Splitting the MTT Forum

[woodguy]

bump

[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.

[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.