9b. Re: More Poker Stuff for Mickey Crimm
Date: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:19 pm ((PDT))--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, george lee wrote:
>
> One correction I could offer is OK's reference to
> low-limit no-limit
> hold'em (LLNLH). The correct term is "SMALL BLIND
> no-limit hold 'em". To call it "Limit" and "No-limit"
> is oxymoronic.In addition to low blinds many NLH games have a capped buy in. I
have seen 1/2 games with a capped buy in of as low as $100 and 2/5
games with as low as $500. It may be oxymoronic or just plain
moronic, but it does in effect put a limit on a no limit game.
>
I play in 1/2 and 2/5 no limit games regularly, and they always have minimum and maximum buy-ins everywhere I've been so far; I also occ. play with 5/10 blinds, and that game usually has a min. but no max. buy-in. On the "smaller" games, while it's true the buy-in is capped, this does not mean that there is a limit on bet size. These games often have very large stacks of chips at the table, as players lose their stack and either re-buy, or new players come to the table, so the amount of money in front of some of the players can be quite significant, depending on how long the game has been running and how long the winners have been sitting there.
Re: the previous post about cheating in the 60's, I've read many accounts of that going on, so there is undoubtedly some truth to it. With gambling being pretty "seedy" back then in the eyes of most of the public, no surprise -- or maybe it's vice versa.
PS - I enjoy the poker posts; hope they are permitted as long as they don't dominate the VP discussions.
--BG
···
=============