AC Poker Rooms, A sign of the times?

J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
I am not sure how many of you on this site live close to Atlantic City like I do but I have noticed something over the past few years and trying to figure out why they are doing it.

It use to be you could go to any poker room and play your choice of limit hold em 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, 10/20, and higher limits of course. With the usual no limit games as well. Now it seems you go to a casino and the only thing they offer is Limit 2/4 and 10/20 or higher and all no limit like 1/2 and 2/5. I personally am not a big fan of playing 2/4 because people call with anything and a lot of the skill of poker is taken out of the game and it becomes who gets lucky and catches. I also do not have the kind of fund to play 10/20. 1/2 no limit is fine but not on days when I am working on my game cause anyone who plays 1/2 no limit knows most times it will cost you $10 to see the flop. So I used to love playing 4/8 as that took away from everyone calling and was a good limit for me. However those mid range games no longer exist. Anyone have any idea why the casinos are doing away with 3/6 and 4/8 games when it comes to Atlantic City Poker Rooms.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
Because there is basically no one who wants to play those games. The serious limit players want to 10/20 or more and the fish who are just looking to play limit cause no-limit scares them want to play as low as possible.
 
Jillychemung

Jillychemung

Stacks & Stacks
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Total posts
8,250
Awards
1
Chips
124
It's because the games don't run enough to warrant the room spreading them. Tourists, for the most part, want the cheap games and the regs have the bankroll to play the larger games.
 
Leo 50

Leo 50

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Total posts
1,285
Awards
1
Chips
0
Can’t speak for AC but I know in Vegas they have started making the low stakes NLHE tables $1/3.
It used to be easy to find a $1/2 table but it seems they are harder to find these days.

Just my 2¢

:cool:
 
Q

queenie279

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Total posts
43
Chips
0
I live about almost 2 hours away. I am there like every weekend. The majority of the people there want to play 1/2nl. I personally play 1/2nl but have sat down at a 2/4 game and have to get up because of the playing with ATC.
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
I myself have had to play nothing but 1/2 NL. 2/4 is just a waste of time unless you want to sit there and hope to hit the bad beat. And again 10/20 is too rich for my blood. Then again playing 1.2 NL is about the same as playing 10/20 as you see maybe 1 flop out of every 10 for less then 10 dollars.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
Yeah, tough times for limit players. Everyone has been predicting this game's demise for years, and while I won't go that far it has certainly fallen-off dramatically in popularity. When I play live, at the rooms I play at, there may be 15-20 nl tables going in the evenings and, if you're lucky, 2 tables of limit, always 2-4. Not unusual at all to have only one, or sometimes even no, limit tables running at all. Sucks because sometimes I just wanna relax and play a little low-risk poker for entertainment purposes only..... Difficult to do that at nl tables.
 
Jillychemung

Jillychemung

Stacks & Stacks
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Total posts
8,250
Awards
1
Chips
124
Depends on the poker room. Oceans 11 in CA certainly had a large amount of limit games going. They have a room for Limit and one for NL and the Limit room had 3x more tables running than the NL room when I visited there a few weeks ago.

http://www.oceans11.com/casino_games/poker_games/index.php

Limit Hold'em Limits - $1-$2, $2-$4, $3-$6, $4-$8, $8-$16, $20-$40, $40-$80
No-Limit Hold'em Blinds - $1-$1, $2-$2, $2-$3, $5-$5, $10-$10
Pot Limit Omaha Limit Hold-em- $1-$2 Blinds
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Yeah, tough times for limit players. Everyone has been predicting this game's demise for years, and while I won't go that far it has certainly fallen-off dramatically in popularity. When I play live, at the rooms I play at, there may be 15-20 nl tables going in the evenings and, if you're lucky, 2 tables of limit, always 2-4. Not unusual at all to have only one, or sometimes even no, limit tables running at all. Sucks because sometimes I just wanna relax and play a little low-risk poker for entertainment purposes only..... Difficult to do that at nl tables.

I hear ya, I feel the same way. I only play at the Borgata and they always have a couple 2/4 tables but most are over the limit of 10/20 like a few 20/40 , 150/300 and 200/400 tables. The rest are no limit.

