|
|
|
|
#1
11-19-2007, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This forum has 3 months to live without a split
Personally, I would like a 100+ 50- split. This is for personal as well as logical reasons.
Firstly, the biggest jump in games is from NL 100, to NL 200. That difference is difficulty in games, opponents, money, etc. However, the difference between NL 100 and NL 50 is incredibly different for different reasons. NL 100 is the first level where you are playing the same regulars. NL 100 is the first level where 3/betting is a "common" occurence. NL 100 is the first level where people POSSIBLY limp/fold versus the standard limp/call. Splitting at NL 200 is fine, but it really hurts the NL 100 players looking to move up. I think splitting at NL 50 is much better. The NL 50 guys understand the VB mindset enough to help those in smaller games, and NL 100 people get some more answers regarding how to deal with regs. 
|
|
#2
11-19-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This forum has 3 months to live without a split
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I would like a 100+ 50- split. This is for personal as well as logical reasons. Firstly, the biggest jump in games is from NL 100, to NL 200. That difference is difficulty in games, opponents, money, etc. However, the difference between NL 100 and NL 50 is incredibly different for different reasons. NL 100 is the first level where you are playing the same regulars. NL 100 is the first level where 3/betting is a "common" occurence. NL 100 is the first level where people POSSIBLY limp/fold versus the standard limp/call. Splitting at NL 200 is fine, but it really hurts the NL 100 players looking to move up. I think splitting at NL 50 is much better. The NL 50 guys understand the VB mindset enough to help those in smaller games, and NL 100 people get some more answers regarding how to deal with regs. [/ QUOTE ] +1
|
|
#3
11-19-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This forum has 3 months to live without a split
Re: Effang - I really dont think 100 to 200 is bigger than 2 to 4, at least on full tilt. A solid, uncreative tag can beat 100, they can beat 200 for 1ptbb less, but they would soon get reamed by regulars at 400.
|
|
#4
11-19-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This forum has 3 months to live without a split
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I would like a 100+ 50- split. This is for personal as well as logical reasons. Firstly, the biggest jump in games is from NL 100, to NL 200. That difference is difficulty in games, opponents, money, etc. However, the difference between NL 100 and NL 50 is incredibly different for different reasons. NL 100 is the first level where you are playing the same regulars. NL 100 is the first level where 3/betting is a "common" occurence. NL 100 is the first level where people POSSIBLY limp/fold versus the standard limp/call. Splitting at NL 200 is fine, but it really hurts the NL 100 players looking to move up. I think splitting at NL 50 is much better. The NL 50 guys understand the VB mindset enough to help those in smaller games, and NL 100 people get some more answers regarding how to deal with regs. [/ QUOTE ]This is mostly why I changed my mind about this(because I moved up and it's very different).
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
