Why is NL cash still popular?

    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      I thought it would implode fast after PLO and then Twister went into the mainstream, but nope, it still engages the thoughts of many players :megusta:

      As games are driven by recreationals, can anyone describe a common type of a rec who would be more attracted to archaic and rather ungambly 2-card cash instead of 4-5-card cash with twice-thrice bigger swongs or MTTs / spins with swongs of immense proportions?

      Is this the 'skill gamer' type of recs only*? Then I guess most of them will switch over to whatever poker format Stars invent for them in 2016.

      * But then again, 5-card Omaha is surely more interesting from the scientific viewpoint.

      I understand that there must be enough recs in cash games that have bingo or a jackpot attached to them, but why do recs keep playing unenhanced NLHE too?

      I guess they come there by process of elimination - they see deep stack NL on TV, primarily in the MTT form, but don't have enough time to play MTTs online, don't want to play with short stacks (i.e. Spins), can't read an Omaha hand well, so they arrive at the only remaining mainstream game that somehow suits their needs, though other games are still tempting.

      Or maybe it's solely the fault of poker sites that keep neglecting PLO in their promos (e.g. I've never seen a PLO bad beat or royal flush jackpot or a mission to win with 5432 online, though of course they're possible).

      (Perhaps I'd be better off asking that on PKR forums where recs are represented better, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to try here first.)

      Thoughts? :f_confused:
  • 10 replies
    • Tomaloc
      Tomaloc
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.01.2011 Posts: 6,860
      maybe nlhe cash has just historically always been popular
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      But recall 2003 when FLHE was still the most popular game online, especially in Europe... then NLHE (non-Zoom specifically) has somehow been dominant for 12 years despite facing the competition of a few innovative game types. There might be something inherently superior in it, maybe the simplicity of naming and graphically representing sets of two hole cards.

      I know, the Moneymaker boom happened, but Party's marketing team was also ready to market poker. Maybe, if the 2003 WSOP ME winner had been a pro, FL would be in the mainstream for longer, who knows. It's a great action game itself, especially shorthanded, it doesn't allow to play with 18/14 stats without bleeding money really fast.

      The biggest difference I can find between FL and NL is the bigger variance of the latter, but then it's not clear to me why a game with even higher variance hasn't taken over yet.
    • silvera123
      silvera123
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 22
      It's also relatively simple.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,297
      I don't think it's too difficult.

      1 - NLHE is a lot simpler to learn and figure out which hand you have.
      2 - NLHE is the mainstream variant these days, and people love to follow trends.
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      I understand that people don't like to spend time figuring out an Omaha hand (though the hand strength is written explicitly at a few non-Stars sites)... but still, I was wondering why 6-max/HU hypers failed to take over - they're even simpler.

      Perhaps that was because they're a bit too slow / uncomfortable (It's impossible to sit out in tourneys for long without losing chips) and they still don't have nearly as much variance as MTTs.

      Spins are both faster and swongier, and it looks like their trend has just been slow to form (for some reason, hardly any Stars SnG reg had been discussing Twister until it was replicated by Rational Services), though Stars have reported that tournaments are already accounting for most of their revenues. I'd say that this trend eventually take over, but Stars themselves might stop it or make it short-lived by rolling out even more exciting and thought-out game formats.

      There's no doubt that NLHE will continue being dealt at small stakes in land-based casinos because the ease of dealing and determining the winner matters a lot there. In the online setting, there's more room for fantasy. At high stakes, though, the rake is big enough anyway, so rooms can surely afford to deal HSPLO, and as far as I've heard, the biggest live games are usually with 4 cards due to the bigger gamble in the format.
    • la55i
      la55i
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 27.01.2013 Posts: 5,334
      Interesting question. I think one of the reasons is marketing as you suggested. But I'm not sure if I agree with omaha being more gambly from a rec's point of view. NLHE can be played in a gambly way if you want to and I doubt that rec will see the difference. Omaha is also much harder to learn.
    • murzius
      murzius
      Gold
      Joined: 02.07.2009 Posts: 131
      and omaha much faster takeing away money if you in down side :D
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      It is because NLHE hits the sweet spot in terms of the number of hidden cards leaving room for maneuvering. Omaha is a very very simple game compared to NLHE once you know the mechanics of it (which, I admit, is more difficult in Omaha). Add to that the fact that 100bb is a totally inadequate amount to play PLO. In effect, too many plays are autoplays in the game. This adds to PLO being more akin to Spin & Go than to CG NLHE. An even simpler game is Omaha Hi/Lo which, on the surface of things, is even more complex than straight PLO.
    • Pistoleroo
      Pistoleroo
      Silver
      Joined: 06.02.2015 Posts: 375
      In PLO u pay 3 times as much rake as in NLHE.
    • Zolotarsp
      Zolotarsp
      Gold
      Joined: 12.11.2010 Posts: 10,756
      But then again, 5-card Omaha is surely more interesting from the scientific viewpoint.
      Disagree :f_rolleyes: As YohanN7 mentioned, in Omaha games (at least most of them) actual gameplay <100bbs is poorer than in NL, it's theoretically shallower despite its surface complexity. Just because equities run so close, so many hands have a lot of it on most boards, that difference in EV between betting pot and betting 1/2 pot becomes huge. Therefore a lot of the times theoretically you can play only pot or fold, otherwise you're making pretty large mistake. Somewhat similar to FLHE, which has been pretty much dead for several years now due to impossibility to find big enough edges to beat the rake. In NLHE player has a lot more ways to split his ranges and build his strat.

      I understand recroplayers don't know any of it :f_biggrin: Just interesting common misconception imo. May be I'm mistaken, I haven't really explored PLO theory very deep.
      Or maybe it's solely the fault of poker sites that keep neglecting PLO in their promos
      I believe it starts the other way around: PLO is less popular, hence they make less to none promos for it. And since there are no promos - new players are not aware of existence of the game until they start digging deeper into poker in general, which often doesn't happen at all. Circle completed :f_ugly: