Splitting the MTT Forum

[LearnedfromTV]

I believe that both beginning and experienced players would be well-served by a forum split. The spread of poker understanding in this forum is so broad that it is counterproductive. The play in $1-$20 buyins is significantly different from the play in $50+ buyins.

There is nothing wrong with being a beginner. The point is not to segregate beginners but to give them a place to sort out the basics. Using MLG's 'Evolving' stages as an example, Newbs and Confuzzleds are more likely to make the Leap if they have a forum dedicated to their progress.

Discuss.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
The play in $1-$20 buyins is significantly different from the play in $50+ buyins.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not as much as you might think.

No offense to the confuzzleds and such, but I'd obviously love a less cluttered forum. I don't really mind silly "should I fold AA here" posts all that much, but they are a bit annoying. Overall though, I think a forum split is just silly. The difference in play between a pokerstars $500 dollar tournament and a 1 dollar tournament is significant yes, but the same is true between a 10k event and a 500 dollar online tournament. You could keep splitting the tournament into as many pieces as you want, but overall I think it just isn't that important.

This is easily the best forum on 2p2. No need to dillute it by splitting it up.

[JeanieJ]

I also voted No.

There are those, who play below 50+5's and are still what you called "experienced" players. You're not seperating the "Big guys" from the little guys, you're seperating according to the buy ins we play.

Most higher limit players have played lower buy in tournaments and often can offer valuable advice to both newbies and experienced players alike. No need to seperate us because of it. Even though this is one of the busiest sections, I think it's quite nice the way it is.

Jeanie
xo*Kisses*xo @ Stars

I attribute a great deal of what I've learned to this forum. I feel that splitting it would only result in making information less available to the new posters here. I have benefitted greatly thanks to replies from the likes of Exitonly, Woodguy, Ansky, Adanthar and countless others that have been good enough to share their wisdom and advice with me. I don't think I would have gotten that in a forum they don't frequent - and they probably wouldn't frequent the beginners forum if there was one.

I probably wouldn't either.

[LearnedfromTV]

Any comments from the yesses?

[Lloyd]

IF there's a forum split, it would be into two forums separated by the buy-in. Not a beginner / experienced forum. So I do believe that the lower buy-in forum would receive responses from "experienced" players who simply don't have the bankroll to play in larger tournaments. I will ask the mods of the forums that have been recently split about the quality of posts in both forums to make sure that nobody would get the short end. Another huge issue is that while noise is a problem, we do need sufficient volume in both forums if a split happened.

While I have my opinion, the above is only provided to clarify some of the factors that would go into whether or not a split happens and how it would be split if it did. I know that all of the Mods and the Admins are open to feedback and suggestions and all comments will be considered.

[betgo]

If you split, a $20 online rebuy should count as a $50+ tournament. Also, live, it would need to be atleast $100 to count as $50+.

Also, the level of play changes over the course of a tournament. The final table of a $3 tournament might be on teh levl with the first round of a $100 tournament.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the level of play changes over the course of a tournament. The final table of a $3 tournament might be on teh levl with the first round of a $100 tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. This is one of the reasons I think a split doesn't make much sense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the level of play changes over the course of a tournament. The final table of a $3 tournament might be on teh levl with the first round of a $100 tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. This is one of the reasons I think a split doesn't make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[valenzuela]

the only split that would make sense to me is like: online tournaments and huge buy-in live tournaments, oh wait....we have a WPT forum.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
the only split that would make sense to me is like: online tournaments and huge buy-in live tournaments, oh wait....we have a WPT forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


The WPT forum is not for strategy. It's for them to talk about what a baby phil hellmuth is, and how lucky moneymaker got. Oh and to ban Paul Phillips.

[woodguy]

I was originally opposed to a split, but after thinking about it, I am pro-split.

On one hand, when I was new, if posters like fnurt, cferjohn, sossman, MBE, Che, fnord too, etc weren't around to correct my mistakes and point me in the right direction, my growth would have been stunted.

Some of these posters and others (I'm not speaking for all of them, but I have spoken privately with some) do not post nearly as much now as they did before due to the signal/noise ratio, and this forum is worse because of it.

I'd like to pose a question to the good but now infrequent posters (fnord too, fnurt, MBE, cferejohn, Che, Soss, Strassa, and others)

"Would you post more in a split forum?"

