be perfectly fine with that much time. Also, I was very disappointed because the show lacked Mr. Greenstein's famous quote "lol documents" unless I somehow missed it

Donna ended her interview by saying "Let me know if you'd like to see something different at the Mirage I'll be happy to talk to about that". From what I heard during the interview, I can be pretty sure that any discussion like that can only end with her telling you why you're wrong. Donna's apparent lack of ability to acknowledge the possibility that she may be wrong about some things makes her seem very arrogant.

I believe the best thing that has happened in the poker industry is that the fish have been convinced that they want to play the game where they have the least chance of winning. No limit hold'em died in the past because the fish avoided it, but thanks to TV poker this century the opposite is true. The most popular game will always be the game the fish want to play. Card room managers should be following the fish around just as much as the sharks do.

I love the show guys, but dont ever have this person on again. Shes a complete waste of time.

Apparently she isnt aware of this thing called "effective stack sizes" in NL holdem. If you want to cap the buy in for the game, fine, but the games are always table stakes even if some guy buys in for 20k in a 5/10 NL game.

"Limit is not that much different of a game?" LOL at this person. Sure there are many similarities between the games, but there are some huge differences. Namely that when you get c/raised in limit holdem on the flop, guess what? Its one more bet. In NL often times in 100 bb deep stacks you are often deciding whether you want to play for stacks or not bc you know hes potting the turn if you just call.

Does this lady even play poker? Please everyone, do yourself a favor and just fast forward though her segment.

Hi Wreck and Everyone else:

I consider the interview with Donna Harris, Director of Poker Operations at The Mirage to be very importasnt. Perhaps one of themost important interviews we have done on the show. So don't discount what she says because you either disagree or haven't heard this point of view before.

Also, Donna doesn't come close to saying that limit and no limit are the same. In fact, her descriptions of the two games are very different. Her point is that in limit more money frequently goes in the pot than many no-limit players realize.

Best wishes,
Mason

I think if you listen to the interview you will hear very clearly that Donna describes the two games as being very different.

This just isn't the case. All limit games play much faster. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to come across as condescending, but to make this statement you cannot have much experience at limit hold 'em.

I believe that the deep stack tournaments which The Venetian is currently running will be a disaser for Las Vegas cardrooms. Obviously Donna Harris has the same opinion. Here are the problems as I see them:

1. They last so long that the juice from the tournament doesn' do much better than cover cardroom expenses, if it even does that.

2. They pull players out of the cash games, and keep them out of these games. Thus they not only hurt the regular players who start games and keep games going, but by reducing the number of these games the cardroom becomes a less viable operation for the casino since it's drop will be down from what it should be and from what that amount of floor space requires.

3. They draw players out of other cardrooms and thus ruin the games in other places as well.

You need to understand that daily tournaments in Las Vegas poker rooms have always been a draw to get people to come out and play poker. But the deep stack tournaments are essentially a vehicle that is locking players up and taking them out of the customer base even though they are in the cardroom playing poker.

As for The Venetian, I understand they now have some competition from Caesar's where the deep stacks are even deeper. If this continues, I suspect we will see some cardroom down sizing or perhaps even closing in the future as these inexperienced and unknowledgeable managers make decisions that destroy their long term bottom line.

Best wishes,
Mason

No. The Venetian didn't do deep stack tournaments because of the demand. That's clear because these tournaments didn't exist on a daily basis in Las Vegas until they started them.

They were clearly done as a way to attract players to a poker room that had many empty tables. And in that sense they do succeed at getting more people in the room.

The question is what is the long term cost of these tournaments in terms of viability of not only The Venetian Poker Room but other Las Vegas poker rooms? While having a competitive market is nice from a player's perspective, and I do understand that many of you like and prefer the deep stack format, if the result is that the competition becomes too cut throat, the long term result for poker in Las Vegas can be quite negative.

Best wishes,
Mason

It may be a little too much, and as long as the cardrooms keep the caps on the game and it stays on TV, there will probably be no limit. But Donna is one of those people who, like me, saw no limit die before, and the players back then, just like you, also had the opinion that this would never happen.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Depops:

I've been around this industry for a long time, and I've known many poker room managers. Some good, some mediocre, and a bunch not so good. The one characterisitic that all the best managers share is they are well aware
that good games make for good poker rooms, and I can guarantee that Donna understands this point as well as anybody in this business. So you may discover that your conversation would go much better than you think.

Best wishes,
Mason

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/

Again, as I stated in some of my other posts, Donna made this statement in regard to one aspect of limit poker, and that was to show that more money frequently goes into a pot in a limit game than many no-limit players realize. If you listen to her interview, you will hear that she describes limit hold 'em as being a very different game from the no-limit form.

Yes. In fact, if you listen to the interview, Donna states that she has been hosting the $20-$40 limit game at The Mirage.

Best wishes,
Mason

I find all of MM's points to be well-considered and thought-provoking, and I find it hard to argue with the premises therein. Just a small point I wanted to make, was that I was shocked to hear Adam say something like "limit is just as slow as NL."

Perhaps online, you only get the same # of hands /hour, but even this is misleading. At 6max LHE, you're playing 30/20 (vpip/pfr) or even 40/30, unlike NLHE, so that you are involved in more hands per hour, and you see far far far more flops per hour. As for live, limit is a game conducive to speedy play.

A 2/5NL compared to a 10/20LHE game is no comparison, one plods along, with the occasional 5-10min hand, whereas limit speeds along with fixed betting.

As for the "fun" aspect, live LHE promotes a more congenial atmosphere, and I dare anyone with >100 hours of live play at MSLHE and MSNLHE to refute that (perhaps at commerce, where everyone is miserable, but still...) (also keeping in mind a drunk table is fun in any game...)

As for the game itself, I agree that NLHE is a more complex game, with a greater number of variables to consider in each decision, and for me personally, is more enjoyable.

LOL @ crazy casino women.

TT- Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was neither discounting David's advice nor was I calling NLO8 stupid. I think his advice was very sound as I can see how it would apply to PLO8 that I enjoy playing from time to time. I actually find myself disagreeing with many posters in the various forums who write off David as a wackjob or whatever other things they call him. I think he is one of the great gambling and strategy minds of his, or any, generation (along with Mason, who it is nice to see has posted throughout this thread), although perhaps a little eccentric which is cool in my opinion. I was just repeating his comment, and after another listen, I misspoke (misposted?!?), he actually called NLO8 a "pretty dumb game", not "stupid" as I thought. Maybe what he meant was that it is a dumb game because nobody plays it well but if that is what he meant then it wasn't at all clear. I suppose that one minute is not nearly enough time to explain why it is a dumb game and you have to throw away the nuts (which is a concept I understand after being burned in PLO8 several times) and maybe that is where the problem arises for me. Also, on a side note, isn't it a little warm in Badugiville, which if I am correct is somewhere near Henderson, to be wearing a scarf all of the time?

Thanks Mason for responding to our points.

I understand that deep-stack tournaments are problematic from the business end, but as someone who never plays live tournaments, I'd probably be looking for a deep-stack. In fact I have friends who have tried small-buy-in (~$300) deep stack tournaments because they don't want to just lose a flip an hour in and be done with it. Truth is, they know they're not good players, and wouldn't be playing cash games anyways, but they feel a deep-stack tourney gives them a chance.

I'm skeptical about NL cash dying because of the "quick hit" it offers. If you're stuck 50 BB in limit poker, you're NOT getting even that night. If you're stuck 200BB in NL poker, you can win it all back on a huge cooler or suckout. That alone keeps bad players interested, since they know they can get lucky and get even.

Without going back to listen, I believe I said "people take their time in limit as well".