Mason, what do you think about NL future now?

[driller]

In several places in his 3 Poker Essays books (which I just read back-to-back-to-back)Mason tells why NL is rarely spread and why.

While I found the reasons compelling, obviously NL is currently very popular. I know that the books were published several years ago, but I wonder what factors have made the game so popular...or is it just the TV exposure?

[playersare]

I think maybe they didn't impose max buy-ins for NL ring games before. now that they do, the playing field is capped more evenly.

[driller]

Yeah, that's probably it. I rarely play b&m but over in Lake Charles, the mgt was saying that the no-limit games are squeezing out the mid-limit games.

[MicroBob]

The TV exposure is definitely the big factor.

I think that Mason might argue that it's still bad for poker overall.

The NL games squeeze out the mid-limit games, but then the bad players just lose their money too quickly in the NL games and those games might die out too...and the mid-limit games don't have enough strength to make a comeback.


Something like that anyway. Just guessing.

[Brice]

I am going to guess that Mason (or anyone for that matter) could not see the boom that was about to happen.

[*TT*]

Provided that capped buyins remain the norm (aka baby NL) then I project this formerly dead form of poker will continue to survive. At the same time I also see more and more NL cash game players who started during the boom slowly switching to limit games in the long run. I think we are the top of the NL cash game bubble right now, if anything it feels as if stabilization has already begun.

Conversly what I think is surprising the most is the slow rise of mid-limit rotation games, I would have never guessed that would happen.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
Conversly what I think is surprising the most is the slow rise of mid-limit rotation games, I would have never guessed that would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite. What is a mid-limit rotation game?

Also, why do you foresee NL cash game players switching to limit?

[mshalen]

I think part of the issue is that there are two seperate poker markets being discussed rather than poker as one huge market.

The internet poker market has a large number of recreational players who are attracted to low/capped buyins, play for short periods of time and due to the electronic nature of the internet the money being wagered in an extra step away from "real" money. The ability to have a huge bankroll on the internet is also restricted by the limited amounts that can be deposited with a site over any time period. When I play on the internet I stick to low buyin tournaments ($10-$50) or things like $100 PLO and SNGs. Even though I have built my on line BR to a level that could easily support the higher buyins I stick to the lower limits.

The B&M market is very different than the internet. The players have invested time and effort to get to a casino to play and the regular players will tend to be more experienced and serious about the game. The higher bankrolls required for B&M play also tend to restrict the market to either serious players or moneyed tourists out on a lark. Last week I played in a tournament at the Wynn for a $330 buyin. I couldn't imaging paying $300 to enter a tournament on the internet but was on vacation for a few days and figured I am rarely in LV so why not. (a quick brag insert - finished 9th for $721) In a B&M I can just reach into my pocket and produce either cash or a bank card to reload. Due to the nature of B&M players I am not surprised at the slight uptick in the speading of mixed games but I don't see this speading to the internet anytime soon.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi driller:

Well, the TV shows changed everything and right now no limit cash games are very popular. Also, the capped buy-in also helps to keeo these games going. So I suspect they'll be around for a while.

Best wishes,
Mason

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely what I think is surprising the most is the slow rise of mid-limit rotation games, I would have never guessed that would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite. What is a mid-limit rotation game?

Also, why do you foresee NL cash game players switching to limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Until recently the only way to play in a casino at a table with multiple varieties of poker was if you played in the high limit games. The "Big Game" is a rotation game for example, its funny how most new players gravitate directly to NL because in the past most would start playing only limit Stud or Hold'em and eventually explore other variants of poker. NL was mostly spread as a side game during tournaments prior to the TV boom, obviously that is not the case today.

MY prediction about NL players switching to Limit is due to action. Good NL players know that the average hand can be about as exciting as watching paint peel, and the variance is incredibly high. Conversely limit games produce considerably more action, and the overall variance is lower for a solid player.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[El Diablo]

TT,

I disagree completely with much of what you say. I know many experienced limit players in the higher mid-limits (100-200ish) now starting to focus on NL cash games. I am not familar with any higher limit big bet guys switching to limit.

[Mason Malmuth]

H Masked man:

I think you're both wrong. Good no limit players never want to leave their game because their edge is higher (sometimes a lot) than what it would be in a limit game.