I think the opposite however, I feel it is not poker dying I think it is poker getting bigger. More and more people playing to actually try and make real money. That leads to all the NL tables.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
I hear ya, I feel the same way. I only play at the Borgata and they always have a couple 2/4 tables but most are over the limit of 10/20 like a few 20/40 , 150/300 and 200/400 tables. The rest are no limit.

I think the opposite however, I feel it is not poker dying I think it is poker getting bigger. More and more people playing to actually try and make real money. That leads to all the NL tables.

I didn't mean to imply that I think poker is dying, just the opposite, actually. I think it's specifically LIMIT poker that is in a pretty steady decline. All the cool kids wanna play NL these days.
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
I didn't mean to imply that I think poker is dying, just the opposite, actually. I think it's specifically LIMIT poker that is in a pretty steady decline. All the cool kids wanna play NL these days.

Your 100% right on about that. People see all this no limit on TV and that is all they want to play. I think casinos should have at the very least one table of all limits.
 
lcid86

lcid86

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Total posts
3,191
Awards
9
US
Chips
418
Agree about decline of limit (and stud) games. If you find a limit table, it's almost always older players. The younger players want to push their stack at nl.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
Your 100% right on about that. People see all this no limit on TV and that is all they want to play. I think casinos should have at the very least one table of all limits.

Agree about decline of limit (and stud) games. If you find a limit table, it's almost always older players. The younger players want to push their stack at nl.

Yep, all the TV exposure is NL. Funny how limit tables are almost always older guys. When I play NL I'm often one of the oldest at the table. When I play limit I'm usually one of the "youngest" (as far as old farts go, that is).

I think it is the TV exposure, plus (caution....I'm about to piss all the NL players off....) I think it takes a deeper understanding of the game to be successful at limit than NL. Before all the NL guys get TOO pissed, what I mean to say is that simple aggression at NL can cover a multitude of sins and make-up, to at least some degree, for a general lack of knowledge of the game.

Limit poker doesn't afford players that luxury. I mean at the very most basic level you can have short-stack shove monkeys at NL who can be successful, winning players and really know very little of the game. That is not gonna happen at limit.
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
:confused: Hehe... Not pissed, I promise, but I do have a few points to make about what you said, Rudy. :mad: :mad: :mad: ;)

I think it takes a deeper understanding of the game to be successful at limit than NL.

This is throwing a lot of assumptions about what "understanding" means... Are you talking specifically about math and/or analyzing play based on bet size?

Before all the NL guys get TOO pissed, what I mean to say is that simple aggression at NL can cover a multitude of sins and make-up, to at least some degree, for a general lack of knowledge of the game.

Ehhh... "Simple aggression." Again a bit of a weird phrase to use and I'm not sure what you mean. Most players who bet for no reason are not successful at NL. Aggression must be calculated and balanced. And this again gets back to my earlier point about aspects of the game. Are you talking about sins with regards to math? Over-valuing hand value? I'm getting to a point here, I promise.

I mean at the very most basic level you can have short-stack shove monkeys at NL who can be successful, winning players and really know very little of the game. That is not gonna happen at limit.

No. I'm sorry, but no. If you are referring to fit-or-fold SS strategy, then yes, players who know very little about the game can look up charts on when to shove which cards from which position under which circumstances and win a bit of money. This is not the same as successful. SS strategy exploits the fact that many players at NL are not that strong mathematically, but they are still not going to be getting very impressive WRs imo. And of course it won't happen at limit - you're too limited in bet sizing. I'd like to say clearly: Blind aggression in NL is just as disastrous as it is in limit (if not more so).

Okay. Finally to my point: Limit and No Limit hold'em are NOT THE SAME GAME. You simply cannot compare them by saying that one requires a better understanding to do well. Some math/technical ability can take more of a back seat in no limit because there is a greater freedom to flex your stack size (introducing new math to worry about, interestingly). But this is a dimension that doesn't exist in limit. I would contend that knowing when to fold the 2nd best hand is not as important in limit as no limit, because you usually won't lose your stack if you are wrong.

