09-08-2005, 06:27 PM
I was reading Mason MalMuths Poker Essays volume I. Written before the poker boom, he has a few essays on why he thinks NL holdem cash games will never generate the traffic that limit holdem will. He makes some valid points and some other points that I disagree with. There is one point however, that I don't know what he even means. Perhaps someone can decode:
"One possible solution would be to limit the amount of money that any player is allowed to put on the table. However, this would cause another set of problems that I don't want to get into because winning players would required to go south with the money. It would also change the nature of No Limit Holdem"
his point was that the structure of a NL cash game, when the money is deep, dictates the best strategy is to play ultra tight with a tiny stack. He said one solution to this is introduced a cap buy in, but then he wrote the paragraph above which I don't understand. Since I don't remember a time before NL cash games had a capped buy in, can anyone help me what the above paragraph means?
(as an aside, since there are now so many truly bad players playing NL, I think it now helps you to give action against certain players if it ensures getting action later. Sure tight play against equal skill level is probably still proper. But if you are at a table with people who are all equally skilled, its a bad game choice anyway)
"One possible solution would be to limit the amount of money that any player is allowed to put on the table. However, this would cause another set of problems that I don't want to get into because winning players would required to go south with the money. It would also change the nature of No Limit Holdem"
his point was that the structure of a NL cash game, when the money is deep, dictates the best strategy is to play ultra tight with a tiny stack. He said one solution to this is introduced a cap buy in, but then he wrote the paragraph above which I don't understand. Since I don't remember a time before NL cash games had a capped buy in, can anyone help me what the above paragraph means?
(as an aside, since there are now so many truly bad players playing NL, I think it now helps you to give action against certain players if it ensures getting action later. Sure tight play against equal skill level is probably still proper. But if you are at a table with people who are all equally skilled, its a bad game choice anyway)