I think it would be great if the minimum available stake was higher because the worst players will continue to play the lowest stakes. But there is absolutely no reason for any poker site to make that change, since they would lose customers to other sites.

In other words, while it would be in my personal interests if this was to happen, I think it unlikely that the universe will helpfully conform to my whims. In fact, I'm left with the sad decision that I will have to work hard and get better at poker if I want to make more money.

Ten years ago the smallest games were nlh25, plo25, limit holdem around 0.5 1, and they were not feeling big at all and should definitely not be smaller than that. Grinding the levels up takes too long these days and the game quality is worse at every level.

I remember playing the lowest, nlh25 fr as new to nlh, making a to 5 dollars open raise utg, just for fun. These days it would be nlh2, to 40c open raise and the standard would be 6c or so. Think of thinking about some 28c river bet, it can only be tilting vs. opponents who take it butt seriously. Spending all that time in micros like that.

Think of players who cant beat nlh2. It is a big step to start even from nlh10, there already being players who have grinded like 1m hands.

I dont go grinding my way up at many games i train these days but use my poker skills and roll at 2 4 limit levels and 25 big bet levels, and doing okay with some table selection, like at stars 5 card omaha, though i play intermediate omaha already and wont play many hands before next level as i cant handle garbage games. I have played plo8 maybe 2k hands at 4 level, maybe 500 hands at 10 level, and play 25 as minimum.

I want to avoid too many beginners these days, it being like playing with children, being back in first or so class and it doesnt feel like okay even morally. I also dont want to play vs. nitty micro players, that also is ridiculous. If they want to play well, they can read a book and play it right at least, but instead they nit or semi nit it all. Have fun in micros, lol.

Think about grinding some butt easy nlh2 fr or sh games for years, having a big step finally in 5 and then in 10 and thats all ur hobby time can handle. The 10 level doesnt even play like real still, it not being about nitting some butt roll. 25 and 50 is where the real game is at, and the same for 2 4 limit poker, until they nit it and i start feeling sick.

Let's get rid of everything smaller than 1000000000 NL.

crying for the golden days .... pffff

If players play those stakes, and they do, why should it bother anyone playing higher stakes in the least?

If you think it will force players currently playing those stakes to move up, you are wrong. It will turn away new players.

So many seem to forget that poker is zero sum . . . if new money isn't constantly coming to the table, the game dies. The game depends on growth, new players, deposits, and those willing to lose money at the table and still come back.

You should move up in limits where people respect your raises

Yes let's make the game accessible to even fewer players

Many of the players at 2nl are people who are relatively new but trying to get better at the game. Fish will just make a deposit and sit at the highest table they can, be it 2nl, 25nl, 200nl and 1000nl. Removing 2nl won't necessarily mean the 2nl fish play 25nl.

inb4 "Freerolls shouldn't be free".

Shouldn't there be a "Othere games I don't play should be changed to make my games better" containment thread by now?

I would just ban players from these 2nd and 3rd world countries and then implement 25NL minimum levels like what Party and Ongame had. Really the Western fish might come back in droves if the games were the same as 03 or 04. If you made shark limits on tables the games would be pretty good again. But sites only care about rake and this would probably limit their profits in the short term.

The value of 25 American dollars for a Western person is less than it was 10 years ago. I can't see a fish or marginal losing player not depositing a 100 dollars on a site because they can't afford it. 25 dollars these days isn't a dinner with a drink at 2 star restaurant.

This is how it used to be on FTP and many other sites a few years ago. 25NL was the lowest stake. On one hand it caused me to lose over 1000$ while I learned the game rather than 50$ or wtv but on the other hand it drains a ton of money from the poker ecosystem. At least on Stars they have lowered the rake at micros to let a little bit trickle up.

Eliminating micros would probably be great for the games but micros have been implemented industry wide for a reason, they're a cash cow that allow the sites to churn a higher % of deposits into rake and they will never go away. OP does make a valid argument about inflation I suppose and it's true that at some point NL2 might be too low idk.

1c-2c shouldn't go away for a long time until inflation in places like India and China dictate that it should.

What should be removed is 2 levels of buy ins at the lower levels. Of course Stars won't do as it would hurt their immediate bottom line. But at the same time it's decisions like these that have cut the number of cash games by a wide margin over the years. A better short term, long term balance should be put in place.

If I had a site I wouldn't cater to these countries. There is a site that caters to Indian players and has stakes below 2NL. Even 2 American dollars is a days pay for some Indian workers. What worth does 2NL have to your site unless your site is as huge as Stars?

few years ago, normal micro sit&go on stars was 1$, now they are 1.50$. an increase to 2$ would be nice cuz op strategy and almost same cost consumer wisely.

actually, they should put it all .99$ so 1.99$, 4.99$, 99.99$ now fishes will play because 100$ game will be 90$ game in your mind guys, for all the fishes minds around here...

I have news for you, theres a new level between 10nl and 25nl called 16nl

Don't think it so a stupid view. Can't think of a site other then Stars or Tilt where I played on that had 2NL. Most start at 5NL. Few years ago when Belgium was ring fenced the smallest was 10NL on stars.

There is something seriously wrong with the money flow in the poker piramide. I also don't think that sites like Stars thought that start running 2/5/10nl would mean it would be full of Eastern European nits who come to earn money by playing 18 tables. Saw myself what the state of the game is while playin zoom 2nl for the daily challenges, not good. Anything can and should be discussed. For example what was said here earlier: No rake is a bit to far probably but lowering the rake on the micros? Unibet did it and it worked.

This is a bad idea. I don't think you guys understand fish. To them, poker is entertainment. They're spending 2 bucks or 5 bucks for nice, cheap entertainment. Well, what happens when the minimum buy in is 25 bucks? They lose their deposit faster, get discouraged much more easily, and eventually just won't play.

Or, they'll take their 25 bucks and instead of playing poker, they may go to a baseball game or dump it in the casino or buy a movie. 25 isn't a lot, true. But if you want to keep the fish in the game, you have to not discourage them. What is easier for a fish to take, lots of 2nl buy ins or 1 25nl buy in? And that's your answer.

I think money poker should go. I play strip poker and when I play cash poker I'm not seeing enough clothing articles removed.

16nl is so gross. The skill level is actually closer to 25nl than 10nl, and it's full of nits who are too scared to play 25nl for some reason, lol.

Completely agree.

In the days when the economy was good and the average Joe was excited about poker websites could count on getting numerous reloads from losing players. And therefore having 25NL as a bottom tier buyin might have worked. Those days are done and websites have tried to adjust by giving more bang for the buck.

Poker is competing with 99c Kindle books and music downloads, $2.49 movies on demand, and 69c Candy Crush power-ups. The internet economy is fueled by micro-payments.
Does anyone really think putting up the minimum buy-in will increase the amount of recreational players?

All you guys being such experts at knowing and feeling the desires of all the "rec" and "reg" players, the poker ecosystem and blablabla, it's really amazing.
If you put all your efforts together, you could probly open either your own poker website or a poker marketing agency.

And what do you do instead ?
You keep raking at nano-stakes, I'm so disappointed.

Abolish everything under 4k/8k and if you want to play it can't just be no limit hold'em, it needs to be a 10 game mix.