Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. You want games where players have an incentive to continue to play..and improve, be challenged and get a fair shake. Having people play a game where a vast number are bound to get frustrated and leave, in favor of a much richer game is not better for anyone. NL08 is like playing with wild cards, follow the queen... Anaconda, Baseball, etc. Sure people like these games, but they aren't good poker and are not optimal for developing players and retaining them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's a choice, good players will prefer to have plhe instead of nlhe. But it's nlhe that gets poker going. But I do agree that nlo8 should only be played at up to certain level,say $50 max buy-in (with $.25/$.50 blinds). Many players like to have FUN, they like to have some beers and poker after work, so why bothers with all the thinking and analyzing and brain-hurtting things in poker? So low-limit NLO8 should get them going and have fun. When they've enough funs and see pl tables with higher stakes, they will like to give it a shot. Then they move back to nlo8, and repeat.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

It isn't the poker site's responsibility to force people to learn to appreciate a particular type of game. People play poker for all sorts of different reasons. Recreational players do it for fun, and if enough of them wanted to play a game like Baseball, then I think the poker room should spread that game. Don't play NLO/8 if you don't like the game, but give people the choice. This argument is mostly over sour grapes by professional and semi-professional players who don't want to see fish playing a game that reduces the pro's edge. But that's their problem. It isn't the poker site's responsibility to ensure action for one particular game over another.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

Short-handed PLO8 kills poor players and makes them quit faster. It kills average NLH short-handed players too, aggression plays a less role in SH PLO8, IMHO.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one that would prefer all 6 max tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres more varince than in a full handed game, also look what its done for PLO on party, its pretty much killed the 200 and 400 level. Theres usually 3 short handed tables at most and not even, would you rather see 3 short handed tables or 3 full handed tables? Seems like 3 full handed tables would be more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you could get a seat just as easily at the short handed tables, they would be MUCH more profitable than the full ring games.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

next task, getting a 3rd man out rule put in

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

I wasn't making a case for the site's responsibility at all. I was making a case for what is best for the site over the long term. My point was that better games develop a player base that sticks around longer. All things being equal a better game attracts more players over the long haul than the short haul. IMHO PLO8 is such a game and NLO8 is not. So when a site offers a game with less development potential that competes for players with a game that has more development potential it may be giving the players what they want, but it is worse for business over the long haul. My evidence of this (besides my undertanding of the two games themselves) is that Stars Omaha base is declining (they offer NL tables) and Party's is increasing, (they offer only PL) the same holds true for UB. I think Stars NL08 is not growing any players for them.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short-handed PLO8 kills poor players and makes them quit faster. It kills average NLH short-handed players too, aggression plays a less role in SH PLO8, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your evidence of this? Are you just regurgitating what you've read at Steve Badger's site about PLO8 and claiming it's more true for shorthanded, or do you ahve statistical evidence and such to back up a claim like that?

I ask because I disagree with you--many bad players prefere shorthanded, and never seem to quit, no matter how much they lose.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

[ QUOTE ]
I ask because I disagree with you--many bad players prefere shorthanded, and never seem to quit, no matter how much they lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by bad you mean overly loose-aggressive then yes those players will do better playing shorthanded where the proper strategy for shorthanded play fits with their LAG style.

The other kind of fish, the loose-passive calling station player will get annihilated at all forms of big bet poker.

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

What's wrong with wild card games?

Re: Kudos to Ribbo
 

I saw they were playing Indian Headband at the World Series last year.