I apologize for the length of this post, but didn't see a good way to cut it down to size. I feel like you're comparing baseball and basketball. Does one require greater athleticism than the other? Who needs a better understanding of the finer points of the game to do well? To me it makes no sense. (Sorry if this is literally just me. :D )

I agree on your analysis of why limit seems to be fading away. It's too bad really - I have a great respect for the game, and those who can do well at it (I'm not one of those people). But people who produce for TV are looking for one thing: drama. There's a lot more drama in NL than limit, simply because the more easily quantified skills are less present, and the bigger swings are more so.

TL;DR: Limit and no limit are different games and cannot be compared.

Limit does require better preflop (and other) technical skills, whereas no limit requires better bluffing (and other) skills. I would say the best defining characteristic of both would be the ability to think logically about another person's actions, and drawing conclusions from incomplete information.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
:confused: Hehe... Not pissed, I promise, but I do have a few points to make about what you said, Rudy. :mad: :mad: :mad: ;)



This is throwing a lot of assumptions about what "understanding" means... Are you talking specifically about math and/or analyzing play based on bet size?



Ehhh... "Simple aggression." Again a bit of a weird phrase to use and I'm not sure what you mean. Most players who bet for no reason are not successful at NL. Aggression must be calculated and balanced. And this again gets back to my earlier point about aspects of the game. Are you talking about sins with regards to math? Over-valuing hand value? I'm getting to a point here, I promise.



No. I'm sorry, but no. If you are referring to fit-or-fold SS strategy, then yes, players who know very little about the game can look up charts on when to shove which cards from which position under which circumstances and win a bit of money. This is not the same as successful. SS strategy exploits the fact that many players at NL are not that strong mathematically, but they are still not going to be getting very impressive WRs imo. And of course it won't happen at limit - you're too limited in bet sizing. I'd like to say clearly: Blind aggression in NL is just as disastrous as it is in limit (if not more so).

Okay. Finally to my point: Limit and No Limit hold'em are NOT THE SAME GAME. You simply cannot compare them by saying that one requires a better understanding to do well. Some math/technical ability can take more of a back seat in no limit because there is a greater freedom to flex your stack size (introducing new math to worry about, interestingly). But this is a dimension that doesn't exist in limit. I would contend that knowing when to fold the 2nd best hand is not as important in limit as no limit, because you usually won't lose your stack if you are wrong.

I apologize for the length of this post, but didn't see a good way to cut it down to size. I feel like you're comparing baseball and basketball. Does one require greater athleticism than the other? Who needs a better understanding of the finer points of the game to do well? To me it makes no sense. (Sorry if this is literally just me. :D )

I agree on your analysis of why limit seems to be fading away. It's too bad really - I have a great respect for the game, and those who can do well at it (I'm not one of those people). But people who produce for TV are looking for one thing: drama. There's a lot more drama in NL than limit, simply because the more easily quantified skills are less present, and the bigger swings are more so.

TL;DR: Limit and no limit are different games and cannot be compared.

Limit does require better preflop (and other) technical skills, whereas no limit requires better bluffing (and other) skills. I would say the best defining characteristic of both would be the ability to think logically about another person's actions, and drawing conclusions from incomplete information.

Actually, we're not all that far apart in our thinking. First off, yes, obviously different games/ different strategy/ different tactics. I DO dispute, however, that short-stackers cannot be successful while having a very limited understanding of the game. We've even had a few on here from time-to-time who were making considerable money and doing things like trying to make SNE on PS with a reasonable chance of actually making it. So some short-stackers can be, and are successful, while simply gutting much of the strategy from NL. poker sites have realized this themselves and have, over time, increased the minimum buy-in amounts in many cases to try to remedy this situation.

My bit about "understanding".... Yes I was referencing, specifically, math skills. I simply feel they are required more in any limited-betting type game, than they are in big bet poker. This difference, of course, is lessened as the stacks get deeper and deeper in NL.

You reference, yourself, that SS can be successful, to a degree, because they "exploit the fact that many players at NL are not that strong mathematically". I agree. This was the crux of my arguement (at least that was my intent). It is possible to be a good, successful NL player and not be all that strong mathematically. Trying to achieve that at a limit game is suicide.

