Debate regarding bigger games at canterbury

hoppscot22 · #1 10-11-2007, 06:41 AM

So currently the state law in MN states that the biggest single bet that can be made is $60 (in poker games at least)

So the largest game spread at Canterbury is 30-60 limit.

Most of the elite players in MN only occasionally play the 30 game because:
A. its small for them
B. when they do play its mostly for entertainment/their friends are playing
C. they either play online for money or often travel to play the bigger games.

There are however some people who at least "claim" to make a living in the 30 game (i know for a fact there are 1 or 2).

I have had a discussion with many people regarding the possibility of a bigger game at canterbury. Granted CP most likely does not want a bigger game and wouldnt even lobby to have the law changed. That isnt my question.

The debate was regarding whether a bigger game (60 120 most likely) would run at all. When i was home over the summer even the 30 game seemed to be more dead sometimes then it used to be, and i began to think that if a bigger game were spread it probably wouldnt run.

Does anyone think that Canterbury could sustain a bigger game? Would there be enough action players to keep the game going? How often would it go?

Milo · #2 10-11-2007, 10:42 AM

100/200 against PokerBob, Schneids, BicycleKick, et al? No thanks.

Could they get a game going? Sure. Maybe not running all the time as the 30/60 does, but I'm sure they could get it running on weekends and maybe a few nights a week.

Are they interested? Doubtful. I don't think there is a huge pool of players who want to play higher, but won't play at CP because 30/60 is the highest. Sure, there are a few "elite" players from MN who play in LA to get into bigger games, but with 33 tables full on weekends already, putting their energy into getting the law changed so they can have one more table running some of the time (that will draw players away from another game) doesn't make sense. They would much rather use their legislative time/money to push for a "racino."

This is my opinion only, and it could be wildly inaccurate, but I doubt it.

PorkchopDJG · #3 10-11-2007, 11:27 AM

I think they would definitely get players in a higher game if they had it and would probably get many of these bigger games going on weekends and tourney times.
I also don't think it would be easy to change the law and it will probably never happen.

What OP says about the big boys splashing around in the 30/60 is probably why I won't ever play that game. Them playing 30/60 is like peanuts when they are playing 600/1200 or something like that online. I'm sure they love to sit in that 30/60 and LAG it up big time kind of like us midlimit guys do at 2/4 or 1/2 online every once and a while for fun.

*TT* · #4 10-11-2007, 11:47 AM

why is there even a debate? Its not going to happen, its mandated by law and no politician in their right mind would increase the legal highest bet limit because then they would be considered soft on saving families.

MN got what they wanted, a new source of tax revenue from the card club. No need to increase the source of tax revenue a small amount in exchange for higher limits.

bapazian · #5 10-11-2007, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So currently the state law in MN states that the biggest single bet that can be made is $60 (in poker games at least)

So the largest game spread at Canterbury is 30-60 limit.

Most of the elite players in MN only occasionally play the 30 game because:
A. its small for them
B. when they do play its mostly for entertainment/their friends are playing
C. they either play online for money or often travel to play the bigger games.

There are however some people who at least "claim" to make a living in the 30 game (i know for a fact there are 1 or 2).

I have had a discussion with many people regarding the possibility of a bigger game at canterbury. Granted CP most likely does not want a bigger game and wouldnt even lobby to have the law changed. That isnt my question.

The debate was regarding whether a bigger game (60 120 most likely) would run at all. When i was home over the summer even the 30 game seemed to be more dead sometimes then it used to be, and i began to think that if a bigger game were spread it probably wouldnt run.

Does anyone think that Canterbury could sustain a bigger game? Would there be enough action players to keep the game going? How often would it go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the consensus that it probably be a weekend/sometimes during the week thing. There would probably be enough interest to keep this game viable.

For me personally I'd be stoked for the legal limit to raise so we could get bigger spread games going. Spread can play much like NL if the buyins are capped and the blinds are low. I played in a 2-60 spread 200max one time @ hinckley and it played just like 1/2 NL. something like a 5-120 spread could be a close replica to a 2-5 game which would be pretty nice.

But ya as TT said this most likely won't happen. Its really to bad MN has such a low limit on poker games. It doesn't make much sense when someone can make hundreds of dollar bets in blackjack but can't in poker. IMO you can lose your $ WAY faster in BJ.

MitchL · #6 10-11-2007, 01:16 PM

The 30 game has been kind of dead lately, though the 15 game is really thriving. I think it would really be optimistic to try and keep a 60 game going. Its amazing to me that a small market like the Twin cities can support a cardroom the size and quality of Canterbury. Just look at the podunk rooms in Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit. There are no regular limit games going in any of those cities higher than 20/40.

hoppscot22 · #7 10-11-2007, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
why is there even a debate? Its not going to happen, its mandated by law and no politician in their right mind would increase the legal highest bet limit because then they would be considered soft on saving families.

MN got what they wanted, a new source of tax revenue from the card club. No need to increase the source of tax revenue a small amount in exchange for higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

the debate was more so based around the player pool, and whether a game could be sustained, not the debate about whether it would happen.

and just for the record i have a theory that if canterbury really wanted to get a bigger limit game they probably could. virtually everything that they have gone to teh state requesting (barring the racino, but we know why that gets shot down) has been approved (extra tables for tourneys, nl tourneys, etc) its more that there is no need for it, and not worth putting any effort into for canterbury itself.

springsteen87 · #8 10-11-2007, 05:43 PM

I think the introduction of NL would do more for Canterbury than would a higher form of limit. I'm biased in my love for No Limit, but feel that even lower forms of NL would generate a TON of interest in Canterbury. As it is, as a Minnesotan who wants to play NL, your choices are either to play online or go to Turtle Lake.

I don't think the card room has any interest in spreading the game, or devoting energy for it as they're packed and raking as it is.

Jeffage · #9 10-11-2007, 06:33 PM

Wasn't the max limit 15-30 at the beginning and it was raised? Bigger limits would allow them to run a series of big tournaments also rather than one with the big event having a 1k buy-in. I just don't think there should be a maximum limit, but hey, I'm not in the Minnesota legislature.

Jeff

whiskeytown · #10 10-12-2007, 07:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the max limit 15-30 at the beginning and it was raised? Bigger limits would allow them to run a series of big tournaments also rather than one with the big event having a 1k buy-in. I just don't think there should be a maximum limit, but hey, I'm not in the Minnesota legislature.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

your comment about the 15/30 is right - the first couple years it was the biggest game - then about 4 yrs in I think we got 30/60 -

I'm not really sure - the years are starting to blur together a bit.

RB