Thoughts: Crappy structure + no rake? (1 Viewer)

[acezag]

A local pub offers a $2-20 spread game and takes no rake.
I kind of hate spread limit, as I feel it can be the worst of both worlds, but curious what other think, especially whether or not 'no rake' swings the calculation or not.
I suspect the players are nothing special, as there are plenty of bigger games within a few miles.

 

[drdr]

I like the idea. When I did play for cash, limit was my favourite. So a biased yes from me. I expect a lot of old man coffee types, so could be an exploitable game with right approach. But I expect most would hate this format, especially the gamboolers.

 

[upNdown]

I'd definitely give it a shot. I've never played spread limit - it isn't offered much around here. But like @drdr said, a game like that could maybe attract some exploitable players; it's worth checking it out. Whether or not no rake figures into the calculation depends on what you'd be playing otherwise, right? If your alternatives are all raked games, no rake is probably worth what, like $10-$20 per hour?

 

[Deucekies]

Playing in WA, I'm used to spread limit like 2-20 or 2-40. Even what we call "No limit" is technically 2-300 spread or whatever the poker max is these days. So for me, the no rake makes this a no-brainer.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Any structure is more tolerable with no rake attached.

Spread limit isn't my favorite, but I'd still play. Poker is poker.

 

[ToTheMax]

Spread limit is terrible. Also, people who are willing to play spread limit are generally terrible at poker. Feels like a good game selection opportunity.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Spread limit is terrible.

What is so terrible about it?

 

[ToTheMax]

What is so terrible about it?

Fair retort. Was trying to be cheeky, but should have chosen my words better.

I’ve found spread limit to be confusing to players and can lead to game slowing questions and betting errors. I’ve also seen the structure frustrate and deter players. Selfishly, I also find it takes away tools that help exploit players.

Completely subjective opinion. Nothing innately wrong with the format. And, to my original post, a format that generally leads to very soft games which are profitable to adept players.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I’ve found spread limit to be confusing to players and can lead to game slowing questions and betting errors. I’ve also seen the structure frustrate and deter players.

Yeah. That makes sense. I've always been able to deal with it, but I can see how it could frustrate casual players in particular. Fixed limit is far superior in this area. I would take a normal limit game over spread limit any day, all else being equal.

Selfishly, I also find it takes away tools that help exploit players.

I find self-interest the least compelling of most arguments, but fair enough.

 

[chippitydoodah]

I like the idea. When I did play for cash, limit was my favourite. So a biased yes from me. I expect a lot of old man coffee types, so could be an exploitable game with right approach. But I expect most would hate this format, especially the gamboolers.

"Old man coffee types"? I think you just offended 75% of this site!