Re: [ba-poker] Baby No-Limit Hold'em Game at Lucky Chances

["James Kittock" <poker(deleted the rest)>]

Alan Bostick:

> The structure is $1 blind on the dealer button, $1 middle blind and
> $2 big blind, with action starting at $4 to go.  The minimum buy-in
> is $40 and the maximum is $100.  
 
> Except for the blind structure, peculiar to Northern California lowball
> and NLHE games, the game is structured identically to the no-limit
> games one finds at online poker sites, such as PokerStars or 
> UltimateBet.

As Stephen Landrum pointed out, this is actually a bit different
than UB, PartyPoker, etc., since you can't limp for the amount
of the big blind.

Also, from the above, it looks like at LC the buy-in:BB ratio is 50:1,
whereas at UltimateBet the buy-in:BB ratio is 100:1 ($1/$2 blinds,
$200 buy-in).  LC is more like PartyPoker ($1/$2 blinds, $100 buy-in).
However, with the $4 to go, the buy-in:minimum opening bet ratio is much
lower at LC (25:1, compared to 100:1 at UB and 50:1 at Party).

I'm wondering what effect all of this has on play, in practice.  

One thing I'm guessing is that it is harder for limp-fests to get started,
since the first person in has to "raise", the small blinds don't get a big
discount, and the button can't check.

I'm also thinking that there is less room for "playing out the hand"
at LC compared to Party (and same for Party compared to UB).  If the 
first person puts in $4, a pot-sized raise makes it $16 to go, and
one more pot-sized raise would make it ~ $50 to go, and then it's
pretty much all-in territory if people are playing with ~ $100 stacks.
At Party, there's more room for raises, and at UB, there's even more room.

So, it seems like one should play somewhat slightly tighter in the LC
game, since you will more likely be playing your cards for their
hot & cold value (with fewer opportunities to make decisions and make
plays on the flop and beyond).

But having not played much live NLHE and having not played in this
game, I'm just speculating...

--j