Wheres the REAL MONEY at?

[justblaze 0]

The biggest cash games are limit. That should say enough. Most of you can't even see the connection here and are stuck in your limited views of what poker is..

pfffft, no limit texas holdem is the cadillac of poker. CADILLAC. mike mcdermott said so!

I hope your kidding- we all know Doyls Says that in Super Systems; and, when wast eh last time Doyle played a cash no limit game? I hear often about the "big" 4,000-8,000 game. Never no limit though

I'm not sure what direction this post is heading towards.But it sure has the worst grammar of all time.

Let me rephrase this:What kind of a.ss would make a comment like this?As smash might say, "Get a helmet and drool cup if you believe that"Better?Oh, yeah. And you can't start sentences with but when youre posting to correct someones grammer. Twat

Were you talking about justblaze's post?That post was laced with sarcasm. In case you were wondering.

the internet sucks at two things: conveying sarcasm, and conveying ones understanding of the conveyance of sarcasm. put that in you pipe and smoke it!

Very true. I was agreeing with the 1st statement, and was kinda flippant about the 2nd. Any questions?

could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

[nutonflop 0]

I hope your kidding- we all know Doyls Says that in Super Systems; and, when wast eh last time Doyle played a cash no limit game? I hear often about the "big" 4,000-8,000 game. Never no limit thoughI'm not sure what direction this post is heading towards.But it sure has the worst grammar of all time.Let me rephrase this:What kind of a.ss would make a comment like this?As smash might say, "Get a helmet and drool cup if you believe that"Better?Oh, yeah. And you can't start sentences with but when youre posting to correct someones grammer. TwatWere you talking about justblaze's post?That post was laced with sarcasm. In case you were wondering.the internet sucks at two things: conveying sarcasm, and conveying ones understanding of the conveyance of sarcasm. put that in you pipe and smoke it!Very true. I was agreeing with the 1st statement, and was kinda flippant about the 2nd. Any questions?could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?No,Kantian reality is a dichotomy of the sensual world and the phenominal world. While our understanding of god is real (sensual), his TRUE nature is phenominal (metaphysical). Although it is theorhetically possible, we are contstrained to the sensual world, and our percepition of the burrito is not possible. (at least for the time being) We could not go up to heaven and see god's microwave, and from a realist's standpoint, we will never be able to.It is kinda like the Schopenhaurien bridge to the sublime, which Nietsche laughed at and is now considered anitiquated. Nietsche did however believe in self-created will/expierince, so i'm sure he would say there are a few manics out there who CAN expirience this.A sound statement contains all sound premises. Our unproven statement is god's sensual exisitence. So if god's true existence is in the sensual world not phenominal, he can. Remember when you dropped your keys and we thought the phone was ringing?(I can't wait for smash to respond to this.)

[oreogod 0]

The biggest cash games are limit. That should say enough. Most of you can't even see the connection here and are stuck in your limited views of what poker is.If you want to make money playing poker' date=' your goal should be making it to higher stakes limit games.also' date=' disagree with smash at your own peril.[/quote'']So true.But NL to some ppl is like a penius enchancement drug. It makes your dick get bigger. Its a maaans game, not a little sissy game like limit. Which I find wrong. But on a side note, it is easier to be a winning NL player than it is a limit player. Both take work, but NL a lot less so. Limit is a much harder game to be a consistent winner at.I think it behooves everyone to learn each. Each form of poker u learn will only enchance your game. Learn limit and your NL post flop skills will be much much better, etc. Omaha will teach you the power of position, etc.

[EyeintheSkyy 0]

