An excellent assessment of low-limit B&M

I couldn't agree more with at least 7-8 of these ten points.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...ory?id=2128589

[CrazyEyez]

Wow. He's good.

[CrashPat]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more with at least 7-8 of these ten points.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...ory?id=2128589

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously limit poker is just gambling because you cannot "put a guy to a decision for his chips" as the author says. The author should have fit in great at that foxwoods 2/4 table, he is a moron who managed to get espn.com to publish his poorly disguised bad beat post as an article on a somewhat reputable website.

I love what televised poker has done for the game but I hate what it has done to the game at the same time.

[DeuceKicker]

Seven or eight of those reasons are why the game is great.

Peter Newman sucks at poker. Two of his ten points are about how they were calling with anything and nothing, then he bets with 6-hi and complains that his WPT-style bluff didn't work.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
Seven or eight of those reasons are why the game is great.

Peter Newman sucks at poker. Two of his ten points are about how they were calling with anything and nothing, then he bets with 6-hi and complains that his WPT-style bluff didn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget how he complained that no one would fold, then he cold-called after the guy told him what he had and he was at best drawing to 4 outs, at worst drawing to 4 outs for half the pot.

I have noticed that people feel one of two ways about low-limit poker:

1. They love playing in it because the players do call against the odds, etc., leading to what should mathematically work out to more winning sessions fro better players.

2. They hate low-limit because they get fed up with too many players calling down with junk and seemingly consistently drawing out on solid hands, defeating what mathematically should be profitable poker.

I know that reason number 1 actually makes statistical sense, but it sure does seem that in the experience of many, including myself, number 2 happens often enough to make people disgusted.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seven or eight of those reasons are why the game is great.

Peter Newman sucks at poker. Two of his ten points are about how they were calling with anything and nothing, then he bets with 6-hi and complains that his WPT-style bluff didn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget how he complained that no one would fold, then he cold-called after the guy told him what he had and he was at best drawing to 4 outs, at worst drawing to 4 outs for half the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was more of his comments about people at the table and less of his comments about actual play that I agreed with.

[CrazyEyez]

I agree. But you can't tell me that there aren't any tools playing 1-2 and 2-5 NL.

[Mr. Curious]

That guy is an idiot.

He thinks far too much of himself and for all his talk about position, etc., he still played 65 suited in EP!!!

On the bright side, lots of wannabes will read his article and try to play limits higher than they should to avoid the $2/4 game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think his flaw can be summed up in these three sentences

"I consider myself a no-limit, tournament-style specialist and was hesitant to play in a limit cash game."

"The best play in poker is to put the other players at a decision for their chips. It almost seemed like this play was taken away because of the nature of the limit game."