On the other hand, I find most of the beginner type questions to be basic NLHE questions, and not really tourney related questions, which may be better served in their own forum.

I am a constant lurker on the PLNL forums, and I see how they have split into 3 seperate forums now, and it seems to be working there.

Another argument for splitting is to simply manage growth.

Imagine the NLPL or Limit forums if all the buyin levels were all grouped togther *shudder*

I guarantee that the sum of those divided forums is larger than what it would be if they were grouped into one large forum.

Lots of posters both in the limit & the NLPL post in mulitple forums, and posters "move up" in forums as they get better and understand the game more.

I constantly lurk the High Stake NLPL forum, but don't post there much unless I have a question, but I am glad that forum is there so I can see how players better than me think, so I can try to learn and incorporate it into my game.

I don't think a split would harm the forum, in fact, I think it would enhance it.

Seriously, if I'm considered one of the better posters, we better start attracting better talent, or else this forum is doomed to languish in mediocrity.

Regards,
Woodguy

[JeanieJ]

The NL PL forums were able to split because they have such a high volume of players. While this forum isn't small, personally I don't think it's busy enough to warrent a split. Splitting it might cause both forums to turn dead.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
While this forum isn't small, personally I don't think it's busy enough to warrent a split. Splitting it might cause both forums to turn dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's definately a concern.

Don't want to kill the patient with cure.

Regards,
Woodguy

[MrBrightside]

Hey, one thing I've noticed is, posts in the second or third page tend to not get replies/die pretty quickly. I changed my preferences to show 30 topics per page (myHome-> Display Preferences) and wish others would too. That kinda helps out with the volume.

People usually put the buy in right in the subject line anyway, so I don't see the need to split.

[woodguy]

bump

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to pose a question to the good but now infrequent posters (fnord too, fnurt, MBE, cferejohn, Che, Soss, Strassa, and others)

"Would you post more in a split forum?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I have to say - probably not.

On one hand, there have been numerous times that I logged on hoping to bang out a quick post just for the mental exercise only to leave after scanning several threads without spotting anything interesting.

But, I would only post *a little* more if I could find decent threads more quickly because the main reasons that I don't post as much these days are:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I'm working a lot
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I'm not playing well /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I'm not sure if splitting the forum would be beneficial or not, so I didn't vote in the poll.

Later,
Che

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this forum isn't small, personally I don't think it's busy enough to warrent a split. Splitting it might cause both forums to turn dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's definately a concern.

Don't want to kill the patient with cure.

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]

that is also my chief concern with a split. I think a better split, imo, is to mid-tourney and sweat type threads and a content forum, akin to strategy and bbv.

[KneeCo]

Forum split = bad for many of the reasons posted above and others, I have yet to see a compelling reason for having 2 forums.

Also, you would have to hire on about 6 or 7 people just to handle moving all the posts in the high buy-in forum that will begin with:
"This is from a 3$ tournament, but I thought it was interesting and wanted some feedback from some of the great 2+2 players..."
(and soon after the thread is moved, against all odds, the poster happened to play the exact same hand in a 50$ tournament and thus creates a new post!).

So I voted for nay, but I'm open to hearing arguments for the other side.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a better split, imo, is to mid-tourney and sweat type threads and a content forum, akin to strategy and bbv.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed - even though i think "sweat", "***OFFICIAL $XX TOURNEY***", and "last longer" threads are generally good things and do a lot to foster a sense of camaraderie within the MTT forum, i do think they are the primary sources of low content clutter in this forum.

a better split would be Strategy vs. Sweat/OFFICIAL/last longer/brag threads.

[Lloyd]

Go through the last couple hundred posts and count the number of official/brag/last longer posts versus those that are just very basic MTT, NL, or HE questions. I think you'll find that the definition of "noise" depends on many factors and for some the "basic" posts are most significant. (I'm not saying they are unimportant, but someone who is well beyond a beginner stage will open them up, read them, and move on to the next post - that's noise for them).

[ononimo]

i agree that "noise" is largely in the eye of the beholder and that there are likely many strategy-related threads that more experienced players might deem to have low content.

however, it would be impossible to split the forum based on the quality of content of a strategy post whereas it would be very easy to seperate strategy vs. sweat/official/etc threads. doing so wouldn't magically solve the "noise" issue but it's hard to argue that it wouldn't significantly reduce it without negative side-effects (everyone would know where to go for sweat/official threads). and if the choice is between reducing noise and doing nothing ... i vote for reductng noise.