For the original poster and everyone else reading this, I'm going to give you my take on where the money is. This could end up being long, I'm not sure yet. If it is, sorry about that. But hopefully, you will find it useful.I want to preface this whole thing by saying that the money is where ever you feel that you have the BIGGEST edge, Whether it be in tournaments, live games, or the internet. There is no quick fix.Lets talk about no limit hold em for a second. The game is tremendously popular right now. And with all the media telling people that any two cards can win, some players really believe that. There is so much dead money in no limit right now, it's shocking. In the 80's and 90's all of the games dried up. Because the cream rose to the top, and all the bad players went bust. Now EVERYONE wants to play the game. Take advantage of that. I generally will play a 10-20 or 20-40 no limit live games. And there is no maximum buy in. So, obviously there is money in the game. As far as these internet sites, that cap your buy in. I'm sure if you multi-table, or have a TRUE understanding of the game. You can do quite well there.Limit hold em and other limit games: stud, stud hi lo, omaha 8, etc. Plenty of money there as well. At the same time, games like stud and omaha will typically have people who know how to play the game. That is due to the lack of popularity. If that is the case, make sure that you are better than "most" or "some" of your opponents. Limit Hold Em is a game where everyone thinks that they are an expert. You can obviously get away with making more mistakes in a limit game then you can in a no limit game, for obvious reasons. At the same time, there are good limit games and bad limit games. As you move up in limits, you will find that the style of play changes drastically. In a live game, Ace King is much stronger in 100-200 vs. 4-8. You will be up against less people, and often times, Ace high will be the best hand. I don't want to go into too much detail and or analysis here. Tournaments. Yes there is some luck involved. But if you look at John Juanda, he must be the luckiest man alive. Because he cashes ALL the time, year in and year out. Some players have natural abilities that lend themselves better to playing in tournys. PLENTY of money to be made there if you know what you're doing, and if you understand the nature of tournament poker. It's more complex then one might think. Online tournaments are the same way. One of my best friends "Gank" is quite successful at online tournys. That is where he does best. He understands the game, he knows how to exploit his edge, and he is a winning player.I would probably have to sit down and write about 30 pages to talk about the differences between games, limits, venues, etc, to truly cover this subject matter. I know that this wasn't as thorough as I would like it to be. But I hope it helps. Good Luck.

The sad thing is that Steve has less than 300 posts. And Smash has 5K plus and counting....Thanks, Steve.

[nutonflop 0]

Very true. I was agreeing with the 1st statement, and was kinda flippant about the 2nd. Any questions?could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?No,Kantian reality is a dichotomy of the sensual world and the phenominal world. While our understanding of god is real (sensual), his TRUE nature is phenominal (metaphysical). Although it is theorhetically possible, we are contstrained to the sensual world, and our percepition of the burrito is not possible. (at least for the time being) We could not go up to heaven and see god's microwave, and from a realist's standpoint, we will never be able to.It is kinda like the Schopenhaurien bridge to the sublime, which Nietsche laughed at and is now considered anitiquated. Nietsche did however believe in self-created will/expierince, so i'm sure he would say there are a few manics out there who CAN expirience this.A sound statement contains all sound premises. Our unproven statement is god's sensual exisitence. So if god's true existence is in the sensual world not phenominal, he can. Remember when you dropped your keys and we thought the phone was ringing?Bump, i took +ev time from work for that answer, i deserve a response damn it 8)

[avsfan 0]

"could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?No," -said by someone earlier up thereSo does that mean Jesus derives less enjoyment from Extra Spicy Hot Sauce?

[nutonflop 0]

could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?No, -said by someone earlier up thereSo does that mean Jesus derives less enjoyment from Extra Spicy Hot Sauce?

3well... at least it;s a response

[justblaze 0]

Very true. I was agreeing with the 1st statement' date=' and was kinda flippant about the 2nd. Any questions?[/quote']could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

No,Kantian reality is a dichotomy of the sensual world and the phenominal world. While our understanding of god is real (sensual), his TRUE nature is phenominal (metaphysical). Although it is theorhetically possible, we are contstrained to the sensual world, and our percepition of the burrito is not possible. (at least for the time being) We could not go up to heaven and see god's microwave, and from a realist's standpoint, we will never be able to.It is kinda like the Schopenhaurien bridge to the sublime, which Nietsche laughed at and is now considered anitiquated. Nietsche did however believe in self-created will/expierince, so i'm sure he would say there are a few manics out there who CAN expirience this.A sound statement contains all sound premises. Our unproven statement is god's sensual exisitence. So if god's true existence is in the sensual world not phenominal, he can. Remember when you dropped your keys and we thought the phone was ringing?Bump, i took +ev time from work for that answer, i deserve a response damn it 8)ohhhh yea... GET OUT.

[rexmundi 0]

limit is gay for math fairy censoredlol.(SA)yeah, any game where "Math" helps you is retarded!as you can tell from my avitar, I was the starting tight end in high school,and hate math geeks.

haha.. freakin hillarious.. i like the ND reference too..

[TraptSteve 0]

Someone read my original post on this subject at the end of page 7.I think it is worth the read; it summarizes a Smasharoo quote without flame.READ

[nutonflop 0]

Someone read my original post on this subject at the end of page 7.I think it is worth the read; it summarizes a Smasharoo quote without flame.READ

screw that, whats up with my jesus burrito?anybody?

[Pupsta 0]

Someone read my original post on this subject at the end of page 7.I think it is worth the read; it summarizes a Smasharoo quote without flame.READ

screw that, whats up with my jesus burrito?anybody?

they're called fingers, but i've never seen them fingthere they go

[Scanner313 0]

The sad thing is that Steve has less than 300 posts. And Smash has 5K plus and counting....Thanks, Steve.

