New 2-4 NLHE at Foxwoods

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no one correct structure, just as there isn't one correct tourney starting chip/blind format. There are common structures and accepted structures but every place is different.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the lesson pal. And as to your second paragraph, god forbid you run into some competition. I enjoy easy money as much as the next guy, but I also love playing against good players. Call me crazy. Regardless, I'm sure the new 2/4 game will be quite fishy.

Go Yanks!

[BISCO]

if this makes the level of play in the 1-2 game even worse than it already is, i'm all for it. i have never played in a game in my life that is easier than the foxwoods 1-2 NL game.

i'm sure that plenty of people will still play the 1-2 game to start their session, then jump up to the 2-4 as soon as their stack gets around $3-400 (myself included)

[nate1729]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you want the fish to keep some money? I don't always like playing it either, but there's more to objective quality of a structure than whether or not 2+2ers find it optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the condescending pseudo-supremacy towards players you perceive as weaker than you,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to be condescending, or even pseudo-condescending, but I admit that dismissive obnoxiousness annoys me. I don't know whether you're better or worse than I am, by the way.

[ QUOTE ]
but to answer your question, no, I want the fish to lose all their money. And they dont, and never will. Even a blind man walks into a wall every now and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is that you want the fish to lose as much money as possible, and the way to do that is not to have them put $500 on a 1-2 table and lose it in a hand. A little variance is a long-term good thing for us.

The blindness metaphor is interesting, and I admit I've having some difficulty penetrating the meaning of the last two sentences I just quoted; care to clarify?

[ QUOTE ]
Good no limit games are 100 BB or more, if you disagree, feel free to give some objective reasons. I cant think of any.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above for my objective reasons. By the way, I don't play the 1-2 game, largely because of the capped buyin. I agree that good games, in terms of skill reward and my personal enjoyability, have 100 BBs or more, but the casino needs to worry about long-term game sustainability, and that benefits the sharks too.

[ QUOTE ]
All yellow chips would suck!

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I hate those things.

--Nate

[IgorSmiles]

Nate,

I didnt mean you were condecending me personally. Your idea (and I've heard others espouse it here too) that the fish winning a little back is good for the game is condecending, as if you are somehow better and could take their money at will. If it was up to me, I would take all their money on the first hand and I could care less if they come back, there will be a fresh crop of fisheys along tomorrow night. However, it doesnt work that way, at least not always. Unlike seemingly everyone else around here, I actually lose some nights.

And yes, I know exactly why the house at Foxwoods sets the cap at $100. To sustain the game and maximize the rake. I'm a player, not the house. I want to maximize my take, or at least my chances.

100 BB or more allows for deep stacks, this allows for strategy. The 100 game at fox has no strategy. It's a preflop game for simpletons (now I'll be condecending). The new structure is an improvement, but not enough to make me drop everything and run to play.

[nate1729]

Fair enough; I guess we just disagree. If it were possible, however, I'd gladly bet that the average fish loses more money *over the life of his playing the 1-2 game* than he would if the buyin were uncapped (or, to a lesser degree, capped at 200.)

If you play the 2-4, tell us how it is. Remarkable how void this thread is of actual game information.

--Nate