Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[ALReturnsLOL]

This would have to be approved by whoever makes these types of decisions at 2+2. How hard is it to get something like this approved? Does it cost the website alot of money?

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm barred from SSNL so I never saw how things changed.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that work. Can you literally not see the posts, not reply, or are you just told not to? I know people who have said they were banned from other forums on this site, just curious how it works.

Btw your life story thing in that other thread was really fascinating.

[citanul]

i'll start here:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll address degen's stuff below. i might read the whole thread later, i'm not going to read it now though, as well, i'm [censored] tired and don't give a flying [censored] right now. especially not about something as stupid as this.

continuing, i'll just make my stuff bold instead of messing with the quotes function.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) many of the social posts are made by the higher stakes players

[/ QUOTE ]

but responded to by low stakes posters
so, who cares? that wasn't close to a refutation at all of anything. the social posts will go whereever the person wants to post them. if they are made by the high stakes posters, they will be in high stakes most likely, regardless of who responds. i can't believe that you don't intuitively understand the social nature of this forum. meh.

[ QUOTE ]
2) how many high stakes posts do you actually think would be made?

[/ QUOTE ]

not important, the few the better IMO
i ask you again then, why did the super secret private forum only for super secret players who super secretly have fantastic rois dry up near instantly then? also, the fewer the better is clearly not in line with your original question. it's in fact entirely against the grain of the idea that there is a need for such a forum. such a forum would be necessary if there would be traffic. no one needs a forum that would have 3 threads a day and 10 posts a day. it would just be dumb.


[ QUOTE ]
3) how many high stakes players do you actually think are not posting because they think there is clutter?

[/ QUOTE ]

many, i'm getting the feeling you haven't read these threads....
no, i don't read them. cuz they're clutter. that's the point. i skip over them because i don't want to read them. if you really think that there are high stakes posters who would post a ton if "given the chance", i think you're entirely deluded. almost every high stakes player i've spoken to 100% agrees that the reason they don't post more is because there's nothing worth posting about, not that there's too much forum clutter.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


you have mad skillz then, i find this hard...

maybe you should set your default threads per page to a higher number. or learn to read.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

the discussions are *different*, not that one is interesting and one is not, my interest in this is in the utility of it, not the entertainment value

meh, i don't really have anything to say to that. they may be different, but they may not. the vast majority of the people voting yes are 109s people it appears. honestly, the 109s hands are all mechanical. the vast majority of questions asked about 109s hands are straightforward. so the argument taht you dont' see "should i push any two" just as often in a 109s post as in a 22s post is well, just dumb. many/most of the best threads are hands taht counterintuitively come from lower stakes games. sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
7) many of the high stakes players have very little interest in this

[/ QUOTE ]

evidently this is not the case

i refer you again to the point that the 109s players just *aren't* playing high stakes sngs, though they think they are.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be an unfortunate side effect, yes

it is twoplustwo publishing's goal to have a website that gets promoted as the best place to learn on poker, and a fun/easy place to do so. not to be a horrid, antisocial place where people tell you not to comment on hands because you aren't a baller.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

disagree, they have their own forum

they do, it died. ibid.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

if by shrivel up and die you mean not have 2400 new threads a day, i agree...but if by shrivel up and die you mean that the value produced there and the knowledge exchange, i disagree completely, i think it would grow exponentinally

the fact that you think there's exponential knowledge to be had depresses me.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

the people are speaking sir, it appears this is a done deal, how do we go about making the switch?

did you answer my question at all? yay, 100 people responded to some dumb poll. i'd much prefer to sponsor something like this if say, you had a write in poll. if there were a whole bunch of people who either lurk or semi lurk voting yes, i'd be against it. if it turns out that it really is dominated by 109s players thinking that it's a good idea, i'd be against it. if it turns out that in a couple days it's resolved that there is a legitimate idea, then whatever, i'll put it through to the authorities, they'll consider it, and it'll take a while. i'll be more than happy to mod it and help keep it clear of "clutter." they probably won't be as amused when it shrivels up and dies though.


[/ QUOTE ]

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you really think that the 11s players would magically be barred from commenting on your hands?

c

[The Yugoslavian]

Everyone who knows what I'm talking about,

Why hasn't TNT succeeded then? And if it has, then obv this whole thread is moot.

I don't really feel I've seen that many amazing threads there so I barely look anymore.....most of the threads are just normal/semi normal situations with only good posters posting. So threads are shorter but nothing 'ground breaking' gets discussed either. Even with Jman being an uber pimp nothing all that great came out IMO.

One other thing, the posters people are discussing who would post in the HSTT forum only seem to post when there is some very weird theoretical discussion going on (Dali vs. ZJ collusion thread, ZJ 70% ROI thread, Giga chunking thread, etc)....why are some so sure that normal 215+ hands will bring all the heavy hitters out of hiding?

I mean, I guess the idea could work out but it'd be a shame if it didn't work out very well and the result was fewer good posters posting due to two boring forums instead of one not so boring forum.

Yugoslav

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
How does that work. Can you literally not see the posts, not reply, or are you just told not to? I know people who have said they were banned from other forums on this site, just curious how it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely told I was not welcome there, I could go there now and possibly even post and not get banned, but I don't see any reason to go where I'm not welcome.

I have read posts there occasionally by accident (via links), and once or twice when someone has pm'd me to say there's a must-see type thread, but that's all.

Lori

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree with me, please explain one thing to me.

Why do you believe that the STT forum will follow such a vastly different path than the NL and LHE forums followed?

Why is there any reason to believe that a split won't have the same positive effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree because volume wise many many more players play limit, or no limit, holdem, than play sngs. further, there basically always is room to improve, stakes to move up, and incredible amounts of player information to be had and take in to account.

i think that the fact that such a forum was created and died instantly is empirical evidence that i am right.

i don't think that a forum dedicated to either low stakes or high stakes no limit poker with starting stacks of 50bb would get incredibly huge amounts of traffic either.

c

[OHFreak]

Good assumption.

I'm all for stimulating high-level discussion - hopefully I'll actually have a large enough BR to make use of it some day. Before I'm dead.

I guess I'm wondering the exact mechanism by which the higher-stakes forum will come to consist entirely of this high-level discussion. Folks playing the lower levels will regulate themselves out of it? Shame at being less sophisticated? Fear of ridicule?

How did this come about in the cash forums?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree with me, please explain one thing to me.

Why do you believe that the STT forum will follow such a vastly different path than the NL and LHE forums followed?

Why is there any reason to believe that a split won't have the same positive effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree because volume wise many many more players play limit, or no limit, holdem, than play sngs. further, there basically always is room to improve, stakes to move up, and incredible amounts of player information to be had and take in to account.

i think that the fact that such a forum was created and died instantly is empirical evidence that i am right.

i don't think that a forum dedicated to either low stakes or high stakes no limit poker with starting stacks of 50bb would get incredibly huge amounts of traffic either.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

Your whole argument lies on the assumption that SNGs are extremely simple.

If Jman and I both believe we have room for significant improvement, I think that disproves your point unless you want to show me any players that play SNGs significantly better than either Jman or myself.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole argument lies on the assumption that SNGs are extremely simple.

If Jman and I both believe we have room for significant improvement, I think that disproves your point unless you want to show me any players that play SNGs significantly better than either Jman or myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, one of my 17 arguments starts from the premise that sngs are extremely simple.

start a compelling argument against one of my other arguments, say the one that says that another forum kept clear of social posts meant to be visited by a majority high stakes sng players, and modded by one or the other players in your post above, died, entirely.

c