Posted by Dr Fro 8:12 AM
This is a pretty good read.

It is one part history, one part strategy and one part a prediction of the future (although only the latter makes its way into the article's title.)

Regarding the history, I remember going into a cardroom in Lake Charles around 1999. I had been playing a lot of limit poker, but kept reading about NL poker in my books. I wanted to give it a try. There was a game going with $2-$5 blinds. I said "Great, what's the buy in?" I was told that the average stack was around $2k and that one guy came in with $10k. Gulp. "Do you have any open spots at the $3-$6 limit game??" A lot of people were first exposed to "real poker" during the broadcast of the 2003 WSOP, and I found that the swarm of new players often felt that "holdem" was synonymous with "NL holdem tournament" I was invited to people's houses to play "holdem" which were actually a series of NL holdem tournaments, and when I pointed this out, I would get blank stares. "Cash game?? Limit??" That has gone away, but there is still the prevailing idea of NL Holdem always including a min/max buyin. This is not due to ignorance because that is precisely how the internet and B&M rooms now deal it. But it is not really NL holdem, not in the way it was played when Doyle wrote Super System. And actually, on that note, you should be very careful about applying Doyle's advice in S/S to the tyipcal capped buyin game. In today's version of NL Holdem, it is more appropriate to fire in all-in bets more often as you are not afraid of the reraise. Firing in a $200 bet in a $200 max buyin game is one thing, but it is something else when you have a stack of $2000 in front of you because the reraise is a serious threat. That being said (boy am I on a tangent now), you should adjust your strategy in a capped buyin NL game after your stack has swelled to well above the cap. Your new strategy should more resemble what is laid out in S/S. This is precisely what I don't do well. I can build up a stack well, but I don't protect it since I don't change gears. I'll change that one of these days.

Regarding strategy, I agree with her, but not for exactly the same reasons. I think that Lynn Swan took ballet to play football better. I know that what I learn in PLO/8 helps me see HE from a different perspective and teaches me new tricks. I think that mixing it up has positive benefits on all aspects of your game. Furthermore, to agree with one of the commenters at the bottom of her post, it helps the boredom factor. Sometimes I want to kill myself I get so bored at the table, and switching up the game helps that a lot.

Regarding her predictions about the future, I really don't know what to write, because I am not exactly sure what her point was. But I have the following predictions: as people either bust out and quit or improve and win money, there will be fewer games but for larger stakes. I have already witnessed this trend on a small scale here in Dallas, and I think it is a reasonable trend to expect out in the larger poker world. Poker is permanently bigger than it was 4 years ago, but it has peaked as far as participation by the casual player: players will either get more involved (more often and higher stakes) or stop playing altogether.

0 Comment(s):

Post a Comment