Anyone else want a bigger online nolimit game?

I would like to see UB or Poker Stars spread games with higher buyins. For example a 25c/50c blind game with $25min and $50 max would be much better than having the buyins allowed ranging by a factor of 5 as they are at present. I would also like to see a 50c/$1 or $1/$2 blind game with buyins of $50-$100, and $100-$200 respectively.


The small stacks do ruin the game. Often i see prime stealing opportunities and have to pass them up because of the presence of a lousy short stack that will no doubt call with T8o as he only has $2 left, whereas the rest of the table has $40 plus.


This puts a stealing hand in a lose, lose situation. He cannot steal the pot well over half the time because of the small stack that buys in for $5 and calls with pretty much any 2 cards preflop, and as little as bottom button after the flop. However if anyone holds a monster he still gets raised, or worse yet called, and allowed to bluff off more money.


Has anyone played games where a player has to have above a certain stack size to be dealt in? I think the 25c/50c games should have a minimum of $10 to be dealt a hand, not a minimum buyin of $10.

I don't play in "no limit" games that have a maximum buy-in and neither should you. Ultimate Bet offers these games to give the appearance of offering a "no limit" game, but the maximum buy-in makes it play more like a limit game, thereby limiting the advantage of the skillful players, keeping the games going longer, and maximizing the house rake-off.

How does a no-limit game which has a maximum buy-in of 100x BB play like a limit game?

I agree with Mr.Peterson though, the minimum buy-in should be higher. Though its not a problem very often.

I don't like the idea of forcing someone to rebuy if they have a low stack. That seems unfair to me.


I have no problem with increasing the minimum buy-ins although I find with UB, the players who buy-in at the minimum are weaker players.


Ken Poklitar

I don't play in "no limit" games that have a maximum buy-in and neither should you.


Why not? What if he enjoys the game and makes good money off it? I know I do.


Ultimate Bet offers these games to give the appearance of offering a "no limit" game, but the maximum buy-in makes it play more like a limit game


You clearly have not played in these games, because this is absolutely not true.


... thereby limiting the advantage of the skillful players, keeping the games going longer, and maximizing the house rake-off.


This is probably somewhat true, and if you like to play no limit, this is a GOOD THING!


The max buy-in structure at Ultimate Bet is brilliant. It solves some of the major problems with no limit.


1. With very very large stacks, the game degenerates into ultra-tight mode where nobody will commit their stack without the nuts or second nuts. It gets to the point where people are laying down because the top set full is not the nuts. This is bad for the game.


Now, with the maximum buy-in, you still have enough of a stack that you won't push-in on a whim, but you have to mix it up a bit and get in there! In other words, you have to play some poker instead of playing a waiting game to trap someone.


2. The new player is not intimidated by the amount of money on the table. With a big blind of 50 cents, and a buy-in of $50, a normal no limit game will eventually have stacks around $500 or even $1000. This not only creates the problem I mentioned above, but it is DOUBLY harmful because now, the only people who may actually come into the game and play around a bit are too intimidated to sit down.


By keeping all the stacks within a given range (on UB the range is about 20 to 150 normally at the .25/.50 game), players are more willing to "take a shot" or "give it a try" and the good players are forced to actually play some no limit poker.


Another GREAT thing about this game is that someone with a big stack had to WIN it. This makes it much less aggravating for them if they get busted. It was just their winnings anyway and they can now buy in again and start over. No big deal. This keeps the game from creating the kind of bitterness you often see at no limit games where someone will buy in for $500, then $1000, then $3000, then $10,000. Uggh.


I believe this structure is so good it will become the future of no limit poker played in casinos and resolves MANY of the problems with no limit poker that Mason has written about. Specifically, Mason often claims that no limit poker will bust the fish too fast, but with this structure, that factor is highly mitigated.


Granted, your edge is still bigger than it is in communist poker (limit), but it's not nearly as great as it would be if there was no max buy in.


Therefore, the games last longer, and the good players get to win MORE.


Not only that, but I've found that the variance for a good player is really low. In fact, it's lower than for a regular no limit game. Your win rate is also probably lower, because of the max buy-in, but your game will still be there next week.


I won't tell you how much money I've won from the UB microlimit games, but it is astonishing considering that the big blind is .25 and maybe sometimes the .50 game is going. Most of the players are terrible yet they come back for more, because their exposure is limited by the structure.


Yes, it's just like limit hold'em in that way, in that the fish can last longer. The good thing is, you get to play nolimit, which is much more fun and exciting than limit.


(And no, to those of you who have read the essays, no limit is NOT simpler and easier than limit. That is one of the few things Mason has got completely wrong. I can go so far as to agree both games are incredibly complex, but to label no limit as "simple" and "easy" shows a total lack of understanding for the game. IMHO of course).


And if you really think the max buy-in creates a game that plays more like limit, you obviously haven't played the game.


natedogg

I think for these low limit no-limit games you need a maximum buy-in. Otherwise you will have some player who has $5000 come into the game and kill the newbies.


The games don't play like a limit game. There are many players that raise and bet the minimums but those are players you want in the game.