So the question is whether these games will eventually burn out forcing them to limit. In the past, that did happen. Whether it will happen again is hard to say, but in the near future it looks like there will be lots of no limit games. Four or five years from is in my opinion impossible to predict.

Best wishes,
Mason

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TT,

I disagree completely with much of what you say. I know many experienced limit players in the higher mid-limits (100-200ish) now starting to focus on NL cash games. I am not familar with any higher limit big bet guys switching to limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D:

I was focusing my response to the OP's likely limits, which is most likely far from the higher mid-limits. At the levels you are discussing, I completely agree with your statements.

At the same time we are beginning to see the newer NL players take stabs at limit games in greater frequency. In the long run the average losing NL player (and that is the vast majority) in the lower & middle limits will either go busto, or switch to limit to extend their roll (at least in their minds).

Interestingly enough I just had this same conversation with a long term losing dealer who was arrested in last weeks NYC raid. I've known him for almost 2 years, since we met he has always despised limit Hold'em because as he says "you can't push your opponents out of the pot" /images/graemlins/blush.gif I was surprised to learn he is now playing mostly limit games because he has finally realized he doesn't hold the edge in NL that he thought he had. Of course this example person is taking stabs at 10/20 with a 1/2 kill as his first exploration of limit games... same people never learn /images/graemlins/wink.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[El Diablo]

Mason,

As you know, some of us have been playing NL in SF, LA, Vegas, and online without interruption well before the recent NL ring game explosion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Of course, I agree that the games are far more widely spread now.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Masked man:

I don't think this matters very much. What has happened is that we are not really having a poker boom but more acurately a no limit hold 'em boom. The boom is occurring in both tournaments and cash games. I don't know how long it will last but I suspect that there will be no limit games for a fairly long time to come.

Best wishes,
Mason

[El Diablo]

Mason,

Yes, because the kids do not like to play that girly limit poker. They like to go ALL-IN.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

Yes, because the kids do not like to play that girly limit poker. They like to go ALL-IN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instant classic.

[steamboatin]

I am begining to hear people describe playing NL as Playing All In.

I was at Belterra sitting beside a lady that hadn't done very well at NL so she was playing every hand at 4-8 to get even. Suprisingly it worked quite well for a while and she left up enopugh to cover her NL losses. In the course of conversation, they asked her how she had done playing NL the night before. She just shook her head and said, "I have played All In at Tunica but this was my first time playing All In here."

She is not the first fish I have heard refer to NL as All In.

[Tom Bayes]

Heh, you aren't the only one, Mr. Steamboat. A couple of years ago I was playing at Aztar in Evansville right after they started spreading NL. It was a 2/5 game with a $300 cap (ick) and they put on right on the rail. All night long people would wander by and gawk at us and say "Those guys are playing that all-in poker!" It was a good night for me. There was an obscure ex-major league baseball player (some backup catcher from the 80s whose name escapes me) who was a major league fish and donated plenty to the rest of us.

When the room opened in Metropolis, Illinois (closer to my home), they also spread a 2/5 NL game with no cap. For the first few months this game played big and the local sharks fleeced the newbies and fish. The casino "suits" used to come gawk at the game, as it was common for multiple players to have a couple grand in front of them. This game did burn itself out as I don't think there were enough deep-pocketed donkeys in rural Southern Illinois and west Kentucky to keep it running. This room is now spreading a baby 1/2 NL with a $100-$300 buy-in which the local college boys from SIU, Murray State and SE Missouri love.

[MicroBob]

Almost 3 years ago I played blackjack at Sam's Town in Tunica with a former StL Cardinals catcher and I can't remember his damn name either.

Was it Tom Pagnozzi maybe? I think that's who it was.
I have to think that you and I played with the same guy.

For whatever reason the topic of baseball and/or Cincinnati came up at the table and we were kind of friendly and having a good time.

He had some sort of wild post-game Cincy story (I grew up in Cincy area) and I used to do radio play-by-play of minor-league baseball in my pre-poker days.


I remember that the retired ballplayer (probably Pagnozzi) was betting mostly green and black at blackjack. Probably $50 - $300 bet-range. Just progressive betting type stuff. Certainly wasn't counting-cards (as i was doing).


That's funny that you should mention playing poker with this guy.
I had completely forgotten about playing blackjack with him.