Post deleted by Mat Sklansky - Page 12

FUJItheFISH · #**111** 02-22-2006, 02:47 AM

yes split the forum into threes:

-55s and lower,
-109s and higher,
-gigabet threads.

curtains · #**112** 02-22-2006, 02:47 AM

Posting in the low stakes threads won't hurt anyones win rate because most of the answers are so basic. However I feel like posting a lot in high stakes hands that aren't just obvious preflop spots, could be counterproductive, depending on the situation.

johnnybeef · #**113** 02-22-2006, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1) many of the social posts are made by the higher stakes players
2) how many high stakes posts do you actually think would be made?
3) how many high stakes players do you actually think are not posting because they think there is clutter?
4) why did the special "all content mostly high stakes forum" die, on the other site?
5) it's really not very hard to scroll through say, 500 posts in less than a minute. they all have their buyin information in the title now majority.
6) this means that if you actually think that the only interesting discussion can come out of the high stakes hands, you could just browse for those *incredibly* easilly.
7) many of the high stakes players have very little interest in this
8) none of the low stakes posters would restrain themselves from posting comments on the high stakes hands, you'd still have to wade through them in the high stakes forum
9) none of hte low stakes players want this to happen, as at the moment high stakes players comment on their hands and they would prefer them to be given less disincentivization from doing so in the future, they want to get better too, and that process will be slowed dramatically if they have fewer high stakes players commenting on their hands.
10) i don't think the desires of the 15 posters who really qualify as high stakes players can possibly outweigh the pile of hundreds of low stakes players who wouldn't want it.
11) i think you'd be shocked at how incredibly quickly the high stakes forum would shrivel up and die, as basically no high stakes player ever cares enough to post about anything. this isn't because they don't like the forum, it's because after a few thousand sngs, really there aren't that many things that are intersting that come up. continuing, a forum with 5 posts a day just wouldn't be that good.
12) didn't we just have this discussion last week? i'm sorry that since the last time this idea came up, a new generation of people have "retired," and a new bunch of the low stakes players have become the grumpy old high stakes players, but come on, s.m.d.

in summary, i think the idea is lousy.

c

editing to add: i didn't read any of the rest of this thread. i'm sure other people have thought or posted about other things. i particularly want to point out number 8. if you think having a high stakes forum would just mean that high stakes players would post there only, you are a moron. anyway, i'm not going to read the rest of this thread either, i'll read responses to my post, and children of that node, but none other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what he said. I mean could you imagine having to check two forums to find the next TOW, stanzee or desdia?

#**114** 02-22-2006, 02:50 AM

ZeeJustin · #**115** 02-22-2006, 02:56 AM

I agree 100% with all of Degens counterpoints to Citanuls argument.

I also want to say that Citanuls refusal to read this entire thread is ridiculous.

Lori · #**116** 02-22-2006, 02:57 AM

If this goes ahead, I'll be lobbying for an $11 forum for players with a 40% or bigger ROI as I don't really want to talk to idiots who can only manage 36%

Lori

meleader2 · #**117** 02-22-2006, 02:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I voted YES and 100+

I just worry about the fact that that there is not enough people around here....I'm being pretty picky here...this is probably the BEST place to get feedback, etc, but sometimes no one responds to a post, or there is just one or two opinions..

frequently I am the ONLY person to respond to a post....and I'm am not even close to being enough of a pro for my opinion to be trusted as true...

Splitting this forum up won't make this any worse I guess

are there so little serious players out there, or can they just not find 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why i do not respond to other's posts (22s+), i am NOT qualified to and i am just noise.

this is why i do not listen to other's responses to my posts (11s) because it is the blind leading the blind.

this is why i do not respond to other 11ers, because my advice is still not qualified, it's just an educated guess.

Custer · #**118** 02-22-2006, 02:58 AM

Isn't it Citaul's job to read the thread? I mean, what if someone was saying something inappropriate? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Just trying to run my post count up for you, Degen. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

moses

citanul · #**119** 02-22-2006, 02:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think $100 is a reasonable cutoff, but $200 is probably better. I don't think its ridiculous though.

[/ QUOTE ]

note taht my 15 number is way more realistic when you put it at 200. 100+ is retarded. all games 100 and below can be beaten with no creativity and no reads, for handy amounts. thus, setting the line at 200 would be reasonable, but at the same time, be too high to have traffic.

ZeeJustin · #**120** 02-22-2006, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If this goes ahead, I'll be lobbying for an $11 forum for players with a 40% or bigger ROI as I don't really want to talk to idiots who can only manage 36%

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are mocking me for being elitest, then I guess your comment is pretty apt.

Can you really blame me though? Why would I post $500 hands if the majority of my feedback would come from $11 players? What would I have to gain? I certianly wouldn't learn anything.