Splitting the forum?

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is one thing I wish to be separated from this forum is the so called "Official what's-its-name tourney" that are cluttered with umpteen meaningless posts, like: :I'm In, may name is Joblo. Who else"; "Busted 3050th, no cards", etc. etc." To me, these are like spams that unnecessarily bury the real insightful, educational posts that seasoned veterans unselfishly share with us.

Matt, I hope you read this.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they are very easy to spot and therefore shouldn't take up any of your time if you are not participating.

Yeah,

But it is still a waste of time scrolling down. If it is a separate forum, it can then totally be ignored.

[Lloyd]

There must have been a reason for having a Mid, High-Stakes PL & NLHE forum, and a Small Stakes PL & NLHE forum. When I first started playing cash games, I posted in Small Stakes and read in the other to learn about the finer details required for moving up. And I quickly learned that if I tried to use the techniques described for a 20/40 UB game in my .50/1 Party game I'd be in a bit of trouble. So much of the advice depends upon the quality of the players and the only easy baromoter we have for that is the buy-in.

[Lurshy]

I think the notion is different for ring games, because of the rebuy factor.

At the lower buy-ins, if you lose your stake you can reload, and it doesn't cost you that much (relatively) to do so.

In most tourney's you cannot reload. You start with an even stake, and continue until you win or it is gone.

While the stake may mean more or less to different people and that may effect their play, once the unskilled player is eliminated they are gone from tournament.

There will be more Lag play in the beginning of freeroll and low buy-in tourney's, and tighter play may allow you to typically survive longer.

However my experience has shown me that their is not a straight line correlation between the quality of play in a 15$ buy-in tourney vs a 150$ buy-in tourney (the typical player is not 10 times better though it cost 10 times the buy-in).

While there are probably examples, I don't think there are enough specific examples of where; given identical postion, stack, blind, and card circumstances in one buy-in a critical decision should go one way vs. another way in a tourney of a different buy-in - to warrant a different forum. Sorry for the long sentence.

I believe Sklansky identifies diffrent decisions based upon the outcome potential to be life altering events. Life altering events though are more likely a function of the payouts than the buy-in, especially when you consider the potential to buy-into large buy-in tourneys via satellites.

Can you identify many circumstances where the decision making is or s/b different in middle buy-in events? Or is it that you want to discount the advice of someone like me that doesn't have a major win on their resume? I am working to correct the later problem [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[BK_]

i dont think there is a need to split the forums because the quantity of posts isnt large enough

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
But it is still a waste of time scrolling down. If it is a separate forum, it can then totally be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have your default set to collapsed forum views? If not, try that.