Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

About a month ago, diebitter suggested that perhaps a forum split would be good for us. The forum was pretty much split on the split.

After thinking about it further, I think it might be in our best interest. Here's why:

I think if we split both forums would have enough traffic. I can't remember exactly, but aren't we doing really well traffic-wise compared to the other forums?

Full ring no-limit Hold 'Em is just as popular as 6max if you look at the total # of players and not at # of tables. I was actually just looking at this on Poker Site Scout. In fact, I'm not even sure why we a re called "full ring" and there is nothing in their name depicting them as a short-handed forum. Weird.

Considering the above, the short-handed players break down into 4 forums. We only have 1?

I don't know if high stakes/medium stakes still cover both full and short-handed play. But I have noticed medium+ stakes players posting here (such as Renton and Phresh and others).

Also, consider that the game plays quite differently from uNL to SSNL.

So I think we should consider splitting into uNL (up to and including $25) and SSNL (50NL-400NL).

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

Link to previous thread from diebitter.

I assure you that this is not a massive rickroll setup.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

The no's outvoted the yeses by a clear majority. I vote no, by the way, most of the posts are clearly labelled nowadays.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

I actually think it is a good idea so that we won't have AS much traffic.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I'm not even sure why we a re called "full ring" and there is nothing in their name depicting them as a short-handed forum. Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I had the same thought ... I recently started playing $50NL (coming from MTT) and I started reading and posting at the Micro Stakes forum. I wondered for a while why there are only 6-max posts, until I realised that there is a seperate forum for full ring without any limitations in stakes.

I think others might find this confusing too.
I would rename the 6-max forums to something with 6-max in it and also split this forum. The play between the limits can be pretty different.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

YES

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

As a poster: I vote not yet, but maybe soon.

As a mod: whatever is the majority vote I'll be behind.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

I dont really post here that much anymore, but will try again soon. My vote really doesnt mean [censored], but there is a huge difference between playing a NL10 and a NL200. I really think splitting them will also create a better environment of advice, since the lower limits will be helping each other out instead of everyone that plays NL50-200 giving advice like "well because this is NL5, its only $5 and everyone sucks I would push".

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

capodu is right. split the forum as pokerboy suggests.

Re: Revisiting the Forum Split Idea
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really post here that much anymore, but will try again soon. My vote really doesnt mean [censored], but there is a huge difference between playing a NL10 and a NL200. I really think splitting them will also create a better environment of advice, since the lower limits will be helping each other out instead of everyone that plays NL50-200 giving advice like "well because this is NL5, its only $5 and everyone sucks I would push".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and support a split. I think most people who play or have played through the NL5-NL10 levels will tell you they aren't as fishy as some people think and as stated above sometimes bad advice is given because of a stereotype of that those levels.