Not to totally slag on NL. I actually enjoy the game. I simply feel it takes a different set of skills, and I, perhaps, incorrectly lumped limit and Nl together, under the banner "the game". Very roughly, and imo only, I think limit poker requires a better understanding of the game AS IT RELATES TO MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES. Further, I think, NL requires a different skill set entirely eg. bluffing, reading the other players (not talking about hands here, but psychology, etc).

So, yes, different games; different skill-sets. When I said that I felt limit required a better understanding of the game; I was thinking purely in terms of mathematical awareness of the situation during game-play. As far as nl, I would say that I think it takes a greater amount of skill in a broad range of non-math related abilities, intangibles, if you will.
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
Very roughly, and imo only, I think limit poker requires a better understanding of the game AS IT RELATES TO MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES. Further, I think, NL requires a different skill set entirely eg. bluffing, reading the other players (not talking about hands here, but psychology, etc).

Okay, glad I had roughly the correct interpretation, and I think you are probably right. I also personally try to incorporate as much math into my decision-making in NL as I can, as I think it gives me an edge. But I so far as how much you quote, "have to use to be successful," limit probably does require more.

So, yes, different games; different skill-sets. When I said that I felt limit required a better understanding of the game; I was thinking purely in terms of mathematical awareness of the situation during game-play. As far as nl, I would say that I think it takes a greater amount of skill in a broad range of non-math related abilities, intangibles, if you will.

Fantastic way of putting it imo :D "Intangibles." Hard to quantify/rate on a spectrum. Glad that two long posts later we are really along a similar train of thought, haha.

Apologies to the OP for sort of taking this thread off on a tangent! :eek:
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Fine by me. It all plays in to the point of the post. The person who said about the older people being at the 2/4 limit type tables are correct. I am 35 and usually the youngest person if I sit at a 2/4 to pass the time.

I somewhat agree with the statement it takes a different type of players. At a 2/4 table I think very little skill matters. The stakes are so low that 90% of the time half the table calls all the way to the end just to catch. So I consider a 2/4 table all about who has the better luck that day. I have seen people many times stay with absolute crap and catch the last card cause it only cost them a total of 12 dollars to get to the last card.

Once you get to 10/20 limit and above then you see where the real poker players and skill play a huge roll. Someone is not riding 2-7 off suit to the end like they would at a 2/4 when it will cost them 60 dollars to do so.

I would think another reason NL is popular is the house gets a bigger rake? Are they not taking money based on how much is put in?

My main point of the thread was the middle of the road limit games 3/6 and 4/8 and 5/10 are gone in AC. Can not find em. You either play 2/4 which I feel is all luck or you go to the way more expensive 10/20. I have been at the Borgata at times when the next highest table is not even 10/20 its 20/40
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
Okay, glad I had roughly the correct interpretation, and I think you are probably right. I also personally try to incorporate as much math into my decision-making in NL as I can, as I think it gives me an edge. But I so far as how much you quote, "have to use to be successful," limit probably does require more.



Fantastic way of putting it imo :D "Intangibles." Hard to quantify/rate on a spectrum. Glad that two long posts later we are really along a similar train of thought, haha.

Apologies to the OP for sort of taking this thread off on a tangent! :eek:

Yeah, I kind-of got the impression that we weren't that far off in our thinking to begin with. I just wasn't as clear as I should have been in the first post.

Fine by me. It all plays in to the point of the post. The person who said about the older people being at the 2/4 limit type tables are correct. I am 35 and usually the youngest person if I sit at a 2/4 to pass the time.

I somewhat agree with the statement it takes a different type of players. At a 2/4 table I think very little skill matters. The stakes are so low that 90% of the time half the table calls all the way to the end just to catch. So I consider a 2/4 table all about who has the better luck that day. I have seen people many times stay with absolute crap and catch the last card cause it only cost them a total of 12 dollars to get to the last card.

Once you get to 10/20 limit and above then you see where the real poker players and skill play a huge roll. Someone is not riding 2-7 off suit to the end like they would at a 2/4 when it will cost them 60 dollars to do so.

I would think another reason NL is popular is the house gets a bigger rake? Are they not taking money based on how much is put in?