EDIT: the sweat/official/etc threads seem to be most populous in the evenings/late night (Eastern) hours which is when i typically post so maybe i'm more sensitive to the issue than others.

[Lloyd]

If there was a forum specifically for higher buy-in events, there would be few (not none) posts that are so incredibly basic that it wouldn't warrant a response. So in that sense, noise would also be reduced to those who consider "basic" posts as such. I think it's a tough situation and go back and forth on what to do.

I try to make sure that every "reasonable" post has a response. So if I see that nobody has responded to something I'll respond. I see that as part of my "job". But I absolutely admit that reading a post's title goes a long way in whether or not I'm going to spend time reading the post, and many many posts just seem very basic, have a couple of responses, and therefore I move on. And because 9 out of 10 posts might fall into that category it's very easy to miss the occasional gem. I know many experienced posters who do the same and because of that we don't get the benefit of their knowledge. It's really not because of the official threads. Those are SO easy to just skip because the title says it all. Noise for me is when I decide to read a post only to decide not to respond. And separating official posts from strategic ones really won't accomplish that.

[SossMan]

I'll go one step further and say that I'm totally guilty of the elitest practice of scanning only the poster's name before opening the post. It's terrible, I know.

I'm in the same boat as Che lately (work, not playing a lot, etc..) so I haven't been posting much. I think that this forum is pretty good and there isn't really a good way to split it that accomplishes segregating out the begginer questions from the intermediate/advanced topics. Splitting it vis a vis buy-in isn't gonna cut it.

Here's one vote for status quo.

[Sam T.]

I have a couple of concerns over a split, several of which have come up in other posts.

First (and I could be wrong on this), I'm not convinced that you can tie buy-in to complexity of the post. What happens when Exit runs into an interesting hand in a $3+R sat or a $10? (I sat next to him in one of these.) Does he post in the low buy-in forum, and if he does will MLG see it? If we make an exception for Exit, why not me or Marwan?

At a certain level I wish there were a way to differentiate basic posts from more complex, but I don't think this will do the trick.

I imagine it's a software issue, but in other fora I have seen features that allow readers to rate posts/threads.

[fnurt]

For my part, the reason I haven't posted in a while is simply that I've been busy with other things and haven't been playing much poker at all. If the forum has suffered over the last couple months, I'm not really in a position to speak to the topic. I feel pretty comfortable saying there never was a "golden age" and there have always been a large number of posts along the lines of should I fold AA, come sweat me with 20 tables left, etc. Somehow the forum survived.

To the extent my opinion really matters, I think there are definite differences between play at low buy-ins and play at higher levels. For example, good luck getting me to fold QQ preflop in a $10 event, no matter what happens. But while these differences are real, I've always felt like we do a good job of sorting them out within the context of a given post. ("I wouldn't fold here... but at a higher buy-in, I'd have to give him credit for a big hand and lay it down.")

I guess I would come down as mildly anti-split but I really think it's up to the folks who drop by here more often than I have lately. Either way, a split isn't the end of the world, it's not like there's a law against simply reading both forums. And if we don't split, that doesn't mean you'll be able to force MLG to post on your dumb folding AA thread.

Best wishes to all my MTT friends and I'm sure I'll be around again at some point.

[Jurollo]

I had talked to LLoyd about with when the issue was raised and I think the problem we wouild run into is that we have a popular forum and splitting it would make 2 moderate to less than moderately popular forums, Mat won't do this and overall it may not be good for business...Woodguy may be right in that the cure would kill the patient.

~Justin

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
For my part, the reason I haven't posted in a while is simply that I've been busy with other things and haven't been playing much poker at all. If the forum has suffered over the last couple months, I'm not really in a position to speak to the topic. I feel pretty comfortable saying there never was a "golden age" and there have always been a large number of posts along the lines of should I fold AA, come sweat me with 20 tables left, etc. Somehow the forum survived.

