She had some good points, but to be fair, I could find any number of people who hate limit and think that NL is the only pure game. I don't think her interview was bad, but being a cardroom manager, she does not seem very receptive to changes in her thinking. Obviously (I hope) she will do what is ultimately best for her room and not her ideals. I think that she just isn't a very inviting person, and comes off quite harsh in her opinions, and that is a big reason I didn't like it

Mason,

Yes, I heard Donna describe LH and NLH as being very different. But the way she described the differences would indicate that she thinks NLH was all luck. IIRC, she said "you play great for hours and then lose it all back on one hand" as if there weren't any skill in all-in hands.

I definitely was not around the first time no limit cash games died out. So could you explain in more detail why and how they did? And how do you know that it was because of casino mismanagement and not simply the game losing popularity? Stud and single draw games aren't spread anywhere near as much as they used to be, right? So is that all because of poor decisions by cardroom management, or simply because most people would rather play other games now?

I don't have any delusions about NLH being around forever. Poker has changed constantly over the years, according to everything I've read about the game. Games get more and less popular for tons of different reasons, new games are invented, gambling laws change, etc. I'm not convinced that a few bad cardroom managers could cause that much damage to a game. Especially when the vast majority of poker is played on the internet, where the games are pretty much standardized and the only thing a manager could do to completely destroy it is to raise the rake or get caught cheating.

Favorite part of the show...













































What time in Uruguay!

As I am primarily a limit HE player (who feels forced to play more NL due to availability in my area) I loved the interview with Donna and loved the views she espoused, but as I was listening I knew that all you limit haters out there (many of whom I would literally wager that they have never played a real LHE game, other than 3/6 or something like that) would jump all over her, as you did. Some of her minor statements or off the cuff statements are being completely taken out of context (i.e. "limit is not that different than NL").
Now, I don't know if her view or prediction that NL will die or ruin the game is accurate, but I did have to cheer inside when I heard her stick up for the all the merits of limit hold-em!

1:04 "Our tournaments do not take 9 hours out of your life to play."

Her tone appears angry in this statement. Why not highlight the positives of your tournaments instead of speaking in this manner. It just sounds bitter.


1:10 "Not could be, is. It definitely is. [in reference to no limit holdem being bad for the game]"

Umm...ok...but ya, id imagine 90% of those under 30 playing poker were introduced to the game only becaue of NL. Obv NL is bad for the game.


1:11-1:12 "all these tournaments are bad for the players?"

I understand the concept of hourly rate could be hurting the player and that the casino obv isnt making as much money when a player is playing 9 hours in a tournament, but there are a lot of people who play only for entertainment value and knowing they can play for a long time with a certain buy-in is appealing to a lot of new players and was a big part of what introduced me to game a long time ago bc i knew i could only lose a certain amount.

"all of the skilled players are gonna end up taking the money and the new players are actually setting themselves up to lose" uh....yes and your point?

1:14-15 "whereas in limit holdem the stategy behind the c/r,....see the hand through to the river" Oh ok. so it involves more strategical decisions such as does my range have equity against his range and will he c/r any pair, draw or over cards in a HU pot from the bb. Fair enough. I know limit can involve some very tough decisions and enjoy the game a lot, and for those wanting to play higher make sure you check out stoxtraders book. But yet in the same interview she then goes on to talk about the advantage of limit is you dont have to make decisions about bet sizes. She comes off as having this "back in the old glory days" old timer nostalgic mentality.

"If the perception of cheating is there, then the game will die out." I could not agree more wholeheartedly with this statement. Shes completely correct, hence the outrage this website has shown in regards to the AP/UB cheating scandals. However, i dont see how a tourist sitting down with 1k and his opp having 20 k in a 5/10 game and tourist losing his 1k is any different than the tourist losing his 1k to another guy with a 1k stack. Im not following how this provides the perception of cheating.

Mason, thank you for further articulating some of the points brought up. I don't know if Donna was sleep-deprived or what, but for many of us she came across as a cranky old woman who might as well have been ranting about how the introduction of sound ruined movies.

+!11111111111

I've played alot of live poker in both forms. The 15-30 limit game that I used to be a regular in was made up of all men in their 60's+ , and they would tell me why it was so much better than NL all the time as well. Most of the same reasons that Donna gave, she just articulated them very poorly and sounded like a complete and utter bitch. She also seems to have absolutely no in depth understanding of nl holdem theory.

She only seems to see and hear what goes on around her 1-2, 2-5 nl games comprised of a bunch of drunken tourists, and wannabe pro locals. I see how someone could get alot of these perceptions of nl from seeing the stupidity and antics that go on in these games. What she seems to have no perception and understanding of is how complex and rich of a game nl holdem actually is from a strategy level.

