Al_Capone_Junior
08-07-2005, 12:14 AM
OK.
I've been a thinkin' about this topic. I've cussed and discussed 'round town about this topic. And I've come to a conclusion...
$3 big blind for the "small" no limit game is better than $2 big blind.
Obviously, by definition, we're not talking about $2-$5 no limit games, so shut-uppa-you-face if you bring up those games. We're talking "low limit no limit" for LIVE play (no internet discussions either, does not apply here). We're talking what's the smallest no limit game in the house in brick and mortor casinos.....
Most houses spread $1-$2 blinds no limit as their smallest no limit game. There is usually a max buy-in, which is either $100 or $200. That's fine, I don't have a problem with the max buy-in. I also don't have a problem with NO max buy-in, so I won't get into that much here.
But a few houses 'round town have switched to a $1-$3 blind structure for the smallest no limit games. I have heard of, but never actually seen, $2-$3 as being the blinds (I think I would like that game the most, I like there being $5 in starting cash in the pot).
Now some houses have started using $3 chips to play $1-$3 no limit. I have played in these games a couple times, and I basically LIKE them. Sure the chips are a bit confusing, but as one wynn dealer I know says "the players seem to lose all track of the fact that the chips are MONEY, they become just chips." Whatever, whether I like it or not isn't the point, the point is what makes the best game?
Actually, a $3 big blind with $1 chips and $5 chips wouldn't be so bad either. The dealer would actually make LESS change than they already to in 1-2 no limit. Think about it, if two players limp with $5 chips in 1-2 blinds, THREE must limp in order for there to be enough change in the pot for the dealer to make change without going to the rack. If the blind was $3 instead of $2, only TWO would have to limp for the dealer NOT to have to go to the rack to make change for two $5 chip limpers.
In $3 chip games, change is rarely, if ever an issue, thus the game would almost certainly go a little faster for this reason, even if slowed slightly because of the $3 chip confusion issue.
However, from a play standpoint, $2 limps make for some tiny ass pots before the flop. But a $3 limp would make for BIGGER pots with the same number of limpers. This would be slightly exaggerated if you were using only $1 and $5 chips.
Bigger starting pots = more reason to play = more action early. Smaller starting pots = less reason to play = less action early. This is probably why $2-$5 is always so much more of an action game, even tho the blinds are actually proportionately SMALLER in $2-$5. It's the psychology of it all....
Now from the house point of view... Four limpers in $1-$2 = $8 pot = 50c rake or no rake, depending on the house. Four limpers in $3 big blind = $12 pot = $1 rake in virtually all houses. So the bigger blinds = more rake for the house. More action also equals more rake.
So cuss / discuss.
al
I've been a thinkin' about this topic. I've cussed and discussed 'round town about this topic. And I've come to a conclusion...
$3 big blind for the "small" no limit game is better than $2 big blind.
Obviously, by definition, we're not talking about $2-$5 no limit games, so shut-uppa-you-face if you bring up those games. We're talking "low limit no limit" for LIVE play (no internet discussions either, does not apply here). We're talking what's the smallest no limit game in the house in brick and mortor casinos.....
Most houses spread $1-$2 blinds no limit as their smallest no limit game. There is usually a max buy-in, which is either $100 or $200. That's fine, I don't have a problem with the max buy-in. I also don't have a problem with NO max buy-in, so I won't get into that much here.
But a few houses 'round town have switched to a $1-$3 blind structure for the smallest no limit games. I have heard of, but never actually seen, $2-$3 as being the blinds (I think I would like that game the most, I like there being $5 in starting cash in the pot).
Now some houses have started using $3 chips to play $1-$3 no limit. I have played in these games a couple times, and I basically LIKE them. Sure the chips are a bit confusing, but as one wynn dealer I know says "the players seem to lose all track of the fact that the chips are MONEY, they become just chips." Whatever, whether I like it or not isn't the point, the point is what makes the best game?
Actually, a $3 big blind with $1 chips and $5 chips wouldn't be so bad either. The dealer would actually make LESS change than they already to in 1-2 no limit. Think about it, if two players limp with $5 chips in 1-2 blinds, THREE must limp in order for there to be enough change in the pot for the dealer to make change without going to the rack. If the blind was $3 instead of $2, only TWO would have to limp for the dealer NOT to have to go to the rack to make change for two $5 chip limpers.
In $3 chip games, change is rarely, if ever an issue, thus the game would almost certainly go a little faster for this reason, even if slowed slightly because of the $3 chip confusion issue.
However, from a play standpoint, $2 limps make for some tiny ass pots before the flop. But a $3 limp would make for BIGGER pots with the same number of limpers. This would be slightly exaggerated if you were using only $1 and $5 chips.
Bigger starting pots = more reason to play = more action early. Smaller starting pots = less reason to play = less action early. This is probably why $2-$5 is always so much more of an action game, even tho the blinds are actually proportionately SMALLER in $2-$5. It's the psychology of it all....
Now from the house point of view... Four limpers in $1-$2 = $8 pot = 50c rake or no rake, depending on the house. Four limpers in $3 big blind = $12 pot = $1 rake in virtually all houses. So the bigger blinds = more rake for the house. More action also equals more rake.
So cuss / discuss.
al