Most spread limit games have a much smaller range than 2-60. I've heard some places that don't allow NL games (for whatever goofball reason) actually run spread limit games with large ranges that are close to NL. Also, spread limit doesn't cap the max per player per hand though you obviously can figure out that max (4 rounds of maxed 4 bets).
"Capped" means its no longer "no limit," plain and simple. If you're a winning player, it will cap your up-side, when weakers players are willing to pay off your best hands.
This also greatly dampens the positive effects of building up a big stack at the table.
"Capped" means its no longer "no limit," plain and simple. If you're a winning player, it will cap your up-side, when weakers players are willing to pay off your best hands.
This also greatly dampens the positive effects of building up a big stack at the table.
The real question here :
"Is there any advantage to playing on these tables for a good player?"
Implied odds are now significantly less. Big draws (sets, str8s, etc) are now worth significantly less depending on the preflop betting.
Are bad players more likely to make bad decisions because their losses are capped? Go all-in for the cap on a draw on the flop.
Will players be more likely to call down with a good but not strong hand like in limit.
The cap might be good for folks moving up a level or to a different game (PHE, PLO, etc) to help them get comfortable. Short stack play is probably more attractive on these tables as you can just buyin for the cap and you are not losing any profits for your big hands. Also, PT seems to have a problem with these hands as my .25/.50 PLO8 hands show up under the PL $15 category.
Latest I've seen about the big game is its $4,000/$8,000 limit with a cap of $100,000 per player in NL/PL games. not sure if they change the blinds for the NL/PL to say $1,000/$2,000 or not
i think i recall readin in daniel's blog that the NL games are 1k/2k, sometimes with a 1k ante.
Linear Mode
