Is NO LIMIT the new King of Hold'em?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked there are not many casinos and sportsbooks going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you didn't check with Donald Trump.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked there are not many casinos and sportsbooks going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you didn't check with Donald Trump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trump Casinos werent going broke because the edge casinos have is gone or people won't gamble anymore, you know what I mean. Vegas is still there.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked there are not many casinos and sportsbooks going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you didn't check with Donald Trump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trump's casinos made lots of money, just not enough to pay interest on the massive debt Trump borrowed to build them, esp. after the Borgota opened.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Trump's casinos made lots of money, just not enough to pay interest on the massive debt Trump borrowed to build them, esp. after the Borgota opened.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to define "lots" because in a typical business no one defines "lots of money" as barely covering current expenses with zero hope of paying long term debt.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]

I also think that bad no limit players are more likely to eventually get better, whereas I know guys who have been playing limit games for like 30 years and still have basically no idea what to do. The reason I say that is it seems like in NL the mental reward/punishment is more closely linked to the quality of your play. I.e. you go all-in preflop and I call you with AJo and watch you turn over AA or AK, I'm gonna get a sharp "don't do that again" mesage from my brain (even if I get really lucky and suck out, I probably remember that I made a bad call). Then I get more time to think about it as I buy in again.


[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most important aspects of human psychology that keeps most bad players bad: they simply look at the situation you described as being unlucky. Bad players do this in all types of gambling endeavors. NL poker is no different.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that bad no limit players are more likely to eventually get better, whereas I know guys who have been playing limit games for like 30 years and still have basically no idea what to do. The reason I say that is it seems like in NL the mental reward/punishment is more closely linked to the quality of your play. I.e. you go all-in preflop and I call you with AJo and watch you turn over AA or AK, I'm gonna get a sharp "don't do that again" mesage from my brain (even if I get really lucky and suck out, I probably remember that I made a bad call). Then I get more time to think about it as I buy in again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what about the guy on the other side who gets sucked out on in that situation? I was in a tourney at the Orleans last month (granting that a tourney isn't quite the same thing as a ring game), and went all-in with AKs before the flop (I was short stacked and needed to make some moves to try to recover). One caller, who had AJo. Flop gives him a J, neither a K nor enough of my suits hit, and I'm out.

Should that pain teach me not to move all-in with a group 1 hand when I'm short stacked? If not, why should the pain of seeing a better hand call my all-in in another situation teach me not to make the same move again? Sometimes, the right move is as painful as the wrong move, and you can be unlucky or lucky with either one. The reward/punishment aspect of learning gives very mixed signals in poker, so improvement is not necessarily a given. IMHO, of course. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to define "lots" because in a typical business no one defines "lots of money" as barely covering current expenses with zero hope of paying long term debt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially you are right. In fact there was a bond analyst who announced before the Taj Mahal was built that it would be unlikely to repay it's debt. I think the analyst got fired for his impertinence.

But Trump's income from operations was $45M in in first 9 months of 2004. That's a great deal more than "barely covering current expenses", though less than it's generated in the past. With interest expenses at $54M for the same period though, the chances of ever paying that debt are remote.

[pubz r 4 nubz!]

God can play true no limit.

[The Goober]

Well, what I meant was that you must have had a good feeling (however temporarily) when he flipped over that AJo, whereas in a limit game, you probably wouldn't even see his AJo unless he won. Of course, tournaments are a different beast, because with the right stack sizes its very possible that he made the correct move even if he knew that you had AKo.

I see what you saying though - all forms of poker give mixed signals that are hard to interpret. I'm just arguing that in NL its slightly easier to learn from your mistakes because a) most players can pretty easily learn to recognize a dominated heads-up, all-in situation, and b) you make fewer but more significant choices so you have less of the "small but frequent" leaks that can fly completely under one's radar in limit.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
The adrenaline thrill of NL is that any time you can double up your entire stack. This is somewhat different than the limit game which has smaller swings.

[/ QUOTE ]
A couple of people mentioned the 'lower variance' / 'smaller swings' of limit poker as compared to no-limit. But I thought that the reverse is true. Variance is higher in limit ... one of the main reasons the fish keep coming back in the game is that they have winning sessions with some frequency. In no-limit the experts win more consistently and the fish lose more consistently: lower variance.

Kind of at odds with the win/lose your whole stack aspect of no-limit, but true, IINM.

B.