I read a forum thread that said that Pot Limit Hold'em was superior to No Limit Hold'em because it forced more post-flop play so there is more "poker" being played. I think it was the PokerDome show that enforced a PL pre-flop structure then NL post-flop. I'd like to try it sometime, either as a twist on TuNP or on a weekend poker night or maybe during Ryan's mega-deep stack poker experiment night.
I think it would help to avoid 20 chip open raises and introduce more tactics into the game.
At the very least it would be available on Dealer's Choice nights for a round but who would be interested in doing a full night of that to see how it affects play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't see why not...
Shortest comment ever...
Not really interested. In the rotation for dealers choice is fine.
Why the sudden urge to change rules?
As you know. I'm as much for keeping things the same as the next guy, maybe even more so. But I'm also all about tweaking and improving.
The stack builder game was something that I'd been mulling over for a while already and I posted it because I felt it would address Marsh's comments about upping the stakes. The stack builder game does in fact magnify the differences. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It was designed to increas the stakes without changing buy-in or blinds.
I brought up PL thing because I think that late in sessions it can start looking more like the end of a tournament with big pre-flop raises to steal blinds.
I just think that the PL format is a more elegant structure that forcess more of the board to be seen in order to build big pots and would incorporate more play and skill than NL format.
"I just think that the PL format is a more elegant structure"
No, pot-limit is the *least* elegant betting structure.
No limit...bet anything you want.
Limit...all bets are $X on these streets, and 2X on these streets.
Spread limit...bet any amount between X and Y.
Pot limit...bet only as much as is in the pot...but I want to raise! How much can I raise? Uh...15...no, wait, first put in your call. OK, so you can bet 18 because that's how much is in there now. No, wait, you can *raise* 18, but your actual bet is 21. Yes. 21. Right? Wait...
No betting structure that causes groans of agony when someone announces "pot" can be called elegant.
Again, the only reason to be inelegant is if it's required to produce specific gameplay. To that end, the only reason to play pot-limit over no-limit is if you feel eliminating overbetting is important to the game.
I'm not arguing for or against that, it's situational. I definitely see the need for eliminating overbetting in Omaha, and I could see wanting to do the preflop pot-limit, post-flop no limit thing for a deep stack night. For any given WNP, though, I would want clear evidence that there was massive preflop overbetting happening before I would think going pot-limit preflop would be needed.
Edit: "evidence that there is a frustratingly inappropriate level of preflop overbetting happening."
It happens, but so far, not to any point of frustration. It's a very risky thing to do, overbetting preflop, and I encourage Chuck and Yuri to continue to do it. :)
I also like having that play in my playbook for myself in some rare situations.
Post a Comment