My main point of the thread was the middle of the road limit games 3/6 and 4/8 and 5/10 are gone in AC. Can not find em. You either play 2/4 which I feel is all luck or you go to the way more expensive 10/20. I have been at the Borgata at times when the next highest table is not even 10/20 its 20/40

To be sure there are a lot more chasers in 2-4 than anywhere else. Just like a 1-2nl game will have the biggest amount of fish. There is still a skill to beating them, though. Having said that, you will definately take more than your fair share (it always seems that way, anyway) of bad beats and river suckouts along the way.

Realizing that you can not push many people out of the pot should lead you to playing a certain way, with a selection of hands that do well in multi-way pots. It also should lead you to realize that your big PPs are quite vulnerable. Still have to play them aggressively, of course, but have to find a balance where you're not over-playing them, post-flop, against multiple opponents who aren't going away.
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
Fine by me. It all plays in to the point of the post. The person who said about the older people being at the 2/4 limit type tables are correct. I am 35 and usually the youngest person if I sit at a 2/4 to pass the time.

I somewhat agree with the statement it takes a different type of players. At a 2/4 table I think very little skill matters. The stakes are so low that 90% of the time half the table calls all the way to the end just to catch. So I consider a 2/4 table all about who has the better luck that day. I have seen people many times stay with absolute crap and catch the last card cause it only cost them a total of 12 dollars to get to the last card.

Once you get to 10/20 limit and above then you see where the real poker players and skill play a huge roll. Someone is not riding 2-7 off suit to the end like they would at a 2/4 when it will cost them 60 dollars to do so.

I would think another reason NL is popular is the house gets a bigger rake? Are they not taking money based on how much is put in?

My main point of the thread was the middle of the road limit games 3/6 and 4/8 and 5/10 are gone in AC. Can not find em. You either play 2/4 which I feel is all luck or you go to the way more expensive 10/20. I have been at the Borgata at times when the next highest table is not even 10/20 its 20/40

As Big_Rudy said, while luck will drive more of the action at a table with many people seeing flops and later streets, there is still an optimal way to play at such a table, that will minimize your "luck factor" and maximize your edges. As a general rule of thumb, at a tight table, play a little looser, at a loose table, play a little tighter. If the biggest issue is that you feel a ton of people are seeing flops, then you will mostly want premium hands and hands that hit flops strongly when they hit, but are easy to give up when they don't hit. I can't say much more than that, since I'm far better at no limit than limit, but tightening up can take you far when your table is loose.

As for why casinos are ditching middle-of-the-road stakes, it is mostly about demand. While there are plenty of people like you who want something in between, there just aren't enough in comparison to the population of people playing the game. Rudy was sort of getting to this.

I see there being two categories, that at least on the surface account for most players. There are people who play for pure entertainment, and want to risk the minimum, and they like 1/2 NL or 2/4 L hold'em. They can have an enjoyable night at a casino with just a couple hundred bucks or less in their pockets. Then there are the established "pros" (not necessarily full-time), who think they are good enough to play higher stakes, and often have a bankroll that can withstand those stakes. I think that a lot of the time, people playing stakes in between are those who are on their way to making a bigger bankroll, or like you, don't want to join the donkfest down below.

It's rough, because like you said, the upper stakes are expensive for many people, but the ones down below are almost TOO accessible. It leads to a polarization of the tables, where literally anyone who even understands the rules will sit down at the lower tables, but the upper ones just can't be breached. A casino just opened in my area, and I know that I, being a full-time student, will not be playing any 5/10 NL any time soon. So I'll be at 1/2 tables. Am I good enough to play above that? I hope so. But I won't, cause I'm a starving college student :D
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
I think Scourrge and I are in pretty-much total agreement here (and it won't even take a big, long debate this time;) ). There will always be a luck factor at any level of poker; if not the fish would soon go broke and all quit. Also, the lowest tables, whether they be limit or nl, will always be the most fish of the bunch. But, be assured there is an optimal way to play every table/situation as Scourrge says. It's your job to find out exactly what "optimal" means depending upon the type of table you're sitting at and how the table is playing. I mean, really, what you're almost saying is (if you relate it to the nl game) that everyone here is so fishy that I can't beat this game 'cause it's all luck. So.... I should move-up to where they respect my raises. And, we all know where THAT type of thinking leads.
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Agree with both of you 100% My issue is and maybe this is just at the Borgata in AC but 1/2 NL is anything but a low limit table. 95% of the time someone raises to $10 before the flop. Then if you stay in the hand by the time you get through all the cards dealt you have 40 or 50 dollars in the pot. So to me it is like playing 10/20 limit.

