arlo payne    [More info] If you can not see at least 3 major problems with any no limit or pot limit game that has a max buy-in you really don't understand poker. If you feel it is correct to have a max buy-in for no limit or pot limit games you really should be pressing for spread limit games instead. Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com arlo payne

	+1 Dave L    [More info] And if you can't think of at least 30 good reasons why these games are profitable, then you should really questions what you know about poker... C'mon Arlo, get with the times. The last bus to Yasgur's farm left 35 years ago. It's too late to eat the brown acid. Dave L

	+1 arlo payne    [More info] Dave. You might be making money in these games but not as much as you should be making if they took the max buy-in off. For most that think the max buy-in is a good thing they really should be pushing for more spread limit games. In any good pot limit game you want to make sure you have the funds in front of you to push the good hands. Max buy-in limits keep one from doing this. In turn you wins are much less than they should be. I will use party poker as an example. They limit the buy-ins for the pot limit games to the point one can not start with enough funds to press a hand all the way to the river and have funds left to make a full bet at the river. In turn your profit is limited by the set buy-in rather tahn your play and skills. "And if you can't think of at least 30 good reasons why these games are profitable, then you should really ... the times. The last bus to Yasgur's farm left 35 years ago. It's too late to eat the brown acid." Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com arlo payne

	+1 Dave L    [More info] The counter is, if they didn't have a max buyin in these games, then weaker players would bust out much quicker, or simply not even try the game at all. I don't mind shearing the sheep. If I want to play bigger, that option is always available to me. Dave L

	+1 arlo payne    [More info] Not really a matter of playing bigger more a case of allowing a buy-in that would cover at least one complete hand at full bet. Also for a view of profit a spread limit game would be much better for those that feel a max buy-in is a good thing. "The counter is, if they didn't have a max buyin in these games, then weaker players would bust out much ... all. I don't mind shearing the sheep. If I want to play bigger, that option is always available to me." Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com arlo payne

	+1 Cheesey Mustache    [More info] I think a max-buy in into a No Limit game isn't a bad feature. I'm not too keen on the idea of a rich *** buying into the game as a massive chip force, and then proceeds to bully the table. I sorta like the idea of everyone "beginning their table life" on an even playing field, and earning their right to play the big stack in NoLimit. As for pot-limit, I think they can actually remove that feature because there's the limit of betting the size of the pot. But do agree with you about Party Poker having the worse max-buy in prices. Their max-buy in prices are half the size of every other internet site out there. It's pitiful. There is no leverage to anyone's bet in the PL games there. And Party Poker just sucks overall. Someone should put an 800 billion kilowat electromagnet on their servers. "And if you can't think of at least 30 good ... 35years ago. It's too late to eat the brown acid." Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com Cheesey Mustache

	+1 arlo payne    [More info] Cheese: I really dont have a problem with a max buy in in a no limit game. I would not want any part where I could not start with an equal stack to the biggest stack in the game. I find a max buy in for pot limt nuts!. My main point is pretty simple if someone really wants to have a max buy in then they should be pressing more for spread limit games. Say you have a no limit game with a max buy in of $100 with blinds at 1 and 2. A better game would be spread limit with blinds at 1 and 2 with a max bet of 100 rather than a max buy in. Hot would you like to get your seat in a hot no limit game where everyone has 3K or so because the game has been going strong all day and you are only allowed to buy in for 100? "years" Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com arlo payne

	+1 Edward Bird    [More info] I agree arlo. Empire/Party totally sucks. Most sites allow max buy in of 100 times the BB. Its 50 times at party. I was playing on a game at Bugsy's earlier today, when some lunatic came onto the table with loads of money and proceeded to raise at every betting round. I was able to top up my stack (its unlimited buy in amounts at bugsys) and the table proceeded to clean him out in double quick time. Edward Bird

	+1 Stocks    [More info] I would like to know of a no-limit game that does not have a max buy-in. Because that would be the stupidest game anyone would ever play in. "poker... years" Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com Stocks

	+1 AndyF    [More info] "I would like to know of a no-limit game that does not have a max buy-in. Because that would be the stupidest game anyone would ever play in." Foxwoods $5/5 $200 min buy-in. I've been told that people buy-in in the $1000+ range Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com AndyF