[MikeL05]

[ QUOTE ]
200 nl does not fit in what this forum should discuss, at all

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually been my experience that 400NL players are worse than 100NL players. I can't say much about 200NL because I skipped it and have only watched friends play it. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and there's some cataclysmic difference between 200NL and 400 or 600NL.

I would be willing to bet that all of you amazing poker players, who are weighed down by the garbage that gets posted here, were at one time or another 200 or 400NL players. And given the attitudes I've seen here, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you thought you were pretty hot stuff at those levels before you moved up. Is it possible, then, that some people who post 400NL or 200NL hands against "thinking" opponents, or whatever, might have something to contribute here? Might have a question worthy of asking? Or are you saying that every player at 600+ NL is better than every player at 200NL?

It's been my experience that 100NL has better players than 400NL. So do we want posts on playing against good players or bad players here? If it's the former, I might suggest some 100NL hands to analyze. And if it's the latter, I might suggest some 25NL hands to analyze. Let's not be closed-minded and asinine here.

Allowing a post based on how many zero's it has on the end of the bets is just silly. We're discussing concepts here. And to say that 200NL contains absolutely none of these concepts is just plain foolish.