Foxwoods 1/2 NL - worth the time?

[rookieplus]

I was there Thursday (after taking a terrible beat early in the 250 person NL tournament - I promise no bad beat storues) and played NL for most of the day. As I got a horrible run of cards and managed to stay off tilt I had to do something so I decided to contemplate:

1. $5 per half hour to play
2. Averaging ten! hands per half hour because:
2a. Lots of slow players
2b. Too many people buying in at the table instead of getting chips at the cage
2c. So many buy ins at the table that they fill often
2d. For every good dealer (and there are a bunch of good ones) there is a bad one right around the corner

So I'm in for $16/hour with the blinds. Add to that the swings that are normal in a loose NL game, the chance of getting on a terrible run of cards, and I wonder if it's even worth sitting at one of these tables. Yes they're juicy if you get a big fish, but to play 100 hands you're talking about five hours, and that's if you don't get up to use the rest room.

Don't get me wrong, I love the place and wish I could get there more. I just wonder if the particular game is worth it.

[smoore]

I can't imagine it's worth it if you're only getting 20 hands per hour.

[toots]

I saw a $960 pot at one of those $1/2 tables the other day. What's surprising was that two of the for people who saw it to the river (and indeed did a lot of the betting) had essentially nothing.

Sure wish I had a piece of that hand.

Yeah, there's lots of poser/wannabe posing, but the game's loose. Take some beats, but if you play well, it'll be money ahead sooner or later, even at 20 hands/hour. I mean, I saw one guy go all in every time he got dealt an ace. Doesn't that appeal to you, even a little?

[rookieplus]

Too bad I wasn't in that game. And yes, you take a ton of bad beats (like the time this week when I had QQ cracked when a guy with ace high called a big bet of mine and rivered you know what - wonder if that was the same guy). It just strikes me that the number of hands per hour is so low that the swings combined with the high rake makes the game a losing proposition unless you can play it for a very long time.

I think the gamne would be tons better if they didn't do so much chip changing at the table.

[TomCollins]

If you can't beat this game, even with the time charges, you officially suck. That game has people practically throwing money at you.

[Durs522]

This game is definitely worth the time. You have the opportunity to make a lot of money from people who really don't know what they're doing. If you sit and wait for your hands its not hard to get paid off.

[tdarko]

i thought that they threw money at you in the 5/5 nl game there too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Barry]

There are a few folks that do quite well in that game. I asked them about it, given the rake and the landsharks (I think that was Gabe's term) that take forever before checking, which is the main source of the slow play. He said that the play was so bad, it was very easy money.

A while back they started another table and had 1 open seat that I took it for the heck of it while waiting for a seat in the 20 game.

I buy in for $100, which is the max, win a couple of hands and now have about $130 when the following comes up.

I'm in the BB, UTG straddles, next guy who somehow has about $28 in front of him after about 15 minutes goes all-in. He gets 2 cold callers. I look down at QQ and push.

Straddler folds, 1st cold caller folds, 2nd calls all in for about the $75 that he has left.

1st all-in shows K9o and coldcaller/2nd all-in shows AJo.

Flop is J high, turn and river are blanks and MHIG. Mr. AJo tosses me a black ($100) chip, I pass him a rack of whites ($1) and my name gets called for the 20 game. They all sigh and I leave.

If you can't beat that game, you do indeed suck.

[rookieplus]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can't beat that game, you do indeed suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get a kick out of this kind of quote. I suppose it may be true but when they accompany a story about hitting ONE big hand and then calling it a winning experience, well ... Consider that running your stack from $100 to $130 could take an hour, two or three and while the time charge is certain, catching a hand isn't.

I've hit this game for decent money and I've had losing sessions at it, but I'm a decent player and have an easy time staying off tilt. And I'm pretty confident that over time, a good player will beat the other players that sit at the 1/2 NL tables.

My question was simply whether the rake made this game unattractive. Maybe I should have couched it in terms of game selection - is this game the best game at FW or is it far down on the list. My point of view on that is that the 5/10 kill games (both HE and O/8) though much less exciting are far more profitable when considering the time charges associated with the NL game.

I'm probably not in the minority when I say that I'd much rather pay a rake from a winning pot than pay to sit at a potentially bad table.

But thanks for the "you suck" implication anyway. I love being underestimated.

[Myrtle]

I would tend to agree that, in the long run, the rake makes the 1-2 not the best choice.

Contrasted vs. the 5-5 NL or the 5-10/10-20 FL Kill games I know where I'm sitting.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought that they threw money at you in the 5/5 nl game there too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The competition is a bit better in the 5/5 game but the opportunity to win so much more money for only slightly higher rake makes it a thousand times better a game. The 1/2 game is for tourists not real players.

[perfectm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought that they threw money at you in the 5/5 nl game there too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The competition is a bit better in the 5/5 game but the opportunity to win so much more money for only slightly higher rake makes it a thousand times better a game. The 1/2 game is for tourists not real players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad that you are so quick to judge whether or not someone is a real player by their ability to sit down with two grand or not. I've seen some absolute terrible play at the Foxwoods 5/5. I think there are plenty of players, myself and friends included who enjoy playing the 1/2 successfully and repeatedly.

[BoogerFace]

To contrast the 'you suck' vibe - I think that to do well 1/2 NL with a time charge requires looser play (and higher variance) than I personally feel comfortable with.

