No Limit- Pot Limit blinds

[TwoGun]

Is it just me, or is anyone else surprised by the lack of big bet games on the net that are semi-high stakes. The only place with blinds higher than 1-2 that I know of is the Prima Poker network. I'm not sure why they do this...can't be a moral thing against high stakes gambling, some of these places have 80-160 lol.

[jek187]

The only place with blinds higher than 1-2 that I know of is the Prima Poker network.

24h poker regularily spreads a PL HE w/ 2/4 blinds and a PLO game w/ 5/10 blinds. Additionally, they'll setup bigger games upon request.

[crazy canuck]

Ladbrokes has 5/10 NL.

[happyjaypee]

Pokerstars as 2/4 NL and PL Hold'em and Omaha
Ladbroke as 5/10 NL

[24hPOKER]

And on Mondays we have a PLO $15/$25 as well.

Best regards

[Hung]

I think people lose money too fast with big bet poker.
Most of the professionals are limit players.
It's easier to be a consistent winner at limit. When you run bad at NL, you're down the hill after a few games.

[Lunamondo]

I think we have some sort of half-truth problem here.

"I think people lose money too fast with big bet poker.
Most of the professionals are limit players."

There seems to be some contradiction here. If one could make the same by playing less hours, big bet poker would be much better, as long as there are good games.

"It's easier to be a consistent winner at limit. When you run bad at NL, you're down the hill after a few games."

Cloutier in his book (with McEvoy) thinks just the opposite.

[Hung]

That's the book that I wanted to buy. But it's out of print...

I just finished a book called Poker Nation by Andy Bellin. And I agree with what he writes. He says most of the pros are limit players, because it's easier to play by the book. When you have pocket AA and someone raises you, you just call till the river to see what he has. But what if someone moves all-in?
If you play a lot of poker and you do it by the book you'll become a winner. Because statistics are always correct in a long run. At big bet poker you can lose your enitre bankroll just because you're unlucky that day.

[Zoe's Echo]

Hung,

Have to disagree with you here. Big bet poker allows you the ability to properly adjust the pot odds therby allowing others to make mistakes with implied odds - even when you come up on the short end you are still getting dollars in with maximum +EV. Far different from limit where a raise with AA may see 5 callers in a lose game and your flop bet even with a set gives correct odds for straight and flush draws.

Secondarily, even at big bet poker if you put your entire bankroll at stake in any one session (including rebuys) you are playing above your head and have become the gambler.

Good Luck

[yocalif]

Playing online NL-limit, at the .25-.50 and .50-1.00 levels has made poker fun again for me. If I had the bank to play at larger no-limit limits I would (up to a point, see below.). Every poker skill is necessary to be a long run winner at NL, even at the micro limits, but those with the necessary skills win consistently. And yes there will be situations where you have to decide to shove your whole stack in, either as protection, or on the come. But using wise money management, and having sufficient depth in your bankroll to play the limit you are at, will keep you from going broke. In NL you can literally target weak players, and isolate them, then just out play them with your stack and betting. Limit poker, weak players have some protection with only having to call a limit bet.

As for NL larger than $1-2, having the necessary bankroll would be almost prohibitive. Using $1-2 as an example, if the max buy-in was $200, the minimum I would consider starting with would be 5 times the max buy-in or $1000. Better would be 10 x Max buy-in, and to be honest I am playing (maintaining) the .25-.50 with a 20 X max buy-in, and if I’m having a decent day will jump up and play the higher limit.
So a NL game of $5-10 with $1000 max buy-in would require by my example a minimum bankroll of $5000 and better would be $10,000. Higher limits would require even larger sums for a playable bankroll.
While it is true you can get into the game with the max buy-in as a bankroll, and gamble that you survive to win some money, are you going to be playing the game the way it requires you to play. AGGRESSIVE!
How many good hands are you going to lay down because someone makes a bet that will jeopardize your entire bankroll? I know I would make that bet. Because I’m not playing with the money on the table, my stack is huge and it is invisible, and I can risk money on plays and draws that others may not be willing too.
(No saying stupid plays and draws, but those that match the odds and pot and EV.)

So while some may be able to afford to play $10-20 No-limit, do you want to leave $20,000 or more with any of the cards rooms? Or even have that amount in your Firepay, Netteller or Paypal account, if your not rich and have money to burn, it would seem risky too me.