Is There Any Hope For REAL Poker (i.e. Hold Em Is Killing Us)

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm stuck up in Massachusetts, with the only place for action that's close enough for me being Foxwoods (and they suck, their service for poker players is terrible, because they have no competition)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed about lack of competition (hopefully Mohegan can put some pressure on them, since RI and MA continue to pass up the goldmine) but you must admit, you can get all different levels of stud at all hours of the day and night. There may not be a better cardroom for the aspiring 7-stud player (emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm stuck up in Massachusetts, with the only place for action that's close enough for me being Foxwoods (and they suck, their service for poker players is terrible, because they have no competition)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed about lack of competition (hopefully Mohegan can put some pressure on them, since RI and MA continue to pass up the goldmine) but you must admit, you can get all different levels of stud at all hours of the day and night. There may not be a better cardroom for the aspiring 7-stud player (emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the players there are terrible, which is great. But it's 100 miles there for me, and that's just too far for me to commute and only make a hundred bucks profit playing 1-3 or 1-5.

[toots]

And, FW will often have an Omaha table.

That's right. In the sea of 76 poker tables, there's that one O/8 table. Sometimes, when they're feeling mega generous, they'll open two: one $2/4 and one $5/10, although most of the times I've been there, it's been one or the other.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
(emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Might as well play $1-5. It's just as fishy and/or rocky as the $1-3 game.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(emphasis on "aspiring" in my case, i'm just playing 1-3 right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Might as well play $1-5. It's just as fishy and/or rocky as the $1-3 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1-3 in my experience has a ton more chasers/action while the 1-5 usually winds up heads-up or maybe three-handed at best. Maybe just the times I'm playing it though, dunno.

Also, I know what you're talking about with the Omaha Hi/Lo table. I sat down at a 5-10 with kill and did quite well. Some lady would call you down with two pair, it was great.

[PokerProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, you got the wrong guy, man. Nobody calls me 'Lebowski,' I'm 'The Dude.'

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi grandgnu:

You should try limit hold 'em, you might discover that it is much different from no limit. Also, the edge you can obtain in no limit against weak opposition is larger than the other games you mention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi grandgnu:

You should try limit hold 'em, you might discover that it is much different from no limit. Also, the edge you can obtain in no limit against weak opposition is larger than the other games you mention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice Mason. I've never warmed up to Limit Hold 'Em or Omaha (I like the hi/lo variant)

Limit Hold 'Em reduces my opportunities to push out drawing hands (as opposed to the NL variant) and I'm just not all that skilled in the Limit version.

Do you really believe one can gain a greater edge in Limit Hold 'Em than in a game like 7-card stud?

[GeniusToad]

I think, much like stud and draw games, this thread is dead. We've completely deviated from the original subject which was regarding the demise of "REAL" poker (implying that games the author of the thread aren't good at aren't "REAL" poker). The most recent posts are concerning what games the Poster enjoys most and whether he does or he doesn't like Limit Hold 'em.

It seems to me he doesn't want to see Hold 'em becomming so popular because he doesn't like it as much as other forms of poker (or is as skilled at it) and not because he's interested in protecting endangered species. The great thing is that its completely okay to not like Hold 'em. If you play online there are always stud games to get into. Not nearly as many as Hold 'em, but they're there. It's not the case in B&M rooms but that will change. You also mentioned at some point that you have a home stud game, albeit a meager one. You should consider yourself lucky to have that to fall back on. Hold 'em will not reign forever. Those other games will always be there (waiting for their turn again) and new ones are always being created so who knows what those games will evolve to in the future. I love stud (not my best game though) and I think the poker community does as well. They're just riding the wave of Hold 'em because its great for poker. In fact, I think the future may lie in the "multi-game in one" tourneys like H.O.R.S.E. My generation has never really known draw poker (on a large scale) but several decades ago draw and stud (5 card version) were about the only games one could find as a gambler. It may not be pleasing to see the game you're most skilled at disappearing, but you have to deal with it. You just have to adapt and hope the tides turn sooner than later. My appologies, Gnu, for any contempt that may be read between the lines. I think I was a bit offended by your excluding Hold 'em from "REAL" poker in your original subject line. I really do mean no harm to you, or stud. As I mentioned earlier I love it and hope it survives.

By the way I think Mason was suggesting Limit Hold 'em simply because its more mathematic and straight forward like stud (at least I think) and also because you'll find no shortage of those games online, in B&M's, tourneys, and in home games. Also, in my opinion there are just as many weak players to be exploited in small stakes limit than in NL.

Take care!

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, much like stud and draw games, this thread is dead. We've completely deviated from the original subject which was regarding the demise of "REAL" poker (implying that games the author of the thread aren't good at aren't "REAL" poker). The most recent posts are concerning what games the Poster enjoys most and whether he does or he doesn't like Limit Hold 'em.

It seems to me he doesn't want to see Hold 'em becomming so popular because he doesn't like it as much as other forms of poker (or is as skilled at it) and not because he's interested in protecting endangered species. The great thing is that its completely okay to not like Hold 'em. If you play online there are always stud games to get into. Not nearly as many as Hold 'em, but they're there. It's not the case in B&M rooms but that will change. You also mentioned at some point that you have a home stud game, albeit a meager one. You should consider yourself lucky to have that to fall back on. Hold 'em will not reign forever. Those other games will always be there (waiting for their turn again) and new ones are always being created so who knows what those games will evolve to in the future. I love stud (not my best game though) and I think the poker community does as well. They're just riding the wave of Hold 'em because its great for poker. In fact, I think the future may lie in the "multi-game in one" tourneys like H.O.R.S.E. My generation has never really known draw poker (on a large scale) but several decades ago draw and stud (5 card version) were about the only games one could find as a gambler. It may not be pleasing to see the game you're most skilled at disappearing, but you have to deal with it. You just have to adapt and hope the tides turn sooner than later. My appologies, Gnu, for any contempt that may be read between the lines. I think I was a bit offended by your excluding Hold 'em from "REAL" poker in your original subject line. I really do mean no harm to you, or stud. As I mentioned earlier I love it and hope it survives.

By the way I think Mason was suggesting Limit Hold 'em simply because its more mathematic and straight forward like stud (at least I think) and also because you'll find no shortage of those games online, in B&M's, tourneys, and in home games. Also, in my opinion there are just as many weak players to be exploited in small stakes limit than in NL.

Take care!

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. I just view Hold 'Em as an extremely simple game, and I can't fault better players for wanting to play it and take the fishies money, since it's the best bet right now.

I consider myself a strong NL Hold 'Em tourney player, but I've never really enjoyed limit Hold 'Em, in tourney or cash variety.

I don't have a problem with Hold 'Em being popular, I DO have a problem with it's popularity really hurting the availability of stud and omaha games.

As far as playing online, don't really care for that either. I'm much stronger when I can see my opponents live, I focus better in live games than online.

My original problem was that Hold 'Ems popularity was really hurting the availibility of other games, and being a bigger fan of the other games, I'm hoping they won't die off (people use to be huge fans of 5-card draw poker, but you don't see that available much anymore either)