|
|
#31
06-14-2005, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
Personally, I have always preferred smaller chips with higher values, because it doesn't take 30 friggin' minutes to stack a pot.
However, I conceded the point long ago that it's better to have lots of smaller chips than fewer big ones, because there's a lot more action. The lucky lady in san diego used to spread 8-16 full kill with $2 chips. Action city. One day they spread a 10-20 with no kill, $5 chips. Well, we can all figure out that these are pretty much the same game as far as the stakes go, but that didn't matter. 10-20 lasted about an hour, tight as chit and not much fun, before everyone in the game decided to just change it back to the standard 8-16 full kill with $2 chips. The psychology of the masses wins out, and the lazy chip stackers like me lose. al 
|
|
#32
06-14-2005, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The real question for Foxwoods low-limit patrons
[ QUOTE ]
I also heard a FW rumor about spreading $10/20 with the $2 fox chips; that could be fun! [/ QUOTE ] I don't know - I think 3 and 6 are good chip counts. I've played in 8/16 games using $2 chips, and that gets a little cumbersome
|
|
#33
06-14-2005, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I have always preferred smaller chips with higher values, because it doesn't take 30 friggin' minutes to stack a pot. [/ QUOTE ] Awkwardly checking your cards around a huge pile of unstacked chips from the prior hand is one of the great joys in poker.
|
|
#34
06-14-2005, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
They don't make the blinds $2/6 with the single-color chips?
|
|
#35
06-14-2005, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
Actually, my regular games are the 5-10 and 10-20 games at Foxwoods. I have studied the game extensively and have lots of technical knowledge of the game, but most of the extra money I make (above the amount I would make if I just played a good, solid game) comes not from expert or technically precise play, but from the psychological game. I've spent hours and hours at the table in careful study of what makes loose players looser. One of these factors is the physical size of the pot. I would happily bet on it.
--Nate
|
|
#36
06-14-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
Heh. I wouldn't give those kinds of odds, and of course it would be very difficult to control all the other factors that contribute to a table's looseness. But, in the hypothetical situation or a reasonable approximation, I'd happily lay 3-1, and could be coaxed into laying longer odds.
--Nate
|
|
#38
06-14-2005, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: single Chip strutcure limit games. I concede the previous debate.
Nate, I know this would differ by location, natch. But I have almost won enough at 5-10 to bankroll wading into the 10-20. How would you compare them where you are. tighter, more aggressive, more bluffs, etc. thanks
|
|
#39
06-14-2005, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The real question for Foxwoods low-limit patrons
[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, is this phenomenon strong enough that we should buy in in white for the $2/4 and $4/8 games? Or will bringing white chips to the table call attention to the phenomenon, which will make people tighten up? [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it will cause the table to tighten up, but bringing a different color into the game is a big annoyance IMO. An occasional red here or there in a 4/8 or a green in a 10/20 game is one thing, but when a guy sits down at 4/8 with two stacks of red I want to kick him in the nuts.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
