A client was saying to me that he would prefer 7 rounds on the cash games, as he felt 10 was too long but 5 too short and so 7 combined speed and skill - any thoughts on that?
I personally wouldn't want to play in anything shorter than a 10-round game, but within the cash games arena I suppose there is no reason why you couldn't offer as many different variants as you like, and allow people the choice. The only drawback with that approach is that it could actually end up providing less opportunities to play - I would be sitting at my 10-round table, waiting for an opponent to join me, while simultaneously other people would be doing the same thing at their own particular favourite tables.
The general consensus is that the more rounds there are, the more opportunities there are for skill to overcome luck, but even so, forty is perhaps a bit excessive. Hopefully, you've seen the discussion on that topic which I quoted in an earlier post. That was all prompted by a survey which I had received from GameAccount. In the end, I requested the following in my reply to the survey -
24 rounds
BR 1000
Max 400
Min 10
Note that if you wanted to keep the minimum bet at 100, then this would be equivalent to -
BR 10,000
Max 4,000
Min 100
- which is vastly different to what is currently on offer. With just $1000 to start with (i.e. ten minimum bets), simple random fluctuations while both players bet the minimum $100 in the early-to-middle rounds will have much more of a bearing on the outcome than any skillful play.
With ten rounds, the $1000 starting point is not quite so bad, although even there it is perhaps a little too small, but with more rounds you need more 'ammunition'.
For comparison, blackjack21.com offers similar 10-round, two-player tables, and they have a BR of $2000, a $1000 max bet, and a $100 min bet.
