Just curious.

To what extent do you think adding 2NL to the already-existing 4NL and 10NL would give new players a chance to learn, reducing the need for the FPT?

I could ask this same question of the Merge network, and perhaps I will in the Carbon subforum.

Because 4NL on rev gaming is actually 1.3NL as long as the MP value of REv gaming is 35cents on the dollar

Technically you're not even playing 2nL.

Cake has always been like this and revolution never changed it. A lot of sites start at 4nl. I don't really see much difference between the two (the level of play is still the same and its still just a starting point for many)

No money in 2NL, most pots are too small to rake.

wish they would get rid of all micros and make nl100 the lowest stakes.

LOL right! How many of the entire player base would play 100NL? There is to few tables already. Min 100NL would kill it off.

Not if they actually paid people their money

I wouldn't be playing online poker if I had to buy in for $100 every time I sat down. I still can't even beat 4NL.

Nothing to do with cashouts but with player rolls. How many people recreational or somewhat reg players you see at 100NL? Sure wont see me up there cause across 4 it's $400 with at least another $400 behind me for just that session. I'd have to put up about $1200 per day with a bankroll of at least 15,000 behind me.

How many fish.. I mean recreational players do you know that meet those requirements or who are willing to put 15K on a site for their entertainment? I'd say about 12-17% of the player base of the entire network.

@sump
That is only the case if you would play the Nexus or other Lock exclusive tables. The vig doesn't apply across the network. Maybe your NL4 game on Lock is only worth 1.3NL to you but your opponent from Intertops is actually one something like NL3.5 or a little lower.

Fwiw, I don't play on lock and never will. ^^

well, in that case you shouldn't make such statement

all too low limits are bad as they dont play real enough. plo2 was a waste of time and at most places plo4 also was too much a waste, and plo10 lowest ongame was a total waste of time. even when tighter, too much unreal play. but for ignorant new players plo10 can be brutal. so, seems okay to me. for limit poker under 10 20 is idiotic. plo4 is good.

Not a fan of playing play money tbh. To each their own I guess.

$15,000 to play 100NL? You sir are a super nit

just because its nl100 doesn't mean you have to buy in for the full hundo.

I am

Anything below like 25NL has somewhat ruined poker IMO