Oaks Card Club in Emeryville, CA - Page 2

Garland · #11 09-21-2007, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Artichoke Joe's is spreading NL again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the sense that they can offer it. However, no one is going to play under the proposed structure:

1-1-2 blinds with a $500 min buy in.

Either cater to the lower end players or high end players, but don't try to go in the middle.

No, the Oaks does not have no-limit cash games. The article must refer to tournaments or some other place.

Garland

pig4bill · #12 09-21-2007, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Artichoke Joe's is spreading NL again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the sense that they can offer it. However, no one is going to play under the proposed structure:

1-1-2 blinds with a $500 min buy in.

Either cater to the lower end players or high end players, but don't try to go in the middle.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people would play in it. The problem is they are making no effort to get the game going. Ask the brush about no limit and they say they have limit only. Only when you specifically ask about the 1-1-2 game will they admit it's theoretical existence, although the game has never run.

Veecee · #13 09-21-2007, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Artichoke Joe's is spreading NL again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the sense that they can offer it. However, no one is going to play under the proposed structure:

1-1-2 blinds with a $500 min buy in.

Either cater to the lower end players or high end players, but don't try to go in the middle.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL wow that is awful.

NotMitch · #14 09-21-2007, 09:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Artichoke Joe's is spreading NL again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the sense that they can offer it. However, no one is going to play under the proposed structure:

1-1-2 blinds with a $500 min buy in.

Either cater to the lower end players or high end players, but don't try to go in the middle.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah they seem pretty commited to not running it . I wonder how the electronic table is going. I think I saw Garland playing last week while waiting for a seat, so maybe he has some insight.

pig4bill · #15 09-22-2007, 03:30 AM

The last time I was there, the electronic table was going non-stop. People that played in a previous sit-n-go have first dibs on the seat for the next one. It looked like several people were just camped out.

It might be costing the casino a little money. Once a person is knocked out, they don't want to get involved in a cash game becuase the next sit-n-go may start within the next 30 minutes, or whenever. So they just hang around doing nothing, waiting for the next one to start.

renodoc · #16 09-22-2007, 06:48 AM

Played at the Oaks tonight. Mostly $30-$60 once I got a seat. They had $15-$30 going also, but I only got to play about 2 orbits before the feeder table broke.

Seemed to be a decently run room. Food looked and smelled good. Dealers were very good, and the staff and players were helpful to the three "kids" i brought with me who were playing live $1-$2 for the first time. Would go back.

Garland · #17 09-22-2007, 08:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah they seem pretty commited to not running it . I wonder how the electronic table is going. I think I saw Garland playing last week while waiting for a seat, so maybe he has some insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I played 4 times total on it. Lost twice. Made two deals to win $100 in one game and $170 in another. So up $110 overall.

The players are horrifically bad. Either way passive or all-in mode aggressive. People gave me a hard time because I wouldn't make a deal 3 ways when I had the chip lead and way the best of it simply because there are people in line wanting to play. Even with the 15% rake ($6 of $40), the game is very much EV+ to me, but not enough to take me away from the $15/$30 game. It takes awhile to play, and right now there's a lot of "How do you do this? How do you do that?" which slows up the game.

BTW, NotMitch, do I know you at all?

Garland

NotMitch · #18 09-23-2007, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah they seem pretty commited to not running it . I wonder how the electronic table is going. I think I saw Garland playing last week while waiting for a seat, so maybe he has some insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I played 4 times total on it. Lost twice. Made two deals to win $100 in one game and $170 in another. So up $110 overall.

The players are horrifically bad. Either way passive or all-in mode aggressive. People gave me a hard time because I wouldn't make a deal 3 ways when I had the chip lead and way the best of it simply because there are people in line wanting to play. Even with the 15% rake ($6 of $40), the game is very much EV+ to me, but not enough to take me away from the $15/$30 game. It takes awhile to play, and right now there's a lot of "How do you do this? How do you do that?" which slows up the game.

BTW, NotMitch, do I know you at all?

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

No but I heard you being called to a game and made an educated guess, was going to say hello but didnt get a good moment. Ill introduce myself if I see at AJ's again.
I play mostly 6/12 and dabble in the 15/30.

Phat Mack · #19 09-23-2007, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Artichoke Joe's is spreading NL again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the sense that they can offer it. However, no one is going to play under the proposed structure:

1-1-2 blinds with a $500 min buy in.

Either cater to the lower end players or high end players, but don't try to go in the middle.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

If they could get this format going, it has the potential to be a monster. From other threads on this same subject, I don't think they really want to spread it.

eof · #20 09-23-2007, 11:18 PM

I don't think Oaks would have a hard time competing at all. There is no good NL on the east bay. San Pablo has 2 games max of 2-2-2 4 to open 100 max buy in NL. Its okay, but pretty much sucks. Lucky Chances in nice, but on the wrong side of the bay.

Oaks has NL tournaments, no NL cash.. very good dealers, decent food, and a good floor