Bigger spread limit game coming to Casino AZ?

[DesertCat]

I was chatting with Brian, one of the good 5-150 players (older, silver hair), on Saturday and he mentioned that Casino AZ had asked permission to run a bigger spread limit game. $5-$10 blinds with min $300, max $1000 buyin. He seemed pretty optimistic that it would start soon. Sounds like it might bring more high limit donks into the spread limit games.

Unfortunately, still no NL.

[Percula]

Humm, finally going to take the suggestion that several of us having been making for years now... With any luck they will also follow thru on making it a time game instead of a raked game too.

Coming from Brian, I tend to put more faith in it than from most others.

[ QUOTE ]

I was chatting with Brian, one of the good 5-150 players (older, silver hair)

[/ QUOTE ]
Humm I still love having Brian in my games, YMMV. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Humm, finally going to take the suggestion that several of us having been making for years now... With any luck they will also follow thru on making it a time game instead of a raked game too.

Coming from Brian, I tend to put more faith in it than from most others.

[ QUOTE ]

I was chatting with Brian, one of the good 5-150 players (older, silver hair)

[/ QUOTE ]
Humm I still love having Brian in my games, YMMV. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a Peter Principle thing that goes on in these games. If you're a 5-150 regular or pro, you're probably not that great, because if you were you'd probably be playing bigger.

There are a few good regulars -- some sharp pleasure players -- but when you sit at 5-150 you're a dog to find one. You'll have a few tight "good" ones but almost none of them really understand the game.

BTW, none of this is meant to be denigrating. I'm (more or less) a mediocre pleasure player myself.

--Nate

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]

There's a Peter Principle thing that goes on in these games. If you're a 5-150 regular or pro, you're probably not that great, because if you were you'd probably be playing bigger.

There are a few good regulars -- some sharp pleasure players -- but when you sit at 5-150 you're a dog to find one. You'll have a few tight "good" ones but almost none of them really understand the game.

BTW, none of this is meant to be denigrating. I'm (more or less) a mediocre pleasure player myself.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I totally agree with you Nate. The money is not in the current 5/150 format, it might be better in a new format as mentioned by Cat. If the players in the 5/150 game where as good as they thought themselves to be, they would be playing in the 40 or 60 games instead of messing around with $350 buy-ins games.

There are a couple of fairly good players in that game, that I suspect will make the move to the 40 game in the near future, bankroll being the primary concern. After all there is a major difference in bankroll requirements, even for the casual player in these games.

I also think that as players learn their chops in the 5/150, 20 and 40 games they move on to the internet (if they are capable). A solid 5/150 player can make a lot more money playing 1/2NL 6 max online than in the 5/150 game on less bankroll. Most of the more intelligent players that have shuffled thru the 5/150 game in the last couple of years have done just that. At the end of the day, if you have an edge in the game, would you rather play 20-40 hands/hr or 300+ per hour?

[Percula]

Now that the thread is totally hijacked...

Any thoughts on the new structure (assuming it goes)? I suppose we should call it 10/150 just for clarity.

I am thinking that the new buy-in limits are likely to be less of a factor. I like the idea of being able to buy-in for 100BB, but I doubt you will see a lot of people doing that. I might get surprised, but I doubt it.

If we do indeed see the majority of players sitting with 100BB, then it might be a very good game. As Nate pointed out, the 40+ games are just so much bigger than the current 5/150. But you change that buy-in where the majority of the players are sitting with ~100BB, the game will play a lot bigger than it does now and might even rival the 40 game, but will likely end up being somewhere between the 20 and 40 games.

[DesertCat]

I think the biggest benefit is the minimum buyin. No more short stacks sitting around with $100 forcing you to play push or fold with them. It will be much easier to push them around.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


Humm I still love having Brian in my games, YMMV. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same Brian?

He's very good for the game, not in the bad player vein, but as a good friendly player. He's personable, often live straddles to get the game going, plays a lot of hands esp. in weak games. Doesn't tilt easily when he's down, brings a bunch of buyins. I don't see him making mistakes post flop. He'll chase thin draws against bad players who will spew, but not against tight players who won't payoff. He himself won't pay off tight players, he chided me on Saturday for paying off a rock who min-raised me with a made straight on the turn (I convinced myself that top pair/straight draw was worth a call against a possible two pair).

To summarize, I think he's very good, on a level above me, but maybe I think that because I'm on a losing streak and was unable to bluff him once on Saturday.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same Brian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the same Brian. I agree is a good guy and has a solid understanding of the game of poker. He is generally good for the game doing the things he does. However he is just now starting to employ second and third level thinking. I like Brian and enjoy my time with him at the table.

He tends to make some major mistakes too. He calls too many raises OOP, makes too many continuation bets that are in generally too small to be effective. He has a tendency to make a read/plan very early in the hand and stick to it without proper re-evaluation of the situation. He does not adjust to a player that can changes gears well enough or quick enough.

On the whole I think Brian is a winning player in that game. His game has come a long way in the last year, but he is still not anywhere near optimal, he could be winning a lot more than he does.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I was chatting with Brian, one of the good 5-150 players (older, silver hair), on Saturday and he mentioned that Casino AZ had asked permission to run a bigger spread limit game. $5-$10 blinds with min $300, max $1000 buyin. He seemed pretty optimistic that it would start soon. Sounds like it might bring more high limit donks into the spread limit games.

Unfortunately, still no NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly the legal maximum per bet is $150, its mandated that way and CAZ cannot change it willfully. It was determined as such during the Black Jack/Table Games negotiations with the state.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Jeffage]

Sounds to me like the bet will stay the same but the buy-in will be increased, making it play bigger.

Jeff