You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
This is something I feel quite strongly about for various reasons but any time anyone from Sky have responded I've always been told that apparently the people playing at this level want this level of buy in. I'm not convinced that is correct as so many people have argued against it yet nothing changes.
The industry standard is a maximum buy in of 100 big blinds (although a lot of sites also offer deep & shallow stack tables too). Every other level on here is a max of 100 bigs (with the exception of 2 tables at 2/4p which offer 250bb buy in) so why is this level any different? IMO the vast majority of people which play at this level do so because their bankroll dictates. I think that buying in for 200 bigs promotes poor brm management.
I would personally like to see this changed to fall in line with not just the industry standard but also the standard for every other level on this site. At the very least I would like a compromise like on the 2/4p tables so people at least have a choice. If I want to risk losing £20 at the cash tables then I'd rather do it at 10/20p level.
Comments
Thanks to slientbob for the thread.
I don't see why they don't or can't do this at 10nl?
Hurst hit it on the head sit with 100 bbs, you are not shortstacked and the dynamics do not change, the only time the dynamics change is if you double up then you will be playing deep with other who have 200bbs, if you feel uncomfortable with that then take your profit and run
i dread to think what would happen if the introduced ante tables lol
Choice is the determining factor.As i have said in previous posts i know there are always going to be large and short stacks at a table and sky and the reg's at this level won't want it to change.All i am asking for is the choice of a couple of £10 max tables(as all 100bb levels offer deepstacks) so people can play what they are used to.Imo there is a demand for them and would not hurt to try.
I agree all tables should be 100bb max but on my list of changes I would like to see on site it comes about 134056th on the list. What affects the games most is the minimum buy in. Which should be more than 10bb.
Its clear to me that NL10 regs want the change, and non-NL10 players dont want it.
What Hurst and other seem to miss, is yes people can double up and still lose it all, but at least i know i lost that £20 to a guy who earnt £10 and made it, rather than some random joe who is allowed to buy in more than me. I wont play deep stacked tables at NL4 or NL20. The only table i use the 250BI rule is the NL4 HU table.
Minimum buyins should deffo be raised to at least 20bb's unless a 'shallow' table option is implemented
and the people that want it changed maybe work on a 15-20BI rule which means their safe for NL10 but only for 100BB
Therefore in their BR terms if they could afford £20 theyd just play NL20 which would make NL10 completely pointless/