That is why I miss the middle tables. I want to play the skill part of poker while not having to worry in 3 hands I could be down $200. At a 4/8 limit or 5/10 limit (Which they use to have all the time) I could play skillful poker and either win or lose but not lose my shirt. With those tables gone it is either 2/4 limit and hope to suck out of play very tight or 1/2 NL which as stated at borgata is anything but

But I see both your points I just miss 5 years ago when they had all those tables.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
Agree with both of you 100% My issue is and maybe this is just at the Borgata in AC but 1/2 NL is anything but a low limit table. 95% of the time someone raises to $10 before the flop. Then if you stay in the hand by the time you get through all the cards dealt you have 40 or 50 dollars in the pot. So to me it is like playing 10/20 limit.

That is why I miss the middle tables. I want to play the skill part of poker while not having to worry in 3 hands I could be down $200. At a 4/8 limit or 5/10 limit (Which they use to have all the time) I could play skillful poker and either win or lose but not lose my shirt. With those tables gone it is either 2/4 limit and hope to suck out of play very tight or 1/2 NL which as stated at borgata is anything but

But I see both your points I just miss 5 years ago when they had all those tables.

Ok, now all of this I agree with. There is a huge difference between not enjoying 2-4 limit and not being able to beat it. Imo, if you can beat 4-8/5-10 type limits you can certainly easily beat 2-4. You may not enjoy the differences that the lower limits bring, and may not enjoy making corresponding changes to your game, but it is certainly beatable if you have the skill to beat higher.
 
J

jlabruno

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Ok, now all of this I agree with. There is a huge difference between not enjoying 2-4 limit and not being able to beat it. Imo, if you can beat 4-8/5-10 type limits you can certainly easily beat 2-4. You may not enjoy the differences that the lower limits bring, and may not enjoy making corresponding changes to your game, but it is certainly beatable if you have the skill to beat higher.

In your opinion do you think I should just make the jump to 10/20 Limit and play tight or go with 1.2 NL and the crazy beating that takes place?

Also if you say 10/20 Limit what do you feel would be a good amount of money to sit down with? I mean if I play 2.4 I sit with $100 and if I play 1/2 NL $200.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
Haven't been to AC in ages, easily 10+ years, but I was just thinking..... At all the casinos I play at you can always sign-up for "interest" in a game, which is then displayed on the monitors as such, and if you get enough players on the "interest" list they'll always open-up a new table. Maybe next time you're in AC take it upon yourself to sign-up at the desk for "interest" in whichever limit you like and they should be willing to get list going for you. Who knows, maybe there are enough other limit players in the room who'd like to play higher as well without jumping all the way to 10/20. Can't hurt to try.
 
B

Big_Rudy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Total posts
1,833
Chips
0
In your opinion do you think I should just make the jump to 10/20 Limit and play tight or go with 1.2 NL and the crazy beating that takes place?

Also if you say 10/20 Limit what do you feel would be a good amount of money to sit down with? I mean if I play 2.4 I sit with $100 and if I play 1/2 NL $200.

IMO, get used to nl. Like I said, unfortunately, I don't see limit gaining in popularity anytime soon. Also 1/2nl should be far easier to beat, though it will be more "swingy", than 10/20 limit. By the time you get to 10/20 most of those players are going to be at least fairly well grounded in the game (this is strictly IMO as I've not played those limits in ages, not since I lived in LA and even then that game was a little beyond my comfort zone).

As far as how deep you should sit, that's gonna vary on preferences. $200 is fine for 1/2nl; for limit I like to sit deeper than you even though its really not required. For example I routinely sit with $200 at 2/4 limit. If I were to play 10/20 first advice would be to check the tables and see what most people are sitting. Myself, unless the whole table is sitting really short or something I'm likely sitting 1K. So, yeah, huge jump in price of admission between 2/4 and 10/20. I would think absolute minimum would be $500.
 
Top