Live No Limit Game

Hectorjelly

I was talking on VC with two other boardsters, Dropsy & Ken Cleary, and we decided we'd like to play a live no limit holdem cash game. I think it should be e1 e2 nl with a minimum buy in of 200 euros. It would be nice to get a proper hold em game going without having to switch back and forth to Omaha. We have chips and kem cards, but we need a place to play. Id offer my place but its far too small. So first of all, is anyone here interested in such a game, and secondly; would anyone be so kind as to host it? I reckon Thursday the 14th of this month would be a good date, but we can decide on that later.

gerire

Im nearly positive that if you ask Luke in the Fitz they will definately host it and will also give you a proper dealer, there will be a rake etc etc, They are open to suggestions like this but you do have to approach them with them. Have you asked there yet? I cant see any reason if you say to him I can guarantee 3 players but we want, 200 Buy in Max/Min which ever, blinds 1, 2 Holdem Only no Omaha. He will give you the space and then also give you more players too that will be there on the night and join in.......

kencleary

Hmmmm the Fitz is a great venue and Luke has always been very accomodating to us but personally I'd nearly rather keep the game private. For two main reasons.

Firstly to avoid the rake. I don't know what the rake is in the Fitz but i'd rather not pay it if possible, call me a cheapskate but if i'm going to play a NL game i'd rather not be losing a certain percentage of every pot to the House. We have lots of people with KEMs, Chips and willingness to host games - why not take advantage of that? In fact i'll offer my place as a venue, though I live in Balbriggan so it will mean a 45 minute train journey if ye're interested
A home game also allows the presence of cigarettes and alchol - two vital components of any poker game!

Secondly if we're playing a NL cash game i'd rather be playing it against other boardies rather than the cash game players in the Fitz. I've played some of them before and they aren't all that but they do have deeper pockets and vastly more experience than any of us - that puts us at a disadvantage IMO.

I think this could be a more gentle way of introducing people to cash games ala the 30 game SA ran one Saturday after a tournament and it could maybe become a semi-regular game if there's enough interest. It just makes a change from the live tournaments and online cash games most of us play. I know personally i'd love to play in a game like this every so often providing I don't lose 200 every month, though with Hectorjelly playing i'm bound to make money - 10-8o Hector? /shakes head

MrPudding

I would consider hosting the game. I might not play but I would deal. I know I am a bit out of the way but if you have nowwhere else.

MrP

whiteshadow

this sounds good.. never sat in the cash games in the fitz for the main
reason that omaha upsets my stomach. would be very interested in a game
and know another who would be too.

pokertroll

Just out of curiosity -

Why the minimum buy-in of 200 if it is a No-limit game?
What difference would it make if the minimum buy-in was 50 like the usual cash games?

For no-limit, the trend in vegas recently has been towards playing no-limit with a maximum buy-in so that there is no way somebody with deep pockets can buy every pot (same reason cash games are pot limit in the Fitz and Merrion, btw). This is starting to attract some of the limit players as they can go into a game knowing that they are not at risk of losing a lot of money. Of course, like in the normal cash games, you can reload if you lose your money

So, my point is, would it not be better to play with a maximum buy-in?
It would be like a semi tournament/cash-game and would probably attract more players.

Waylander

Does that not then make it a limit game? I know you can rebuy, but if there is a cap on how much you can buy in for then there is a limit!

kencleary

Waylander a limit game refers to a game where raises are limited to a certain amount i.e. in a 1-2 limit game the maximum raise would be 2 at any point and the betting is likely to be capped at mybe four times the limit. No limit is where anybody can raise any amount but even then you're limited to the amount of cash you have on the table - to prevent car keys and sh*t going into the middle, and nobody can be forced to fold because they can't afford to make a call.

Hectorjelly

pokertroll wrote:

Just out of curiosity -

Why the minimum buy-in of 200 if it is a No-limit game?
What difference would it make if the minimum buy-in was 50 like the usual cash games?

