Foxwoods --- lowest NL blinds??

[pshreck]

Straightup question... are there any 1-2 dollar or 2-4 dollar NO LIMIT ring games.... mainly is it reasonable for people to sit down with only 200 bucks at any foxwoods NL ring game?

[daryn]

the only NL games i have seen there have been 5-5 blinds minimum. people sit all the time with just $200. i would want at least $500 though.

[pshreck]

Although I seriously prefer regular play to tournaments, it seems that tournaments are the only thing reasonable for a casual player that doesnt consider themself a fish. I think anyone sitting down at a 5/5 table with 200 bucks would be immediately labeled as a fish, and rightfully so.

[BottlesOf]

Can someone explain why this is.

[Myrtle]

Dangerous generalization........

There are legitimate reasons that a non-fish would sit down at a 5-5 table with only 200........

[La Brujita]

Without giving a very detailed answer some of the factors to consider that cut both ways are:

1. If you have shallow money you can play drawing hands differently than if they money is deep

2. The deeper the money you have the more "play" you can get because you have larger implied odds

3. There may be psychological factors with respect to your opponents play due to the shallowness of your money.

There are many more points to discuss but this basically comes from PLNLP.

[MMMMMM]

One of the best poker players I am acquainted with, who has since moved up to $300-600 limit and the like, used to say that he thought $175 was about the perfect amount to sit down with at this game (a few years ago). BTW this player also got a perfect 800 on his math SATS--twice.

Now, I don't know the best amount to sit with, and his assessment was a while ago, but I am inclined to doubt that sitting down with under $200 truly marks anyone as a fish. In fact, the amount I least like to sit in this game with is $500. I either want to be a huge stack or a small stack--somewhere in the middle seems to have the disadvantages of both without really having the commensurate advantages. Just my 2c, I don't really know.

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW this player also got a perfect 800 on his math SATS--twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has no meaning. I know 5 people who got 800 on their SATs. I met 4 of them when I used to tutor Calc I and II in college. Boy did they need the help.

Btw, there are reasons to sit with a short stack, hopefully turnip or limon can give you exact reasons.

[toots]

It does rather beg the question that if someone's so smart that they got an 800 on their Math SAT, why did they take the SATs again? (yeah, yeah, I know, to pump the verbal score.)

Speaking as someone who got an 800 on my math SAT (taken only once, tyvm), I've always been a heck of a lot more impressed by anyone who could get an 800 on the verbal.

I agree - 800 Math is a cute party trick, but I doubt that it means a heck of a lot in this context.

[MMMMMM]

I just thought it was interesting, and I tend to respect this player's opinion--not only for that reason, but also because he successfully made the move up to the much higher limits some time ago, and because I have never seen him get upset while playing. Just very even keeled and always kept thinking and applying the edge.

Anyway, I hate having a stack that is too large to push all in with but is still too small to really get really high implied odds. Just my 2c again.

[daryn]

you also met one at foxwoods once /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lazymeatball]

incidentally,
you don't have to get a perfect score to get an 800 on the SAT's. You can still get a couple wrong and get an 800.