Any news on the forum split??

[Danenania]

Good post.

[ QUOTE ]
If you play 1/2 for example, most of the times it's better to seek advice from an experienced 1/2 player than a top 30/60 player. I can't imagine the latter will have a good idea of how the 1/2 games play. Sklanksy didnt write SSHE. Ed Miller did.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a GREAT point.

[MicroBob]

Well...I guess this would be two forums for me....as I play 5/10 and 10/20 6-max (and it appears the split would have 5/10 in the LUSH forum).

Am I the only one that would rather see the cut-off at 3/6?
I think 1/2 and 3/6 are probably more similar on party...and that 5/10 may have a little bit more in common with 10/20 than it does with 3/6.
Maybe that's just me.

Doesn't bother me too much though.


Not to get TOO forum-crazy...but I also would be interested in seeing seperate forum for heads-up play.
It's different from 6-max play and deserves its own forum.

I would hope that the creation of a seperate forum for HU-only could spark some interesting discussion that has been lacking.
The HUSH forum is hardly about 'heads-up and short-handed'.
We should just change the name to '5 and 6-max limit'

[nervous]

I think that the 3/6 and 5/10 are more similar than 5/10 and 10/20.

Hardly any info in here is for headsup play that I don't think it is worth it to have a HU forum.

[Lurker4]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question.

Is the issues too many posts?

Too many bad posts?

Or is it really the different psychology?

Because I'm betting it's more of the first two than the second, and I don't think a fix splits that. All it does is create a lower limit forum where bad posts will run amuck.

I am not sure what a fair solution to bad posts is (because the unfair answer is "commence banning"), but I just don't see anything getting better as the result of a split.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know this as well...I think the post quality is fine, but maybe its my posts [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. I don't think its "really really bad" like someone said. I do think however that threads do get pushed off the first page too quickly. I wouldn't mind a forum split, although I don't believe its a necessity.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question.

Is the issues too many posts?

Too many bad posts?

Or is it really the different psychology?

Because I'm betting it's more of the first two than the second, and I don't think a fix splits that. All it does is create a lower limit forum where bad posts will run amuck.

I am not sure what a fair solution to bad posts is (because the unfair answer is "commence banning"), but I just don't see anything getting better as the result of a split.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know this as well...I think the post quality is fine, but maybe its my posts [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. I don't think its "really really bad" like someone said. I do think however that threads do get pushed off the first page too quickly. I wouldn't mind a forum split, although I don't believe its a necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's too many posts, not the quality of the posts, IMHO (though seeing fewer stat posts / bad beats / "xx with an A flop" would not disappointment me in the least). Each individual forum can only sustain so much traffic before the number of new threads floods the forum and drowns out discussions (sorry for the imagery with Katrina so recent) - I think this is self-evident and the subjective judgment is when the amount of traffic becomes too much for a single forum to sustain and still maintain its utility.

I got pretty drunk last night and stayed up late. I read the forum sometime after midnight. When I checked in this morning, there were something like 65 threads that had been posted / commented on. When I posted the FYP saying it was "really, really, really bad" my post came only 3.5 hours after Entity's, and my post bumped the thread from somewhere around thread 40 to the top -- that's 40 new / newly commented upon threads in less than 4 hours. Too much traffic makes engaging in a discussion like trying to have a conversation in a bingo hall with hundreds of other conversations going on at high volume levels. My opinion is that we've passed the point where the amount of traffic HUSH currently gets is too much for it to handle with any efficiency. I don't much care how it is split - I just feel strongly that it needs to be split in order to retain the high degree of utility it has historically had.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to get TOO forum-crazy...but I also would be interested in seeing seperate forum for heads-up play.
It's different from 6-max play and deserves its own forum.

I would hope that the creation of a seperate forum for HU-only could spark some interesting discussion that has been lacking.
The HUSH forum is hardly about 'heads-up and short-handed'.
We should just change the name to '5 and 6-max limit'

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've always thought this, too, and I was surprised to learn this is where 6-max posts go. I don't consider 6-max "shorthanded." Really there should be 5- and 6-max forums under Texas Hold'em - Limit.

But a HU forum wouldn't get much traffic.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question.

Is the issues too many posts?

Too many bad posts?

Or is it really the different psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

This issue is simply too many posts, IMO. Splitting the forum seems an obvious way to cut down on traffic, and because of the different psychology of beating different levels, splitting it on stakes seems natural.

The aim is to satisfy everyone, and I don't see how a forum split, which would make it easier to locate posts from players with similar ideas/problems, could possibly be bad. To those who complain that the split will reduce the number of high-quality responses to their lower-staked problems, I think you're being short-sighted (or possibly selfish). Since there would be no rule denying you reading the posts of good players from the higher stakes forum, you should encourage them to post as frequently as possible on topics that are pushing the envelope for them. I think this would be the most valuable to all, especially as the lower traffic would allow potentially insightful threads to remain around longer for a more measured discussion.

[MicroBob]

I'm well aware it won't get much traffic...but I think we would get more discussion of heads-up play then we are currently getting.

It's kind of tough to talk more about the specifics of heads-up play around here because it will always get buried.

I'm pretty sure there are some outstanding heads-up players on these forums...I'd like to know who they are and I'd love to hear from them.


FWIW - I think a heads-up forum could consist of limit, no-limit as well as cash-game and heads-up.
I think there are more similarities in the various forms of heads-up play then just lumping 'limit HU' into HUSH, 'NL HU' into one of the NL forums, and tourney heads-up probably mostly in the SNG forum.
Geez...even the various HULA threads could go there.


I would love to see some more serious disucssions of heads-up play on these forums...but the way things are set up it just doesn't seem likely to happen.

When I first got to HUSH I was very disappointed to see that there is so little discussion of HU play.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]

I would love to see some more serious disucssions of heads-up play on these forums...but the way things are set up it just doesn't seem likely to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't think there's much that can be said about headsup. Each hand is so dependant on what's been going on that individual hand posts are almost redundant (edit - see mike l's recent post in this forum about where he 4-bet the river with J-high, for example); I think the best way to learn headsup is just through playing against lots of different opponents.

[therockofgibraltar]

Or .5/1 with me!