For no-limit, the trend in vegas recently has been towards playing no-limit with a maximum buy-in so that there is no way somebody with deep pockets can buy every pot (same reason cash games are pot limit in the Fitz and Merrion, btw). This is starting to attract some of the limit players as they can go into a game knowing that they are not at risk of losing a lot of money. Of course, like in the normal cash games, you can reload if you lose your money

So, my point is, would it not be better to play with a maximum buy-in?
It would be like a semi tournament/cash-game and would probably attract more players.

Good Question, the reason the casinos have max buyins is to give the poorer players protection, and to ensure that the games dont end too soon, so they keep getting rake. Its like No Limit with training wheels.

The reason I want to play with a min buyin, is that no limit poker is a very different ball game if the stacks are deeper. The bigger the stacks the more interesting the game is. We've all noticed how near the end of tournaments it just becomes an all in fest? Thats because the average stack is only 10 or 12 Big blinds. I want a minimum of 100 bb's so that people are forced into difficult decisions on the turn and river, rather than just being able to push all in on the flop.

We could have the blinds smaller, but I play 1/2 or 2/4 online; so Id like to play for a similar amount offline.

Samba

would yous be interested in my place, drop me a pm if so.

dropsy

Hectorjelly wrote:

The reason I want to play with a min buyin, is that no limit poker is a very different ball game if the stacks are deeper. The bigger the stacks the more interesting the game is. We've all noticed how near the end of tournaments it just becomes an all in fest? Thats because the average stack is only 10 or 12 Big blinds. I want a minimum of 100 bb's so that people are forced into difficult decisions on the turn and river, rather than just being able to push all in on the flop.

Please allow me to translate - what Hector is trying to say above is that if he puts in a pre flop button raise to €10 with T8o and the flop totally misses him (and I don't mean narrowly misses or give him a draw - I mean A, 4, K rainbow kinda miss) , he want to be able to bet €100 and not give someone with a €10/20 stack the chance to call - isn't that right Hector

Waylander

Sorry Ken, I knew that, I did not really phrase what i was asking very well, but Pokertroll suggested capping what a player can bring to the table, and this is kind of taking the no limit aspect of the game away. If it is a no limit game players should be allowed try to buy the pot, its part of the game surely?

kencleary

dropsy wrote:

Please allow me to translate - what Hector is trying to say above is that if he puts in a pre flop button raise to €10 with T8o and the flop totally misses him (and I don't mean narrowly misses or give him a draw - I mean A, 4, K rainbow kinda miss) , he want to be able to bet €100 and not give someone with a €10/20 stack the chance to call - isn't that right Hector

Think the flop was K-2-5 and it wasn't even rainbow! I had four to the nut flush, then the turn comes A giving me top pair, four to the flush and any 4 for a straight. That said I still nearly folded to his all-in - was convinced he had A K, still i'll know better in future

kencleary

Waylander wrote:

Sorry Ken, I knew that, I did not really phrase what i was asking very well, but Pokertroll suggested capping what a player can bring to the table, and this is kind of taking the no limit aspect of the game away. If it is a no limit game players should be allowed try to buy the pot, its part of the game surely?

Well generally all no limit games do have a maximum amount you can bring to the table but i'm not that concerned with removing the cap in this game if others agree. I doubt anyone's going to be sitting down with 100k.

pokertroll

Fair enough Hector, the only problem I see is that there is nothing stopping somebody with 10K sitting down in a table where everybody else has an average of say, 500 but yeah, it is a game that might attract some people. Going all-in for 500 does not stop the guy with 10K from making the call even if he doesn't have the right odds. It is all relative. He could bust the whole table if he wanted to.

Waylander,capping the amount of money that somebody can bring to the table makes it more equitable. You are less likey to have bullies with large stacks and deep pockets - very similar to a rebuy tournament but without the increasing blind-levels

Hectorjelly

kencleary wrote:

Think the flop was K-2-5 and it wasn't even rainbow! I had four to the nut flush, then the turn comes A giving me top pair, four to the flush and any 4 for a straight. That said I still nearly folded to his all-in - was convinced he had A K, still i'll know better in future

Next time I will have AK! Even if you put me on AK you were right to call, the inside straight draw just puts you over the 50% equity edge.