To the extent my opinion really matters, I think there are definite differences between play at low buy-ins and play at higher levels. For example, good luck getting me to fold QQ preflop in a $10 event, no matter what happens. But while these differences are real, I've always felt like we do a good job of sorting them out within the context of a given post. ("I wouldn't fold here... but at a higher buy-in, I'd have to give him credit for a big hand and lay it down.")

I guess I would come down as mildly anti-split but I really think it's up to the folks who drop by here more often than I have lately. Either way, a split isn't the end of the world, it's not like there's a law against simply reading both forums. And if we don't split, that doesn't mean you'll be able to force MLG to post on your dumb folding AA thread.

Best wishes to all my MTT friends and I'm sure I'll be around again at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lloyd,

Can you modify my post to read word for word w/ this one.

Thx.

Andrew

[MLG]

Ok, some random points.

1. I think there is more than enough traffic to support a split.

2. There is definitely a difference in play between a 3 dollar tourney and a sunday special. However the differences in my opinion are less pronounced than they are in ring games. So while in the ring forums the difference in play at different levels is so severe that it demands separate forums, in the MTT world while its an argument for a split it doesnt necessetate it.

3. A split might encourage the better posters from other forums to become more active in the tournament realm (guys like J.V. and Hiatus Over for example). This is a huuuuuuuuge plus.

4. I don't think a split would be negative for the smaller stakes players. People already respond to only what they're interested in, that wont change if the posts are in 1 forum or 2. For example I rarely post in smaller stake threads, but if an interesting discussion breaks out, I'll give my thoughts. That wouldnt change for most posters with a forum split.




Overall I think I'm probably for splitting the forum, although I dont think its vital. I view it as simply better managing information, and not really changing the quality of discussion one way or the other, and I have yet to see an argument against splitting that makes sense.

[CardSharpCook]

agree with MLG's 4 points. And his conclusion.

[prana]

for someone who's math has become second hand your spelling sure needs work LOL

Anyway I don't post often enough, I take almost all of my winnings out of my account and prey on low limit MTT fish. I wish I would get my lazy ass out and get a job along while in school but I am a lazy mofo and these low limit MTT's ain't been bad. To all you who play high buy in tourneys, I have a question since you think there is such a difference. How often do you think you cash in a 1700 person tourney whether it is $3 or $300 and can you explain the differences in getting deep between the two? I cash pretty regularly and like I said for reasons above I don't usually play high buy ins. Now I hear excuses every day from fish about suckouts and hear it from "pros" about dodging "landmines" in tournies with huge amounts of entries but I am not buying it. I cash regularly and honestly I think making it through lower buy in tournaments with 1500+ people is much much harder than pulling off a $100 UB Tourney with 300 people, which gives me much respect for people who pull off the big wins in huge $$$ tourneys on a regular basis. I don't think buy in is necessarily the issue and think there is no feasible way to split the forum unless it is sweat forums/strategy forums like earlier posters have said.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll go one step further and say that I'm totally guilty of the elitest practice of scanning only the poster's name before opening the post. It's terrible, I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may chime in, I agree, that is terrible ... and I've been getting very frustrated over this. My last X posts have got a grand total of 1 reply, and thanks to the 1 guy, but that really sucks. I know none of you guys are obligated to post at all, but when you guys say "post hands/theoretical questions so we can analyze them in order to assist in improving your game" then you don't respond to them, well, you know where I'm going with this.

/end rant

[mshalen]

Might as well throw my 2 cents into the pile.

I don't post here very often but the information I have picked up from reading other people's post has been priceless. I have been doing very well over the past few months and I attribute much of that sucess to the people and posts I have come across in this forum. So while I'm posting let me add a huge thank you. Generally I don't post a response because by the time I read the OP 2 or 3 people have responded with something close to what I would have said and I don't see anyone benefiting by my being redundant.

I generally look at the title and then open the posts that seem interesting. When I post- anywhere on 2+2- I try and jam as much info as possible into the title. I have found the more specific my title the better the quality of responses.

My conclusion is that there is no natural/logical point where you would be able to split the forum. On the other hand if the forum was split then I would just visit both - after all if I am going to stroll through 100 posts in the quest to find something to read/respond to it doen't really matter if it is 100 post in 1 forum or 50 post in 2 forums.

