I'm intrigued. What are our "own reasons"? And if by "own reasons" you mean anything other than "best interests of the forum", kindly quote the posts that make it "blatantly obvious" that any of us have acted for these "own reasons".

haha winna!

i think we should give blizzuff and sikzac their own forum though

have a couple of names we can call it too

"I'm intrigued" is pompous internet speak for "I can't wait to own this guy with my amazingly logical debate skills".

So, you're insinuating that you made your decision based on something other than the wishes of the voters? Like I said, it's not a big deal, it'd just be nice if you were up front about it.

It may seem to someone interested in fixed-limit Omaha-8 that pot-limit Omaha-8 and no-limit Omaha-8 are much the same and thus it makes good sense for them to be lumped together.

However, pot-limit Omaha-8 and no-limit Omaha-8 are less similar than they may seem to a fixed-limit player.

At any rate, I see strategy and tactics for playing pot-limit as different from no-limit.

Thus the division I made in the first poll I wrote made and makes more sense to me than the division I made in the second poll.

There are other natural divisions.
• full table / six max / heads-up
• high stakes / medium stakes / mini stakes.
• cash game / sit 'n go / multi-table tournaments
• on-line / home game / brick and mortar casino

Alas, as a forum we seem to be shrinking. For example, there were fewer respondents to the polls than last year. I don't know why.

A split in the Omaha-8 forum is inevitable IF there's a significant growth in the number of Omaha-8 forum readers and posters. We anticipate growth, but growth seems slow in coming.

When we do split, we don't want the split to fizzle. We don't want one or both Omaha-8 forums to die. There needs to be a large enough base to support two forums.

That's some progress towards a split.

Now enough posters to support two forums and moderator assent are needed.

Buzz

I'd love to see how you respond to something that is a big deal!

I just want to be clear about this, speaking solely for myself.

I am unlikely ever to assent to a split. There likely will never be enough action here to justify a split in my mind. Nevertheless, I don't believe my assent is required. If there is a vote, and an appropriate majority of contributing members to this forum believe a split is appropriate (and as I said above I don't mean a one vote majority), I would respect the results and support the split even though in my opinion it would be a mistake. My self-importance pond will deal.

It's all my fault. In response to a post wondering about an Omaha-8 forum split, I wrote a poll question, "Should the Omaha-8 forum be split into three separate forums at this time?"

Within five minutes there were about a half dozen votes. Then, after about ten minutes, Amok suggested the split be into two forums rather than three.

Since there were already a half dozen votes in the poll, and since I stipulated the poll to last one week, I thought I should not delete or close that poll. It just didn't seem right to close a poll after people had already voted. But at the same time, I thought Amok had a good idea and I posted another poll accordingly. I realized there might be some confusion, but I optimistically hoped for clear cut results that would be easy to sort out.

Alas, the results were not the clear cut results I had hoped for. You can't deny that the voters in one poll voted for no split. And all those voters didn't vote in the second poll.

The truth is I don't know who voted for what. I wanted the polls to be private but I should have made the polls public so that we'd at least know who voted. And then it would be clear if someone voted no in the first poll but yes in the second poll. (I think probably some people did that).

Anyhow, I apologize for screwing up the polls.

That's absurd.

Well... I guess it must not seem absurd to you. Let me assure you, that's not the case for any of the moderators of this forum.

They did in one poll but not the other.

Not true. I quoted the results of the polls.

I think I know what the case is. I think poll responders are roughly equally divided on whether the forum should stay together or split at this time. I think probably most forum readers and posters don't care much one way or the other.

I'm absolutely certain a split at this time does not have enough moderator support to go forward.

Sorry but that's the way it is.

Buzz

Agree with this. The vote for a split into two forums was 36-29.

I voted 'no' for splitting into three forums, because I don't think there should be three forums, only two.

There was no question "Split the forum Yes/No", and rightly so. The questions were "Split the forum into three" (answer: inconclusive), and "Split the forum into two" (answer: 36-29 in favour).

Then why not let it go?

I can see how it might seem that way to you.

I think that's true. Next time I write the poll (if I write it) it will be public and voters will need to be regular posters in this forum (such as you are). The goal in conducting a poll was (and will be) to survey the posters of this forum.

Ascertaining the opinion of the forum is only one step in achieving a change in the forum. Ultimately we need administration approval. And the key step to get administration approval is to get moderator forum approval. We don't have moderator support for a split at this time.

You're off base there. (1) I'm not afraid of a backlash. (2) This is not what I wanted to do.

Sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I appreciate you as a poster. I appreciate your point of view.

Buzz

This is a red herring. Strategy and tactics also differ between NLHE with 20bb stacks, and NLHE with 100bb stacks, but nobody is suggesting a split there. In fact that is a bigger difference than NLHE 25c/50c vs NLHE 50c/$1 which does get a forum split. So, I think it is not so much about a comparison of difference between the games; rather, it is about a pooling of players with relevant experience. Limit play is just not relevant to NL or PL play and vice versa (as evinced by Lucius posting on NL threads, or me posting on limit threads).

However, majority opinion amongst people who have played both games is that the difference between limit and NL, and the difference between limit and PL, are both much more drastic than the difference between NL and PL.

Buzz.

You do a great job moderating and an even better job trying to help people. You write incredibly insightful posts. I have learned piles of information from you. i'm sure you will know when/if the forum needs to be split. There is really no need for a vote. Just do what is simplest and the least time consuming for you.

Powder

I thought a "red herring" was a piece of information offered with the intention of being misleading.

I was not (and am not) trying to mislead you (or anyone). I truly believe strategy and tactics for playing pot-limit is different from no-limit. At least, rightly or wrongly, it generally is different for me - different enough to warrant a separate forum for each of the three (fixed-limit, pot-limit, no-limit) if we're going to split.

I understand how someone who primarily plays fixed-limit may view pot-limit and no-limit as more similar than one who plays primarily pot-limit or one who primarily plays no-limit. And I understand how someone who thinks two things are much the same would find it logical to lump them together.

I'm a bit surprised that someone who primarily plays pot-limit (like yourself) doesn't think no-limit plays substantially differently. Maybe I'm missing something.

But at any rate, my statement was not intended to mislead and I'm sorry if it did.

Buzz

Buzz, are you prepared to do only a poll with two alternatives: PL/NL vs fixed limit? Every evidence supports this kind of a poll. Prepare for a lengthy thread

It's just better to split into two for a start if there is to be a split. And that people recognize. Please, look at the opinions this time around and the two earlier polls.

I can't believe this split is apparently so important to people. What am I missing??