Hectorjelly

pokertroll wrote:

Fair enough Hector, the only problem I see is that there is nothing stopping somebody with 10K sitting down in a table where everybody else has an average of say, 500 but yeah, it is a game that might attract some people. Going all-in for 500 does not stop the guy with 10K from making the call even if he doesn't have the right odds. It is all relative. He could bust the whole table if he wanted to.

Waylander,capping the amount of money that somebody can bring to the table makes it more equitable. You are less likey to have bullies with large stacks and deep pockets - very similar to a rebuy tournament but without the increasing blind-levels

The only advantage the big stack has is pscychology, you want him to make the call if hes getting bad odds. If he makes a bad call and wins, well thats poker.

Hectorjelly

kencleary wrote:

Hmmmm the Fitz is a great venue and Luke has always been very accomodating to us but personally I'd nearly rather keep the game private. For two main reasons.

Firstly to avoid the rake. I don't know what the rake is in the Fitz but i'd rather not pay it if possible, call me a cheapskate but if i'm going to play a NL game i'd rather not be losing a certain percentage of every pot to the House. We have lots of people with KEMs, Chips and willingness to host games - why not take advantage of that? In fact i'll offer my place as a venue, though I live in Balbriggan so it will mean a 45 minute train journey if ye're interested
A home game also allows the presence of cigarettes and alchol - two vital components of any poker game!

I agree with these reasons, Id prefer to play in a private setting, allthough if it wasnt possible Id be fine with the Fitz.

Juan Pablo

Why dont youze enquire about that plush table in Silks. If you're going to do it, why not do it in style!

kencleary

Eh rake, cigarettes & booze as highlighted above :rolleyes:

karlh

maybe it's just me but is 200 quid not an awful lot to sit down with?

i think a €50 cash game with 10 boards heads would make it a bit more accessible. a set buy in, not a min or max would make things fairer. i totally agree with low blinds too, maybe they could be a set .25/.50?

i know i wouldn't be comfortable sitting down with 200 for a cash game at this stage of my 'career'.....

Juan Pablo

Nah its a private table for hire. Therefore no rake. Couple of boxes of Stella and you are set. A smoking area is down the corridor, im guessing. Oooh I fancy staring a thread as to why Silks is better than the Merrion.........

kencleary

How much is it to hire the place then JP?

As for a 50 game I think its a bit small to be playing for. I mean this isn't a tournament game, cash will be going back and forth between players. One of the worst things about small stakes cash games is playing for 6 hours or somethin then leaving happy thinking you've won a bit, only to realise you're only up 20 or somethin and coulda made more working in McDonalds

I suppose we could start with a 50 game and see how it goes. The 30 pot-limit game we played in the Fitz went real mental, real fast
We could play in Silks if the cost is reasonable or Samba has generously offered to host us - how about we start trying to get a list together for a game? So on that note could people post up the kind of stakes they'd like to play for.

Personally i'll play in any 50/100/200 NL game

Juan Pablo

No idea Ken but would be worth finding out. I'll look into it. I'd be into a €100 min cash game myself, although would rather Pot-Limit to no limit. I'd also rather a pure Omaha game but I guess there is a better chance of hell freezing over

Waylander

I'd be interested but I am heading away for 10 days next Sunday and have BSOP on Friday. If you are thinking of making it a regular event I'd be interested, although I have no interest in playing Omaha.

Samba

I guess not

Hectorjelly

iust me but is 200 quid not an awful lot to sit down with?

i think a €50 cash game with 10 boards heads would make it a bit more accessible. a set buy in, not a min or max would make things fairer. i totally agree with low blinds too, maybe they could be a set .25/.50?

i know i wouldn't be comfortable sitting down with 200 for a cash game at this stage of my 'career'.....

Karl, its all relative; different players play different stakes. That would be far too low for me to be interested in, I made the post hoping to play a similar (or better) game than the one I play online. A year ago I would of felt like you, but Ive been playing serioulsly for a year and have got to the stage with my bankroll that €50 is meaningless; I find it very difficult to play well when the money doesnt matter to me.

I know there are several players who play at similar stakes here (one of them owes me $180), or higher so I was trying to gauge the interest in that.

Also 10 handed? Urghh