Does NL ruin card rooms? (longish) - Page 3

DrMega · #21 02-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Thanks for the interesting posts all. Many confirm what I suspected was the case. There are a lot of players at the limit games frustrated by this, but I figured there must be some reasoning behind it. "You can skin a sheep only once, but shear him many times" type thing.

For me the once-a-week PL and NLHE will be enough to get my fix, methinks. The limit game is beatable enough to keep me happy.

SplawnDarts · #22 02-23-2007, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This post is so good it probably should be rerun as an OP.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire away. I think it'll be better with additional commentary rather than me throwing it up and saying "look what a clever thing I said" [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

SellingtheDrama · #23 02-23-2007, 05:03 PM

As long as NLHE is the television game with steady exposure there, it will be the destination game for many people.

As long as new money is flowing in at a steady pace from these sources, NL will be fine. It will not be fine when the steady inflows stop.

NL sucks though for keeping games going with a steady trickle of new dead money. When it dries up, I'll either get good enough to keep beating the game, albeit for a smaller rate, or move to where the better money is.

nowags · #24 02-23-2007, 05:25 PM

For a different view, what if it isn't NL that is ruining card rooms, so much as the influx of lousy players?

If you play at the lower stakes, it is pretty rare to win a hand without a showdown. limit or no limit. You used to be able to in 4/8 games and still can occasionally vs. better players, but its different than it was a few years ago, cuz players are so much worse. Higher limits doesn't mean better players. Some clueless bigshot lawyer or whatever that doesnt want to play NL isn't going to want to sit at a 3/6 table with a bunch of drunk college kids, so he'll play a higher limit.

TV has brought more players (i'm one to an extent. been playing "seriously" about 5 yrs, casually my whole life). Players being scared off, or whatever also cand be blamed a good bit on tv. you get more loud obnoxious outbursts, trash talking, etc cuz it's on tv, so it must be cool. Add in some of the arrogance and ego's that you get from some of the guys playing, and the berating, etc. and it quits being fun for a n00bie, so they take their money elsewhere. Similar to golf. A beginner is frustrated to start out, and you add in a few low handicappers scoffing at them, and they leave.

As far as rake, i don't think NL has all that much to do with it. (casino guys, correct me if im wrong on this!)A lot of the casino's that have poker, don't want it. I've heard that casino's average about $75 an hour from each poker table, after costs of dealers, drinks, etc. It's a fraction of what they can make off of a bank of slots, or a BJ table or something else. They grudgingly throw a few tables in, because a guy who wants to play cards, will in theory bring a buddy who doesn't, and that buddy will hit the slots or BJ tables. I'm guessing some of the casinos bumping the rake up are doing so to offset some of the lost revenue, cuz they can, until they figure out they can't.

Rick Nebiolo · #25 02-23-2007, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When it dries up, I'll either get good enough to keep beating the game, albeit for a smaller rate, or move to where the better money is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving to where the better money is will/should be a job for many of today's twenty-something pro poker playing ballers.

~ Rick

SellingtheDrama · #26 02-23-2007, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When it dries up, I'll either get good enough to keep beating the game, albeit for a smaller rate, or move to where the better money is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving to where the better money is will/should be a job for many of today's twenty-something pro poker playing ballers.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. I was 50/50 on being one of those at one point, very glad I didn't. (Though I do get asked if I play for a living about once every other session)

Dima2000123 · #27 02-23-2007, 06:45 PM

NL is much more interesting as a poker game, so I hope it never dries up. However, it is true that it's not a good game for hustling the bad players, so I can't imagine that enough of them would keep coming to depart with their money. I also agree that lifting buy-in caps is an idiotically short-sighted decision, and isn't it what the higher blind tables are for anyway?

TheStation · #28 02-23-2007, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As far as rake, i don't think NL has all that much to do with it. (casino guys, correct me if im wrong on this!)A lot of the casino's that have poker, don't want it. I've heard that casino's average about $75 an hour from each poker table, after costs of dealers, drinks, etc. It's a fraction of what they can make off of a bank of slots, or a BJ table or something else. They grudgingly throw a few tables in, because a guy who wants to play cards, will in theory bring a buddy who doesn't, and that buddy will hit the slots or BJ tables. I'm guessing some of the casinos bumping the rake up are doing so to offset some of the lost revenue, cuz they can, until they figure out they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you must realize is that many players have -EV habits like tables games or slots along with wives and girlfriends they bring along to the casino, this is where the casino sees the profit but its hard to accurately quantify this amount

tom10167 · #29 02-23-2007, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NL is much more interesting as a poker game

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is quite the opposite.

Opinions opinions. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

AKQJ10 · #30 02-23-2007, 07:17 PM

Whenever a thread like this comes along, there should be an edict that anyone branching it off to a limit-vs.-NL dispute gets a one week time-out from the forum. I realize I'm sometimes guilty of hijacking, and even the above might be considered borderline, but I didn't say atomicsoda was wrong, just melodramatic. I happen to think that it's wrong to deny that LHE is an interesting game, but obviously it's as much a matter of taste as HE vs. 7-stud, poker vs. chess, beer vs. Scotch vs. Pepsi. Nevertheless, I apologize for the part I've played in helping this digression live on.

Cluttering up a very interesting topic with a very boring, threadbare topic is unhelpful. Obviously it starts with one extremist POV and invites those who dissent from the extremist POV to express their dissent, which means pretty soon we're debating issues of taste that are stupid to debate.