[MrBrightside]

can I get an Amen? I agree. in my last post (this one (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4265986&an=0&page=0#Post 4265986) ) I had to self-bump to get a past two responses. (Lloyd did). I mean, I don't think it's a HORRIBLE hand, it's mildy interesting, and I've got different lines on it from my playing friends. Heck, I chime in and offer my opinion on hands quite often.

Note my earlier post. I bumped to get it to the front page. Everyone should switch to get 30 posts or so on the front, IMHO.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
To all you who play high buy in tourneys, I have a question since you think there is such a difference. How often do you think you cash in a 1700 person tourney whether it is $3 or $300 and can you explain the differences in getting deep between the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Low buyins: Wait for a big hand, play it fast and then double-up or get sucked out on. Double up a few times without getting sucked out on and you're on your way.

High buyins: Much harder to double-up (unless you have <20BB - sometimes hard even then). You have to win numerous small pots each hour rather than nutpeddling your way to one or two big pots per hour.

My ITM % is pretty much inversely proportional to buyin as it should be.

So why do I prefer to play bigger buyins?

1. They're more interesting.

Folding every hand that's not an TPTK or better on the flop really isn't very stimulating.

2. They're more profitable (assuming you are a winning player).

Even if you have incredible results at low buyins you will still profit <10 buyins per event on average (and probably much, much less). Let's say it's 7 buyins. That's $21 profit per 2-3 hours invested for the Stars $3 buyins. It's just not worth it if you have a profit motive.

So, how often do I cash at $3/1700 tourneys vs. $300/1700 tourneys? Who cares! Averaging 1 buyin profit per tourney at the $300 buyin level is obviously far superior to even the most optimistic projections of $3 buyin profitability.

Later,
Che

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To all you who play high buy in tourneys, I have a question since you think there is such a difference. How often do you think you cash in a 1700 person tourney whether it is $3 or $300 and can you explain the differences in getting deep between the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Low buyins: Wait for a big hand, play it fast and then double-up or get sucked out on. Double up a few times without getting sucked out on and you're on your way.

High buyins: Much harder to double-up (unless you have <20BB - sometimes hard even then). You have to win numerous small pots each hour rather than nutpeddling your way to one or two big pots per hour.

My ITM % is pretty much inversely proportional to buyin as it should be.

So why do I prefer to play bigger buyins?

1. They're more interesting.

Folding every hand that's not an TPTK or better on the flop really isn't very stimulating.

2. They're more profitable (assuming you are a winning player).

Even if you have incredible results at low buyins you will still profit <10 buyins per event on average (and probably much, much less). Let's say it's 7 buyins. That's $21 profit per 2-3 hours invested for the Stars $3 buyins. It's just not worth it if you have a profit motive.

So, how often do I cash at $3/1700 tourneys vs. $300/1700 tourneys? Who cares! Averaging 1 buyin profit per tourney at the $300 buyin level is obviously far superior to even the most optimistic projections of $3 buyin profitability.

Later,
Che

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, a good player is better off playing higher. I think 1 buyin per tournament at $300 and 7 buyins per tournament at $3 are pretty optimistic. Maybe you can do that.

Some people multitable small buyin events. They are a little harder to multitable than SNGs or cash games, but it is doable.

[Dave D]

I've got an idea. Why don't we start banning people who do stupid things. Give them one warning like "read the FAQ, folding AA PF is covered there". On the second offense ban them for a week. Then a month. Then a year.

I know mods are hesitant and worried about being labeled Nazis, but I mean cmon, we could cut down on a lot of noise if we just banned some people who do stupid things anyway.

[Jurollo]

Keep in mind, the 'noise' found here is NOTHING compared to other forums, the mods here do a good job finding trollish posts and locking or deleting them immediately. At least most of the noise here is poker related.
~Justin

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've got an idea. Why don't we start banning people who do stupid things. Give them one warning like "read the FAQ, folding AA PF is covered there". On the second offense ban them for a week. Then a month. Then a year.

I know mods are hesitant and worried about being labeled Nazis, but I mean cmon, we could cut down on a lot of noise if we just banned some people who do stupid things anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the people who do that are newbies/fish who don't intend to make stupid posts. Hard to ban them for that.

Maybe automatically put a donkey icon on all their posts so people will be warned.

[Jurollo]

I know this is the original but too many spin offs have come from it... kewep all discussion in this thread from now on. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4273263&page=0&vc=#Post4 273263)

~Justin