Re: NL with a Cap...thoughts?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't be NL if you had a cap. Maybe you should try Pot limit holdem it sounds like what you are looking for.
[/ QUOTE ]
geez louise, some of you have no idea what a cap game is even though you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.
[/ QUOTE ]
By definition, not a NL game. Since most people mean "capped buy-in" when they use capped, and not "capped total pot size" (oh, the horrors of the $10 cap for a $0.25/0.50 limit game in Florida, a while back), don't assume they don't know what they are talking about.
They may just not be talking about what YOU are.
[/ QUOTE ]
The OP clearly said, "I assume if you play with a cap then you don't need to set a maximium buy in?" which means he wasn't talking about a capped buy-in (which most people would call a max buy-in anyway). I was just trying to get people back on track to what the original poster was asking and wasn't trying to be snarky.
And if a capped game (by my definition) isn't a NL game by your definition, then NO game that we call NL is truly a NL game because they are all limited by the amount of money that a person has on the table.
Limit, Pot-Limit, and No-Limit refer more to the betting structure, than to the amount one can win or lose on one hand. "Capped NL" is not an oxymoron. A capped NL game is identical to a NL game in terms of betting structure, except for the artificial cap. In a normal NL game, the cap is equal to the smallest stack (in a 2 player hand).
|