no fold 'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)

[had_enough]

Hi,

I have been playing hold 'em about 4 years. I learned to play among a group of fairly serious home game players (although the limits were small). In addition to these regular games, I have played at a local Indian casino the past 2-3 years; they offer between 2-4 and 6-12 limits. I am about a 90-100 minute drive from the major cardrooms in LA.

Although I enjoy our home games and would not hesitate to keep playing them, I have become so miserable playing at the rooms in LA (Commerce, HP, Bike, esp.) that I'm at the point of basically quitting. I should mention that at these places, I usually play between 4-8 and 20-40, most often 15-30. The experience is not turning out to be why I became interested in poker, and I'm getting very little out of it.

In short, my experience is that even at limits as high as 15-30 and 20-40 (the largest I feel comfortable playing in), the games all play like 1-2 no-fold 'em games. The only difference is, they are yellow chips instead of blue. Now, I know you're thinking, "wow, you should think that's great...those games are beatable" and I know this, but I would say you are missing the point.

Even Schoonmaker falls into this trap, and his book is all about figuring the "motives" of players. In his section of LPG's, he asks, "Do you want to play in these games?", and then, without hesitation says, "UNLESS YOUR MOTIVATIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MOST PEOPLE'S (i.e. from MINE)", the answer is YES, YES, YES. Schoonmaker, a psychologist whose book I highly respect, makes the classic egoist fallacy, assuming everyone is like HIM. He says there are "only" 2 reasons to avoid these games, (1) They are so easy to beat it's boring. There is no challenge, and winning may not be satisfying. (2) You will get frustrated when they draw out on you, and they will do it again and again with terrible hands.

Now, for someone who has listed "making money" as their primary motive for playing, these games are great. But, to be honest, this is not why I chose to learn poker. I worked through Schoonmaker's book and here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

As you can see, making money by itself doesn't matter much to me without other things. I already have a professional career, and I make more than enough money to support myself.

The home games I have played in regularly the past few years offer almost zilch in terms of "making money" but do great on the other areas. The no-fold 'em games would be outstanding for making money (I know they can be beat, and I know how to adjust) but they're miserable at other areas. Imagine if someone told you this:

"Hey, I have a great job for you. It makes pretty work wages, maybe not as much as your career, but pretty good. There's only a few caveats. First, you have to sit in an uncomfortable chair all day. Also, your 'job' will be incredibly boring and extremely frustrating. There will be little intellectual challenge in it, and it will be about as exciting as doing dishes. Not only that, your fluctuations in income will be great (like all poker) and not steady. You won't be among friends most of the time; in fact, most of the people you will have contempt for. It won't be too relaxing and probably damaging to your health. But you will definitely make a lot of money."

After hearing this description, who in their right mind would accept such a job, given that they already have a primary source of income that makes them more money and offers them more personal satisfaction??

Thank you, WPT for bringing all these new players to the game. Unfortunately, you've driven me out. I'l go back to chess. I can pick a hobby that doesn't make me miserable.