Not for nothing, but what does his post count have to do with anything? Does it negate the validity of his statement? I didn't read his statement, but I'm curious as to how his post count would matter either way.

[bascomeb 0]

The biggest cash games are limit. That should say enough. Most of you can't even see the connection here and are stuck in your limited views of what poker is..

pfffft, no limit texas holdem is the cadillac of poker. CADILLAC. mike mcdermott said so!

I hope your kidding, we all know Doyls Says that in Super Systems, and, when wast eh last time Doyle played a cash no limit game? I hear often about the "big" 4,000-8,000 game.

Actually the "big game" also includes 1,000-2,000 NL HOLDEM with a max of 100,000 loss on each hand

[Scanner313 0]

Actually the "big game" also includes 1,000-2,000 NL HOLDEM with a max of 100,000 loss on each hand

Am I missing something here? How can you have a MAXIMUM loss of $100K on any given hand playing NO LIMIT HE?

[bascomeb 0]

Because even for them thats still a lot of money to lose in ONE hand.

[Scanner313 0]

Because even for them thats still a lot of money to lose in ONE hand.

That's not what I meant. They are playing NO LIMIT hold 'em. So how can there be a limit as to how much they can lose on any given hand? did you mean LIMIT hold 'em?

[EyeintheSkyy 0]

The sad thing is that Steve has less than 300 posts. And Smash has 5K plus and counting....Thanks, Steve.

Not for nothing, but what does his post count have to do with anything? Does it negate the validity of his statement? I didn't read his statement, but I'm curious as to how his post count would matter either way.

Because Smash posts and posts and posts and says little, if anything, of substance. He generally trashes anyone who dares have a different viewpoint and demands hard evidence to back up their views while rarely providing anything of the sort to back up his own statements.It is tiresome.Steve, on the other hand, takes the time to explain his viewpoint and doesn't resort to silly name-calling and cheap insults. And he seems willing to admit that others might have a different opinion without being idiots. Finally, he usually makes sense.His posts are a breath of fresh air.This thread is a good example. Smash tried to sum it all up in one of his (to him) "pithy" arguments - NL tourneys are best if you are a bad player, NL ring games if you are not quite as bad, and limit if you are good. Steve gave the correct answer - find the game where you have the biggest edge. That might be different for different players. Not necessarily "better" or "worse", just different. In Smash's world, his way is, by definition, the "best" way and anyone who suggests that a different way works for them must be told that they are be a horrible player and are, of course, wrong. His is a one-size-fits-all world.Therefore, I think it is somewhat sad that Steve has so few posts relative to Smash.

[GripHoldOn 0]

Smasharoo, I agree that limit is far more lucrative than NL, given one very important condition. We are talking about fish in both games yes? The 5-10 L games on party are filled with fish as are teh 1-2 NL games. Of those two games, only losers would not say that the limit game is more profitable. HOWEVER, let's say that you're the world's best player in both games. Let's say you get a group of pros together and you opt to play 5000-10000 L and 1000-2000 NL. Because of all the options in NL, it's possible to determine a player's hand on ANY and EVERY hand. If you're playing with pros, your edge in limit will be very slight. However, if you're good enough, you'll kill the 1000-2000 NL game with the pros just as easily as you kill the 1-2 NL game with fish.

[justblaze 0]

Because even for them thats still a lot of money to lose in ONE hand.

That's not what I meant. They are playing NO LIMIT hold 'em. So how can there be a limit as to how much they can lose on any given hand? did you mean LIMIT hold 'em?

no, its no limit holdem with a cap. You can wager any amount at any time, but cannot put more than 100k into any given pot.

[fuzznucket 0]

Because even for them thats still a lot of money to lose in ONE hand.

That's not what I meant. They are playing NO LIMIT hold 'em. So how can there be a limit as to how much they can lose on any given hand? did you mean LIMIT hold 'em?

You really need to think more.

[Polakplayer16 0]

Theres so much game theory behind these. Its not only poker startigy, its tournement startigy that you have to worry about as well. I love nl tournies just the competiton. I like playing the 150 buy in, cuz your compeating with great players(BAX, Sheets, DRdoom01<- thats me) 6th last night.sorry i cant articulate this better im at work.

[oreogod 0]

Because even for them thats still a lot of money to lose in ONE hand.

That's not what I meant. They are playing NO LIMIT hold 'em. So how can there be a limit as to how much they can lose on any given hand? did you mean LIMIT hold 'em?

no, its no limit holdem with a cap. You can wager any amount at any time, but cannot put more than 100k into any given pot.

So its No Limit, with a limit.