[ QUOTE ]
If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments--coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games--brought the nl cash game back back from the dead?
[/ QUOTE ]
Additional data points:
<ul type="square">[*]No-limit poker hasn't "dried up and blown away" in the face of chess, even though chess has been around for years and involves far less dumb luck than no-limit poker. A good chess player has a virtually insurmountable edge over a fish over the course of say ten games.[*]Slots haven't "dried up and blown away" in the face of poker, not even slot tournaments, even though slots are pure luck.[/list]
People like to gamble. They also like to think they're good at games of skill being played on TV that fool them into thinking they're decent, which is why NLHE has had a resurgence.
You seem to be viewing things exclusively from the perspective of the shark, but it isn't the shark who decides what games people play. It's just a happy accident that the fish wants to give the shark a bigger advantage these days because of NLHE on TV.
Re: Ciaffone, the detail left out is that learning to use more tools means it's harder to become a "good player". Of course it's all relative, and during the poker boom becoming good relative to the influx of fish hasn't been all that hard. For that matter, as you've tacitly acknowledged, limit poker requires a good deal of skill too, but different skills (pushing small edges, etc.).
"coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games" -- you do understand that this makes NLHE more like limit, right? I would argue that it's helped NLHE capture a middle ground where people want to feel like they're playing the big-boy poker game without actually putting thousands at risk on a hand, and that may have been your point.
My point is, limit poker keeps the fish donating longer and will always have some viability, although NLHE has certainly made a dent.