The casino I frequent is drying up...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]


I have often stated that limit poker will make a comeback but I am 50/50 if limit Holdem comes back or HORSE or a mixed game of some type becomes the new NL Holdem.

I really hope O/8 in the next big thing but I am not holding my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love it if a mixed game like horse took over in the near future, because I'm sick of hold'em, especially no limit. I'd prefer stud-8 over omaha-8, but I doubt a split pot game would replace hold'em ever.

I wanna play "screw your neighbor pineapple." You pass one card left preflop, and fold one card on the flop. No split pots, high only. I haven't tried it yet, but I think it will be an action game, we'll find out soon enough.

Al

[malo]

I'd like to see more limit, and if it's other games, that's great. But not really expecting it. Hold Em is the game that requires the least amount of "thought", and recreational types who come in for a fun bit of gambling are usually not wanting to think much (if at all.)

One of the great things about limit is that even the most gawdawful players will book wins sometimes, and those occasional wins keep them coming back for more. They can build up a nice stack at NL also, but it seems they all too often don't quit when they are ahead, and stack off. So instead of leaving the table with more than they sat with, they leave broke, yet again. Not too many people can continue that pattern indefinitely.

[Eder]

I found nl @ MGM/Venetian on recent trip to be very juicy for a nut peddlar like me. Seemed fewer calling stations than previous trips, but they seem to be replaced by aggrotard/potbuilding average skilled players that continually tried to push me off big hands.

Yes it is boring way to play,but nitty play allows me to play drunk which is very fun. (1 week sample size)

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the great things about limit is that even the most gawdawful players will book wins sometimes, and those occasional wins keep them coming back for more. They can build up a nice stack at NL also, but it seems they all too often don't quit when they are ahead, and stack off. So instead of leaving the table with more than they sat with, they leave broke, yet again. Not too many people can continue that pattern indefinitely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well stated. The NL boom was able to sustain itself for so long because there was a relatively large influx of new and/or weak players. That influx has slowed and the surviving players for the most part get better. Making $30 plus per hour in NL games with small blinds and a big rake simply wasn't sustainable.

Even if limit comes back the games will be tougher. There are so many young kids disconnected from the workforce that seem to be pot stuck on the poker life. When they start moving over to limit they'll adapt faster and make those games tougher, further speeding the exodus of mediocre players as their occasional gratifying wins becomes ever more rare.

~ Rick

[Poshua]

[ QUOTE ]

Well stated. The NL boom was able to sustain itself for so long because there was a relatively large influx of new and/or weak players. That influx has slowed and the surviving players for the most part get better. Making $30 plus per hour in NL games with small blinds and a big rake simply wasn't sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I play (Atlantic City) any rumors of the death of the NL boom would be greatly exaggerated.

[malo]

And the young kids are the ones who began their poker journey online. The speed of online play "compresses" experience, and tools like Pokertracker make it possible to analyze one's play in a way that was never possible before. For a player with the desire, online play can make a person very good, very fast. Inevitable that this will have an impact on B&M play.

Heck, I'm just an old fart who plays recreationally less than 10 hours a week, single table most of the time. (The sort of player who would play live if a card room was nearby.) Even with my leisurely approach, I see double the hands I would in a B&M, and don't have to rely on memory to review my play.

[malo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well stated. The NL boom was able to sustain itself for so long because there was a relatively large influx of new and/or weak players. That influx has slowed and the surviving players for the most part get better. Making $30 plus per hour in NL games with small blinds and a big rake simply wasn't sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I play (Atlantic City) any rumors of the death of the NL boom would be greatly exaggerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that the tourist areas--AC and LV--and large poker markets like LA will stay soft longer.

Areas where the potential poker player base is fairly limited, say riverboats and tribal casinos in locations with smaller populations and modest tourist business, may see games get tougher more quickly.

OP didn't say where he's is playing however, so don't know if this theory is applicable in his case.

[Poshua]

Yeah I agree, I wasn't doubting OP's claim so much as responding to Rick's suggestion that the poker boom is over. Rick, you play in LA, right?

My guess is that the boom will sustain best in tourist areas, and particularly where poker is one game on a full casino menu. A key driver of traffic in the AC rooms is people who aren't there specifically to play poker, and those people will always be around. By contrast, you really only show up at a California cardroom because you want to play poker.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree, I wasn't doubting OP's claim so much as responding to Rick's suggestion that the poker boom is over. Rick, you play in LA, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, mostly LA with an occasional trip to Las Vegas and Foxwoods when I visit family. My results have been about the same over the last few years but that's in large part because I've learned a lot thanks to the good material now available from the smarter writers like Matt, Sunny and Ed. Most people whose opinion I trust also find the games harder lately.



[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the boom will sustain best in tourist areas, and particularly where poker is one game on a full casino menu. A key driver of traffic in the AC rooms is people who aren't there specifically to play poker, and those people will always be around. By contrast, you really only show up at a California cardroom because you want to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point(s).

~ Rick

[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.