My experience at the 'woods 1/2 is that it is beatable for a tight player, but you'll probably die of boredom waiting for premium hands. Given the typical maniacs at that limit, suckouts are common and the $100 cap doesn't leave a lot of room for post-flop finesse.

That's why I'll play 4/8 or the 5/10 kill game at Foxwoods. It's a better fit for my style of play. (But then again, I probably play a little too tight.)

[Barry]

I wasn't trying to be condesending to you, and I wasn't bragging about my quick score there. I was only trying to point out how bad the play at the game is and that there are a few folks that can make decent $ playing it as there game of choice.

Yeah the rake is high, but it is an easily beatable game if you are decent and that is the limit your bankroll is comfortable with.

In general the play is pretty bad at all of the regular HE limits so, if you have some skill play as high as your bankroll allows.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought that they threw money at you in the 5/5 nl game there too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The competition is a bit better in the 5/5 game but the opportunity to win so much more money for only slightly higher rake makes it a thousand times better a game. The 1/2 game is for tourists not real players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad that you are so quick to judge whether or not someone is a real player by their ability to sit down with two grand or not. I've seen some absolute terrible play at the Foxwoods 5/5. I think there are plenty of players, myself and friends included who enjoy playing the 1/2 successfully and repeatedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never once sat in the 5/5 game with two grand. I always play short, not by choice I just dont have the bank.

There are some horrible players at 5/5. We agree.

If you enjoy the 1/2, knock yourself out. Call me a snob if you'd like, but the $100 cap on the buyin coupled with the skill level of the players make it a weak game taylor made (Intentionally I might add) for rookies and tourists.

[Nick1232]

Personally I find the 1/2 game at the woods a pretty good deal if you get your hands and play them strong. The size of your bet has a big effect in the game and you can usually get players to drop there hands for big bets. I have never played the 5/5 but have heard some stories from the game. The dealers lately have been saying you need close to a grand to sit at the 5/5 game and I know personally that is out of my confort zone. Plus some of the people at the 5/5 game play extremely loose and look for low card flops. The 4/8 and 5/10 games are usually great but I have noticed weaker players in the 1/2 game. I agree though that I wished they would just rake the game instead of doing a time charge.

[toots]

I suspect that the reason they don't rake is that they don't want to tax the dealer's computational abilities. After all, counting the pot in NL can be a bit more difficult than counting fixed sized bets.

[Slow Play Ray]

I played today. My table was REALLY soft, but I made one huge bonehead move...I called an all-in w/o realizing a guy also had cash on the table...$45 quickly became $225...I'm still kicking myself over that one...but I digress. Anyway, I still ended up about $300 in the black.

Funny thing though, you guys know the younger floor guy Dan? He sits down at my table, I'm like "uh, don't you work here?" He says "Nope, I quit." He ended up pulling in about $350 in 3 hours or so...which is ironically probably more than he ever made on a floor shift. Bravo.

[Myrtle]

BINGO!!!!

Igor wins the prize......

[Slow Play Ray]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never once sat in the 5/5 game with two grand. I always play short, not by choice I just dont have the bank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how short?

[IgorSmiles]

I win a prize? I guess for the "intentionally, I might add" remark. It's obvious that they set the limit at $100 to "save people from themselves." They want to keep people from getting hurt too bad and keep on raking. There's no shame in playing in that game, and if youre making money and/or having fun, great. It just annoys me that the cap is so low. I'd like to see it at $250 or $300 but even $200 would allow for some decent play.

Ray, I generally sit down with $500 in the 5/5 game, but I have to have at least $1500 total because you have to be ready to re-up if you bust out. I cant splash around much until I hit a hand or two, but once I do that, I can settle into my regular game.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I win a prize? I guess for the "intentionally, I might add" remark. It's obvious that they set the limit at $100 to "save people from themselves." They want to keep people from getting hurt too bad and keep on raking. There's no shame in playing in that game, and if youre making money and/or having fun, great. It just annoys me that the cap is so low. I'd like to see it at $250 or $300 but even $200 would allow for some decent play.

Ray, I generally sit down with $500 in the 5/5 game, but I have to have at least $1500 total because you have to be ready to re-up if you bust out. I cant splash around much until I hit a hand or two, but once I do that, I can settle into my regular game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you understand managements thinking........Raise the buy-in cap and you get more players busting out faster ='s less of a player pool to contribute to an exhorbitant time charge for this game.

It's cleary a "Give 'em what they want" management mentality, and there's no shame in that at all.

I don't think that it's being elitist in seeing things for what they are. That said, I still don't think it's the best game to max our your'e EV if you are a better player.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think it's the best game to max our your'e EV if you are a better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would dispute that. I play the 1/2 but its purely for bankroll reasons. In the 5/5 game, I'd be playing scared because a couple bad beats would seriously damage my roll. Every time I go, I seriously consider taking a shot at it (I could have a bad session and not totally destroy my bankroll) and then end up grinding it out at the 1/2 instead.

One of these days....

[Slow Play Ray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think it's the best game to max our your'e EV if you are a better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would dispute that. I play the 1/2 but its purely for bankroll reasons. In the 5/5 game, I'd be playing scared because a couple bad beats would seriously damage my roll. Every time I go, I seriously consider taking a shot at it (I could have a bad session and not totally destroy my bankroll) and then end up grinding it out at the 1/2 instead.

One of these days....

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto. on all points.