blonde poker forum

As well as your vote, it would be good to hear why you prefer the game of your choice. The larger the sample size the better. Thank you.

Both have their advantages. In some ways PLHE is more skillful because you need the ability to play flops. Playing big hands in early position is very difficult as you often find yourself in a family pot and will get outdrawn more often. However because of the risk involved NLHE has to be the daddy. The player with the most heart is the player most likely to win, certainly in tourneys where starting stacks are relatively large compared to blinds.
So dispite my regular game is PLHE and I like the fact many of my opponents dislike PLHE I have to go No Limit.

So you see the risk factor as an appealling feature of No Limit? Would you consider youself to be risk loving, risk neutral or risk adverse? Thanks again.

Question;
Answer; Yes.
I'm definitely a tight player and not what you'd call a thrill seeker. I'm not a punter. I would never bet on a horse, a dog, a house game or much else. (cup final, and the like might be my exception) so I'm not a NLHE fan because of the risk. I'm a fan because the risk of busting out in any hand brings out the best in my game and, often, the worst in others. Slanskys chapters on "they're bust. they're out" deals with it in depth. that said, the trill of putting your whole tournament on the line for one decision and getting it right, especially if you're sussing a big bluff is an amazing rush.

   I find NLHE to be a largely pre-flop, single decision game, and PLHE the far more enjoyable/skillful in you actually have to play flops. Devilfish sums it up perfectly 'you could teach a monkey how to play NLHE, cos you could teach a monkey to push all his chips into the centre'. Wise words indeed.


             Jon

Well I am 100% with Jonny D here.

In Deauville, which featured an unusually high percentage of online players (who had qualified on Stars) there was a great deal of "all-in", often for very small pots. Over-betting was also rife, guys betting 4k or 5k into a pot of 300. It seemed to me that they were abdicating decision making - it's call or pass stuff, as if they were afraid to play down the streets.

And I sat with a guy for 3 hours who ONLY moved all-in, he never once made a call or a proper raise, he did it 12 or 14 times at least. And I thought, "huh, the guy can't play". He finished 2nd in the Main Event.....

Well Baron Ive always been a fan of No Limit. I learnt to play No limit and I feel its when Im strongest. You tend to find alot of players drawing early doors in a pot limit game, but late on when blinds are bigger the games are similar.

I try to accumulate as much chips as possible in a no limit game, do you think its the same for pot limit?

The card doctor..... long time. Yes no limit has to be your best game. It's when you get to put that short stack of yours in with greatest effect!  ;)

Adam I think I phrased my question poorly. I'll try again. Which of the folowing would you describe yourself as: Risk Loving, Risk Neutral or Risk Averse?

I understood your question, just answering it in an unusual way. Im all three in different ways at different times. I prefer No Limit, not because It's particularly my strongest, rather that I feel frequently poor players can be easier to pick off.

Thanks to all those who voted. It is research for my dissertation. Beats sending out questionnaires huh?

Sounds like a fun dissertation.

Surely it won't be long before people can do a course on poker.

Think i will be a guest lecturer on how to play on tilt!  :)

can i guest leture on how to get it in with the worst of it cause i seem to be doing alot of that recently

If you need any help with your spelling Baron just let me know!!!

Lets hope your research is as good as your poker playing!!!

Good luck