Cash Game limit vs NL... (1 Viewer)

[longflop]

I always try to bring a new game to my monthly poker night for the post tourney, dealer's choice cash game. When its my turn, I want to play double flop texas hold em. Take it one time around the table so everybody has a chance to pay the big blind. Blinds for the cash game are .25/.50 and people generally buy in between $20 and $50. Everything is the same except you run two flops, turns and rivers, then split the pot if two different people win. Where I was looking for input, is do you guys think this would play better as a limit or NL game? My only reservation with the NL is that people start going all in like crazy, then bust and leave pissed off. I know how my guys play and too many guys hang around for the flop as is, so I'm assuming this will encourage more of that behavior.

As always, any thoughts are appreciated!

 

[JustinInMN]

Do what the players want to get action.

That said, in my dealer's choice game, most nl games are nickel ante or nickel-dime blind. But we play omaha-8 with .25/.50 stakes.

In your case could make the limits 1/2 so the pot sizes will end up similar.

If bust outs endanger how long a game may last, maybe starting with limit is the best approach. Raising the blinds may be a compromise to those that think limit = playing small

 

[links_slayer]

Yep, we don't do it often but I've found that a 4-5x stakes ratio (Limit:NL) works well when playing both in the same night.

 

[JustinInMN]

Also, when I play double board hold'em, it's NOT a split pot game, best hand using either board takes all.

But again split pot format may be better if bust outs endanger the game.

 

[longflop]

Also, when I play double board hold'em, it's NOT a split pot game, best hand using either board takes all.

But again split pot format may be better if bust outs endanger the game.

Yeah, I think its going to be better to keep it split pot and keep more people involved.

 

[upNdown]

Yeah, I think its going to be better to keep it split pot and keep more people involved.

I assume you're talking fixed limit, not pot limit?
If it's fixed, and they like to see flops, they might lose their money quicker, if they keep throwing dollars at the pot. If it's PL or NL, they might have the good sense to get out of it.

 

[longflop]

I assume you're talking fixed limit, not pot limit?
If it's fixed, and they like to see flops, they might lose their money quicker, if they keep throwing dollars at the pot. If it's PL or NL, they might have the good sense to get out of it.

yeah, I'm talking fixed limit.

 

[Jambine]

My only reservation with the NL is that people start going all in like crazy, then bust and leave pissed off.

I know this is an unpopular view, but I believe it's true. NL poker has done more to erode interest in the game than any other factor in recent years.
I would suggest fixed limit, or a wide spread limit game (at least 20 x BB)

 

[longflop]

I know this is an unpopular view, but I believe it's true. NL poker has done more to erode interest in the game than any other factor in recent years.
I would suggest fixed limit, or a wide spread limit game (at least 20 x BB)

I think I'm going fixed limit. The way I see it is a lot of my guys make poor choices, and this will almost help them from themselves. The main goal of my game is the guys to have fun, we're all neighborhood guys, so I really want to keep it friendly.

 

[Nex]

I'm no limit expert, but with loose-bad play, you can lose your money in limit just as easily as in NL.

Just that in NL there's more action because of the bigger pots and you are more likely to lose all your stack in just one, maybe two hands, while limit at adjusted comparable blinds (2000x NL BB ~= 300x FL BBet) bleeds people out slow and steady, but not quite as slow as it'd be necessary for them to get some quality hands and good action with them, i.e. an enjoyable time for thrill-seekers.

If your goal is to "protect" the bad players, I think overall limit might not be that much of a clear choice over NL as it'd seem at first glance.

Edit to add: I've recently seen such a removal/simplification of strategic options at 888poker, taken to the extreme -- there was no preflop play (everyone would post a BB ante instead), and in one variant the only choice you had from that point was either to push (with 10 BB) or fold. Just about one or two weeks ago, they quietly killed that game mode off (which was introduced just half a year earlier). Seems like nobody liked the dumbed-down experience. I know, this is an extreme example, but something to consider nonetheless. Going from NL to limit is a simplification of sorts. NL has the potential to reward good play more than limit because you could in theory stack a player in just one hand.

 

[BGinGA]

I think limit is a great choice when introducing a new game to your players. It not only reduces exposure, but learning players typically get to stick around longer (and play more hands), and they also get to see more hands to the river, in or out (thus learning how various starting hands and draws fare), without risking stacks in the process.

 

[Nex]

I don't think this helps people as much as it sounds like.

More likely, since they see how often draws arrive (as so many hands are played until the river multiway), they come to the conclusion chasing draws is a good thing. Throw them in a NL game afterwards and they'll go broke.

If they actually cared about their % chances in order to make informed +EV/-EV decisions, they'd be off way cheaper just quickly reading up on readily available free theoretical material, rather than training their gut feeling while playing...

 

[TheBigTater]

I know this is an unpopular view, but I believe it's true. NL poker has done more to erode interest in the game than any other factor in recent years.
I would suggest fixed limit, or a wide spread limit game (at least 20 x BB)

I agree IMO the NL game does more to kill long term growth of the game. Stacking bad/average players (the fish) will run them off faster than taking multiple smaller beats over time. And leaving them around longer may eventually help them improve their game so they will learn to love it for a lifetime instead of so many flash & burn outs that you see with the explosion of the TV NL style of game.

Yes, NL is +EV for the good players but -EV for the average player. And the average player is what you need more of for growth IMO.

What's the Amarillo Slim quote? ..."You can shear a sheep many times, but you can skin it only once"

 

[Lemonzest]

I don't think Fixed Limit is a fun game.

I would rather play regular NL (single board) or if people don't mind gambling hard then play PLO. PLO is a crazy amount of fun if people don't mind money splashing around (read here *losing lots of money....*)

 

[Nex]

Fixed limit is a game that can be played mechanically for the most part afaik. Might be boring if your focus is mostly on the game, but might come in handy when people mainly get together to talk while playing cards.

Omaha is very high variance and hard to read the board.
I really like the concept, but I absolutely understand why Hold'em is the far more popular variant. Hold'em definitely is superior -- it's well-rounded. Omaha is more extreme in nearly every regard (the one big exemption that comes to my mind is preflop hand value)