Ken Poklitar

ohKanada@hotmail.com

Natedogg couldn't be more right. The maximum buyin is a brilliant idea, not because it limits the advantage of the better players, but because it limits the advantage of the bigger bankroll. Having a player covering the table, who will instantly buy back for enough to cover the table again if he loses is bad for the game. An enormous bankroll gives these players an almost insurmountable edge in many games, and incredibly deep money stifles the game. In my opinion ALL nolimit games should have this structure, as it gives everyone a chance to win, while still providing healthy profit for a good player (I consider myself a relative novice in nolimit and i have returned >$14 a hour over >100 hours in a 10c/25c blind game).


I definitely would like to see the minimum buyins raised though. The short stacks often make picking up a pot on the flop near impossible. If you having nothing on a non-eventful flop and it is checked to you, all too often you are in a $8-10 pot, and you and 2 other opponents have $50+ left to bet, and one opponent has $2 left. You stick out an approximately pot sized bet, the short stack calls with anything representing a holding, and the others fold. Your AKs which you popped it to $2 from in the cutoff seat will lose the whole pot to bottom button over and over. I don't have a problem with this if the call was due to a good read (yes there is such a thing online) but if it's due to a player simply buying in for $5 to annoy the other players, and essentially play limit poker this is bad for the game.

UB set the buy-ins low enough to discourage colluders. Raising them may put your stacks at risk.

could it be that UB set lower levels so players would not go broke so quickly--so they could play longer--so UB could rake longer????

Ultimate Bet set up this low minimum buy-in with maximum buy-in structure specifically to minimize the edge that the good players have over bad players, thereby keeping the games going longer and maximizing the house rake.


Nate made some good points in his post, but if I were a skillful player, I would seek out the games that offer me the most edge. I'm not saying the games on UB can't be fun to play, (or slightly profitable), but if I were a skillful player, I would much prefer the structure offered at CCC poker, which would allow me make the most money in the minumum time.


Take for example the theoretical "pot limit" game with 1/2 blinds and maximum buy-in of $10. It will play almost identical to a limit game, with the house being the only party showing a profit in the long run. A game with unlimited max buy-in and adequate minimum buy-in of $100 would play more like a true pot limit game. Games between these extremes would have elements of both.


As a player, I want to maximize my hourly rate. I'm not concernced with the longevity of the game or the profitablity of the house.

"As a player, I want to maximize my hourly rate. I'm not concernced with the longevity of the game "


How much will your hourly rate be when the game has died?


UB's PL 1/2 game has a max buy in of 200 and average pot sizes of 150-200 and a few 300+ (when I write this), btw.

That's a terrible attitude to have if you actually want to make money. Are you better to win $200 a hour for 30 mins, or $100 an hour for as long as you want?


The death of nolimit cash games, is simply due to the lack of fish. The fish must be protected in some way and the capped buyins is the way to do it.


Keeping the fish in the game longer, doesn't stop them from losing money, but it does stop them from losing heart.


In all reality the average fish will lose more in these games, because he has reason to keep coming back, after being able to protect an occasional win from the sharks.

After watching the NL on UB for awhile and reading all of the posts on this board, I decided to have a go on Saturday. I bought into a short handed game for $30 (stack sizes ranged from $10 to about $80).


To make a short story even shorter, within a couple of minutes I was buying in for another $20. Funny how the table started filling up rapidly at that point. I lasted a round then bet half my stack at the river with KQ, top pair. I got raised, went all-in, and looked at pocket aces. I chose not to buy-in any more that evening and left feeling a bit embarrassed.


The next day I went back to the 10/25 cent NL game. After an hour I quit a couple of bucks ahead because I had something else to do. I felt I played much better but also felt I was totally outclassed by at least four others at the table.


My point is that for somebody like me who really wants to learn the game, UB is the perfect solution.


And I ain't going to be a fish forever. Paul

have Santa get you Doyle Brunsons supersystem for the holidays, or maybe tj cloutiers or bob ciaffones potlimit or no limit books, read them and spend some time on the free games. This experience will help guide you in the money games.

Don't worry about TJ's book, but the other 2 are must reads. Come to think of it, i should finish reading them lol.

Thanks to Mr.P and hillbilly for the replies. I'm finding it hard to stop playing too tight at NL, but what's interesting is some people still call when I go all-in on a relatively small pot. And that leads me to a question, with the apparent best hand after the flop, is it right to go all-in when you're staring at a flush or straight draw?


For example I hold KdKh and the flop is 3s4s7d when my stack is $8 and there's about $10 in the pot against two other players? How about if my stack is $20 in the same situation? Cheers, Paul

First situation allin. 2nd situation either bet the pot or go allin. If you bet the pot, go allin on the turn, probably regardless of what falls. The suited Ace is the only card the really should inspire enough fear to drop. Don't 2nd guess yourself when the money is short with a big overpair, just go allin and buy more if you are wrong or they draw out.


When you have more than this you should start by betting the pot, and then either reraise allin or fold if played back at. A lot depends on the stack sizes and the opponent(s) in the hand.