|
|
#41
11-16-2005, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: spitting midhigh
based on what has been discussed so far, my vote (and it is only just a vote) is leaning toward making mid stakes something like 8/16 up to 15/30 and high stakes 20/40+. 30/60+ seems a bit too aggressive even if 15/30 and 20/40 are close. i think it's easier to tune things upward (going from 20/40+ to 30/60+) than it is to back them off, so i would err on the side of conservatism when it comes to modifying limit requirements. it doesn't sound right calling 20/40 or even 30/60 'high stakes', though. 'higher stakes'?
i am beginning to see how a lot of people could feel stranded with 15/30 hands, wanting 'higher level' responses than those offered in the small stakes forum yet not feeling right about posting them in midhigh due to hostile/non-existent responses over simplicity. if it's changed and somebody felt they had a more basic question playing 20/40 or 30/60, they could still post it in the mid forum (which would hopefully be populated with more of the people they want answering their questions). 
|
|
#42
11-16-2005, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
no need for a split...
basically, 15/30 and 20/40 belong in SS.
|
|
#43
11-16-2005, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
I guess I'd really like to see a split. I much prefer reading 15/30 and 20/40 hands, and I know I am not alone int tiring of hearing "good" posters complain that a question or a hand is too simple and belings in SS. Well, SS players don't deal with blind steals, SS players don't have to think about whether or not they can call with their limping hand after a raise and two calls, SS players.... etc etc. There are many such issues that are new and unique in mid stakes that players like me want to talk about. MH posters often take the stance "well you should know that." As a mid stakes player, I would like us to have our own forum.
|
|
#44
11-16-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
[ QUOTE ]
no need for a split... basically, 15/30 and 20/40 belong in SS. [/ QUOTE ] I absolutely disagree given the current description of the Small Stakes forum. There's no way 15/30 and 20/40 hands belong in the same forum as people posting about $3/6 online and B&M games. My personal instincts say Small Stakes should cover up to about $8-16, Mid Stakes (if it exists) $10-20 up to $30-60, and High Stakes $40-80 and up. (EDIT: I could see $30/60 being in High Stakes.) Before anyone responds, please keep in mind I've preemptively taken my suggestions and shoved them up my ass.
|
|
#45
11-16-2005, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
I think it's fine the way it is. Pushing 15/30 down into SS would just further dilute that forum.
If people wanted to be more aggressive about moving crappy threads out of here I think that is fine as long as it doesn't turn into a popularity contest. Sometimes people with low post counts have good things to say too. The only argument I could see for making a High forum is if it would suddenly encourage the best/legendary posters to become hyperactive if even for a short period of time.
|
|
#46
11-16-2005, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
with high stakes being something like 40/80 and up, you really run a risk of creating ghost towns. bear in mind the plan is already in place to create more tiers for HUSH, including high stakes. say somebody's got a shorthanded 80/160 hand. do they post it in high HUSH, or high limit? if it goes in high HUSH, how many posts will there even be in high limit since everything over 100/200 is shorthanded? if you have no high limit HUSH and high stakes is everything 40/80+, shorthanded or not, you've got the 8/16 people chatting with the 30/60 people and that's not good either. those scenarios look like the real pickle.
to tpir the suggestion is to create a mid forum for 8/16-something, not to push them into small stakes.
|
|
#49
11-16-2005, 06:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
[ QUOTE ]
there are people playing mid-high yet still making boring, almost beginner-level, posts. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this, but from the other side of the coin. As someone just breaking into the mid-limits, I would actually really like a forum to post some pretty boring/standard hands. Most of them concerned with adapting to the vastly increased aggression and generally better standard of play. These posts certainly would not fit in SSH, but I am hesitant to post them here, as I am sure it would bring down the quality of discussion in this forum. As surbullet said "these posts have no home". There are quite a few of us moving "out of the kiddie pool", and a new forum would help us and also keep the quality of this forum up. I don't think having a low number of posts on each forum is a bad thing at all, either.
|
|
#50
11-16-2005, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: spitting midhigh
[ QUOTE ]
based on what has been discussed so far, my vote (and it is only just a vote) is leaning toward making mid stakes something like 8/16 up to 15/30 and high stakes 20/40+. 30/60+ seems a bit too aggressive even if 15/30 and 20/40 are close. i think it's easier to tune things upward (going from 20/40+ to 30/60+) than it is to back them off, so i would err on the side of conservatism when it comes to modifying limit requirements. it doesn't sound right calling 20/40 or even 30/60 'high stakes', though. 'higher stakes'? i am beginning to see how a lot of people could feel stranded with 15/30 hands, wanting 'higher level' responses than those offered in the small stakes forum yet not feeling right about posting them in midhigh due to hostile/non-existent responses over simplicity. if it's changed and somebody felt they had a more basic question playing 20/40 or 30/60, they could still post it in the mid forum (which would hopefully be populated with more of the people they want answering their questions). [/ QUOTE ] This sounds good to me.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
