| User | Post |
|
4:28 pm
January 22, 2010
|
mullethaiku
| | |
| Member | posts 96 | |
|
|
Anyone tried this yet? I don't have an account at FTP but I've heard some good reviews on this so far. Although I am skeptical myself. For those who don't know, Rush Poker just came out at Full Tilt. Basically you join a very large player pool and jump from table to table as soon as you fold your hand, getting in many more hands/hr. So it's almost like a more convenient way to multitable, that is the good part. Bad part is forget reading your opponent's tendencies and using a HUD (HUDs won't work for this…your changing tables almost every hand) Also, you get shot around to different random table positions.
The downside is it pretty much eliminates reading the players tendencies, as everyone is getting thrown to different tables almost every hand. It seems almost like poker on crack, for casual players who only read their cards anyway. It is a great idea for casual and donk players who get picked on by regs in normal cash games, and it seems it will be a big money maker for Full Tilt (more hands, more rake, more new casual players)
Eventhough it seems new and exciting, it seem like a carnival ride to attract and benefit casual players only, who are getting beat up by the cash game grinders who are better players and have software and HUDs. So in that aspect it will even the playing field. It seems to make sense in our culture of complete parody in sports and the internet "instant gratification" culture. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer poker as it is played live.
Any of you tried it out?
|
|
|
6:28 am
January 27, 2010
|
Ed Miller
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 | |
|
|
I plan to play some of this. Been extremely busy around here lately with the newborn but it's on my list. :)
|
|
|
9:05 pm
January 27, 2010
|
the Man
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Post edited 5:12 am – January 28, 2010 by the Man
Rush poker is okay. It's a different experience.
You don't have the meta game that you would have with a normal ring game, on the other hand you get to play a LOT of hands. Since you tend to fold most hands, this can be a good thing.
I think Rush was meant to get around the fact that you're waiting most of the time to pick up a hand, and the format was meant to try to eliminate this.
Not better or worse than normal ring… just different.
|
|
|
12:48 pm
January 28, 2010
|
mullethaiku
| | |
| Member | posts 96 | |
|
|
the Man said:
Rush poker is okay. It's a different experience.
You don't have the meta game that you would have with a normal ring game, on the other hand you get to play a LOT of hands. Since you tend to fold most hands, this can be a good thing.
I think Rush was meant to get around the fact that you're waiting most of the time to pick up a hand, and the format was meant to try to eliminate this.
Not better or worse than normal ring… just different.
From what I've heard the variance can be very high. Reading your opponent's tendencies and patterns, adjusting to table dynamics, and utilizing patience are three vital weapons for good cash game players. Rush poker pretty much eliminates all three. So it seems to be geared more for recreational players and newbies looking for more excitement and less downtime.
Call me an old stick in the mud, but reading your opponents and using table dynamics are a huge part of poker. So I'm guessing I will probably play this much.
…but sadly all of the donks and fish who were getting schooled in regular cash games, will probably swarm to this like flies on s**t 
|
|
|
1:50 pm
January 28, 2010
|
the Man
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
Post edited 9:59 pm – January 28, 2010 by the Man
Call me an old stick in the mud, but reading your opponents and using table dynamics are a huge part of poker. So I'm guessing I will probably play this much.
…but sadly all of the donks and fish who were getting schooled in regular cash games, will probably swarm to this like flies on s**t
Meh.
You could make the same argument with live versus online poker. At least, that was what some people said at the beginning in 2002/2003 . You don't have the ability to physically see the reactions of the players at the table in online poker. Does that mean online poker is worse than live poker? The poker economy has answered that question a long time ago.
And also – because you play so many hands, you do see the same names pop up on the table after awhile.
|
|
|
8:36 pm
January 28, 2010
|
Sunny Mehta
| | |
| Admin
| posts 67 | |
|
|
I haven't really kept up with the details on this, but am I wrong in thinking that this type of format could have great benefits in preventing both collusion as well as ratholing?
|
|
|
11:14 pm
January 28, 2010
|
the Man
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
There's nothing to stop you from standing up and buying in for a smaller amount.
Collusion is difficult, provided that the number of players participating is large enough. Hold'em is usually the case, Omaha not quite as much (sometimes you run into the same players again as you move from table to table).
|
|
|
11:58 pm
January 28, 2010
|
Someone
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
It's the stupidest form of poker I've ever played (most skill is gone) but it was profitable at first.
|
|
Login
Search 
Home
Print this Post 
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Topic RSS 