We knew her interview would come off as controversial which of course makes for good radio and thought she would have some detractors but this comment is just not cool. Not sure why you haven't been banned.

this woman says she gets bored playing NLHE because she effectively says you wait around to play one big pot and goes on to say "i mean, i don't understand it" ....

can someone please type up the transcript of her talking like a senile substitute teacher turned poker room floor.

hee haw

You can think what you want, but this is someone who has worked in very important positions in the Las Vegas poker industry for over 20 years. Her knowledge of these games, and the people who play them, is probably far more than you might imagine.

MM

To further elaborate on Donna's comments I'd like to articulate in my words what the point she was trying to make was, and the point on which Mason was trying to defend her, I believe.
In a decent-sized limit game, say 20/40, it's typical for there to be at least one and many times 2 raises before most flops. In a lot of games it's not unusual for someone to make it 3 or 4 bets preflop on most hands. That means that to see the flop in these games you're gonna have to put in $40 to $60 most of the time, and sometimes $80 or $100.
Compare that to what it takes to see the flop in these popular low-limit NL games with capped buy-ins, say a 1/3 NL game with a $300 max buy in, or even a 2/5 game with a $500 max buy in. Most of the time almost the entire table is trying to see a cheap flop hoping to get lucky. When there is a raise there is usually only one, to $10 to $30.
So when a player at these NL complains that he hates limit HE, he usually has the perception that there is not enough action or "gambling" in limit games, because he can't make a large enough wager in limit games, or go all-in, and "protect his hand". When in reality in that limit game he has to put in much more money preflop to protect his hand than he would in a low-stakes NL game.
My contention is that the action in a mid-stakes limit game like this (or as Donna put it I think, the amount of money that goes into the pot) is just as much or more than in the low-stakes NL games, where the players complain that limit games suck because you can't make large enough bets in limit games. When a NL player who is used to sitting down with $300 realizes that he's going to routinely have to put in a quarter or a third of that stack just to see the flop on most hands in a mid-stakes limit game, he will also realize that these limit games have plenty of action, and very nice sized pots to potentially win.
That doesn't even touch on some of the other differences between the two games, like the fact that stealing the blinds (why bother trying to steal $4?) and defending your blinds from steal raises is pointless in these low-stakes NL games.
Now, I can see and appreciate that these points are somewhat negated in the higher-stakes NL games. But I think that the game in question is the low-stakes NL game that is by far the most popular now, judging by the sheer number of tables that every cardroom devotes to these types of games.
To summarize, I think she was mere trying to point out that a good mid-stakes limit game has more than enough action to satisfy most of the players who currently play only low-stakes NL but swear they hate limit poker, mostly because they have never played limit poker above $3/6 or so level.
I think that's the point that Mason was trying to defend also. I am correct Mason?

Hey guys,
Great job as always. I was listening on my ipod to this latest installment , and much to my consternation, it cut off in a bit over 7 minutes. I have restarted my itunes site, and the download is still short. I am able to listen online just fine, but wanted to let you know in case there is a tech problem w itunes. You guys are the best! marty

I downloaded via itunes and had no problem. Have you tried deleting your subscription and re-subscribing?

1. Deep stacked tournaments aren't the cause of casino woes, they are the symptom -- something else is causing certain cardrooms to feel compelled to offer these promotional events.

Perhaps there has just been an oversupply of cardrooms, and cut-throat competition is the result. If there is oversupply, eventually there will be a shakeout and things return to normal. That's just capitalism and supply and demand at work.


2. Let's not just assume cardroom managers are idiots in offering deep stack events -- I'm sure they are well aware of the opportunity cost involved and that they are acting rationally to maximize their long-run expected profits.

Assuming managers are idiots is a tempting way to ignore underlying economic causes.


3. Businesses are desperate when they complain about what customers want.


4. I wonder if cardrooms make more rake from limit than from NL. I noticed that FullTilt is going out of their way to encourage people to play limit cash games. I wonder why.

Perhaps this has something to do with who people lose their money to-- other players or the house.


5. When NLHE first died, "back in the day," it may have been perception of cheating that killed it, as Donna said. But today, I think cheating in a casino is no longer a real concern.

Cash NLHE has been popular for a few years. Does it really take two years for someone to suddenly suspect cheating at the local game? If people will suspect cheating, they'll do it the first few times they loose their stack. NLHE would have already died if this were an issue. (By the way, countless homegames would have died as well.)

Furthermore, if NLHE is doomed to die out, why is she complaining? It'll die out and people will go back to limit, or draw, or whatever.

Donna is promoting limit for some other reason, and it would be fascinating to know why. Perhaps if she were more upfront about the business side of things she would have been better received.

Instead, she seemed to give reasons that seemed... fishy.


6. I wonder if Donna is partial to limit because of business considerations alone, or because of her personal taste.


7. BTW, I'd love to hear a top Vegas manager come on the show and complain about hold'em and its "mere" two cards, and try to convince his customers to sit in on the PLO game he's hosting. "It's European... much more sophisticated."


8. Controversial guests are awesome.

But I would have liked to hear a little more debate with Donna. Of course, I understand you don't want to be rude to guests. But at least get a second guest willing to argue back. That would make for great radio.

What's with all the haters? I'm guessing the age for the Donna Harris haters at <26.

My first thought after hearing the interview is The Mirage will be my next stop in Vegas to play poker. I would like to shake her hand and tell her I liked the interview on the Pokercast. I enjoyed her point of views and hearing some of the history of poker in Vegas. (She seemed to shorten Mikes rambling questions too )

Mason, thank you. Your points are well taken and I couldn't agree with you more.

I don't want to get into the NLvsLimit debate cause it is a never ending battle. I play and try to learn both.

Mike and Adam, nice job on the show as always. I think more controversial guests like this are good for radio.

Ben

Yes, but just because someone has a lot of years in a particular position doesn't mean they've continued to learn and grow over time. Senator Bryd has a lot of experience but is completely insane. Strom Thurmond was the same way. The guy that ran Bear Stearns had a lot of experience....

A large part of it was the way she said things. If she wants to argue about tourney structures don't argue that something most players want, which is why they are succeeding, is bad for the player. I understand her points with limit and I'm perfectly fine with people liking it more. Before winning in NL I spent a lot of time playing limit both online as well as casinos in LA, LV, CT and more. I just don't enjoy limit as much nor do I find it as profitable these days online.

The point is, don't tell me how limit is so much better, just explain why you prefer it.

I did enjoy the change up doing this interview and I'd love to hear from some others, specifically the manager from The Venetian.

I think if you step back and look at the situation purely from a casino's view you will better understand Donna's views.

1) The casino does not care if you make a living playing poker. In fact, they would probably prefer if no one was able to make a living at it. The entire casino industry is built around players accepting they will lose. The casinos main goal is to provide entertainment value at x profit. Poker could almost be considered a "loss leader" as casinos try to keep their guests from leaving the hotel.

2) Deep stack tournaments are bad from the casino's view because
a) the better players will get the money quicker, thus decreasing the player pool.
b) after busting out from a long tournament a player is less likely to play cash games, the main reason casinos offer tournaments

Decreasing the player pool and less cash games means poker will die quicker.

3) Limit is preferred by casinos because the money stays in action much longer allowing it to be filtered through the economy slower. Better for the house, dealers, cocktails, floor, valets, etc. Someone that has disposable income of $500 a month to play poker can play 4-8 or 3-6 for probably the whole month, but could lose his/her entire stake for the month on one or two hands in NL. Additionally, it will only take a bad player a couple of these losses to become disillusioned with NL. A bad player wins more hands because he will see the showdown more often and it will take him longer to lose the money back. He could bad beat a good player in NL, but give the entire amount back and be broke the next hand.

Imagine a strainer filled with M&Ms with a couple of small holes in the bottom. The largest of the small holes represents the casino rake, even smaller holes represent the players, dealers, floor, cocktails, etc. It may take an hour to filter them out and the house will get the largest percentage. Now imagine the same strainer with a 3" hole in the bottom that represents the players, and a couple smaller holes that represent the house, dealers, etc. This strainer will be empty in 15 seconds and the players get the majority of the money, not the house. This is why the house prefers limit over NL.

I understand the professional poker players viewpoint, get the money from the bad players as quick as possible. The casino wants to get everyone's money consistently.

I haven't always agreed with many of Donna's ideas, but she is right on with these.

Are Deep Stack Tourneys scheduled earlier in the day/night?
How late to they run?

If there are lots of people sitting around in a tourney as late as midnight, 2:00 am, whatever prime-time gambling is in Vegas, I could understand.

But she made a bad argument that everyone saw through-- that it's good for the players to play limit. This is wrong from the point of view of entertainment and pros' profit.

Furthermore, she resorted to the "poker will die" argument, which is absurd.

If what you are saying is correct, then she came on the show and tried to convince listeners into playing a less enjoyable game while paying more overall rake. i.e., pay more for a less enjoyable product.

In that case, a negative reaction from the "customers" is completely rational.

Whether poker is more enjoyable playing NL or limit is up to each individual. I play both but def prefer limit. And, btw, poker is dying. At least in Vegas.

And most seem to prefer NL.

BTW, it's the economy, not NL, that's causing poker's "downswing."

NL created the poker boom.

Can you imagine if the final heads-up duel in Rounders were limit? (Ha! Someone's gotta write that script, ala "EuroRounders.")

Or if Moneymaker's "Bluff of the Century" against Farha were a single big bet on the River?


BTW-2, I prefer pot-limit myself. I wonder what Donna's opinion on that is.

I totally agree with you. The feel was, she was trying to get players to play at the Mirage and make the Mirage more money. Like Vegas, she was all about the money. I don't think that's a bad thing, aren't we all?

^^bolded would be awesome^^, or Ceasars or any other larger room in Vegas.

actually this is not correct, NL on television created the boom, but the boom started with people playing limit hold'em. NL was the bubble.