[Milo]

[ QUOTE ]
The room has become like a pool of pirhana after the floods have receded. All the big, slow, dumb fish have been eaten. Even the smaller, more minnow-esque fish are all long gone. No limit caused a feeding frenzy when all the regular fish were suddenly playing a game that was over their head. A few fat pirhana ate some big, easy meals, and the carnage drew even more predators into the kill zone.

But in an isolated pool, there were too many pirhana. No limit is a top predator's game, but an ecosystem without enough prey collapses. That's when things get ugly.

Even the stupidest small fish will eventually wisen up if they never win. If you've eaten up all the dead money, it's inevitable that as long as no limit is the main game spread, the games won't be good anymore. Games in more isolated areas, with fewer influx of new players (i.e. tourists), will see this effect sooner.

Inevitably, balance amongst the fishes will be restored, but where will poker be when that happens?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why limit is soooooo much better for Poker than NL. At Canterbury the number of games IS most certainly dwindling, but the goodness of the games is not. Limit allows the fishies to bleed chips slowly over time. Some days, they even win, and win big, but over time they bleed.