single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More chips (3chip/6chip in a 7.50/15 game) induce more action due to the appearance of large pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's totally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but likely true.

I also find it much easier to play 6/12 with yellow $2 chips, as it plays at Canterbury, than reds and blues, as it plays at the Mirage. Neat little stacks of 3 or 6 chips are easier to make and count. Also, no change needed (okay, except for the small blind).

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More chips (3chip/6chip in a 7.50/15 game) induce more action due to the appearance of large pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's totally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human beings as a species are "retarded" in that colloquial sense. Humans play poker, so it makes sense that poker would inherit our species' irrational quirks.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logic is flawless! Why, this theory would suggest that most low limit hold'em playesrs don't make rational choices while they're playing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't disagree with you if you won't disagree with me.

[Mano]

Do you think the 5/10 would be better if they just used $2.50 chips with a 1/2 chip blind structure?

[Jersey Nick]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the 5/10 would be better if they just used $2.50 chips with a 1/2 chip blind structure?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, as long as there is a rock and a full kill.

[SenecaJim]

Interesting theory. I don't know, small stakes seem plenty loose regardless. I play at Grand Vic and do really well at 5-10 and still have much, much, much to learn. Now the game is not always that loose, it comes and goes, but often is.

I find that even when not crazy loose still loose enough to earn decently by tightening up a tad cause of lower pot odds.

I like the game shifting around a little as it is helping me learn to adjust my thinking and hand selection according to relative factors.

Back to the debate, anybody who takes the game seriously will not be influenced by the "appearance of the pot" and from the majority I see that don't, the chip pile doesn't seem to matter.

ie. , the night before I rasied with AA UTG, got cold called by EP2, yes , immediate left, with J4o, plus 2 other cold callers. EP2 flopped a jack and called all the way to the river until 3rd J came up.

I don't know how it could get much looser.

[MisterKing]

FWIW, I've put in time at the Taj 5-10 and the Borg 6-12, and the Borgata games are consistently looser and easier than the Taj games. I don't know what makes that the case, but I gather the chip structure is one contributing factor.

[nate1729]

How cute. All these dismissive opinions *and* a thinly-veiled bad beat post.

How about this: say somehow we could construct two very similar 10-20 games; both would be stocked with good, loose, passive players, and the only difference would be that one would play with $5 chips and the other would play with $10 chips. I'd bet that the former would play measurably looser. Would anyone here take the other side of this bet?

--Nate

[steamboatin]

If you ever leave the rock garden that Grand Vic's 5-10 has developed into, you will learn the definiction of loose. Three seeing the flop after a raise is tight by low limit standards.

Six or eight in a raised pot is not unusual in a multi-chip format like 3-6 or 4-8, those people came to play so they ain't folding unless you do something stupid like tap the aquarium.

[steamboatin]

Nope, I am the stubbornest ass on the planet, I don't concede lightly. the chip structure has a big influence on the game.