I think a very big part of that statement is okay rake, etc. The limits aren't the only thing that counts. Nice software is a big part. Trustworthy pokerroom, site located in the eu is another big part. And they don't have to go all in with it. Just remove anything less than $10nl and $0.50-1 limit. If people can afford $2nl then they can afford $10nl

Online needs to have levels low enough that the skill level corresponds to the easiest games played live. $0.10 and $0.25 tournaments are good training for live 10 euro tournaments. I have never played cash live so I don't know how the skill levels correspond.

Here in the states if you can beat the lowest levels online with a solid abc gamr you should crush live $1/$2

learn to beat the other players in your games. that should sort it.

Adding nanos/micros has nothing to do with player wishes and desires lol, it's only there because they figured out a way to nickle and dime their recreational players which were there since day one, playing play money.
I doubt any nano player ever cashes out, it all goes to rake.

I would agree if we were talking more significant levels such as removing everything lower than 200nl and even 100nl. But remove below 25nl, i doubt we'd see any decrease. We're talking a few dollars here. If anything, we'd have more short stackers. and i dont mind short stackers who are just rec players rather than pro short stackers.

You're wrong.

Don't know about cashgames, but nano MTTSNGs:

http://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-St...ayers/morph3u1

Results by stake $0.23 - ROI 41% over 19166 games.

I guess you've not been able to look at the Stars lobby for a few years, so can't see the size of the player pools at different levels, or notice which countries they are playing in. The vast majority of players are in the nanos.
100NL and 200NL still exist. Removing 2NL-25NL wouldn't magically create extra demand for 100NL. If people wanted to (and could afford to) play at that level, they'd already be doing it.

Unfortunately, you are correct that i can't see the stars lobby. However, i'm not saying remove everything below 100nl. I'm speculating that removing everything below 25nl wouldn't negatively impact the games like some think.

and i'd agree that if everything below 100nl was removed, it would be negatively impacted.

Just look at live though, games typically start at 200nl - 300nl and plenty of people are able to play. At 25nl, we're talking a fraction of that. Again, i just think we'd have more short stackers.

This is right on point - entry level or casual players really don't have anywhere to go.

IMO the best solution is to reduce the max number of tables at micro stakes. This reduces the reg/beginner seat ratio and forces people who are trying to grind to play at higher stakes. Why not make it 4 or even 2 tables max at 2 NL? 2 tables at 2NL, 4 tables at 5NL and 10NL, and whatever above.

Antes encourage playing more hands, but nits can/will still grind, and antes look like another fee and more complexity to entry level players.

I was thinking this - I deposited $50 3 or 4 times at NL25 in 2002 on PS before it "stuck". Maybe the poker world would be better off if some kind of cartel had decided that NL25 was the lowest allowable stake, but you can't turn it off now. If you want to compete with TV or xbox, you need to give those people whatever games they want.

If there were no nano stakes pokersites would have way less traffic so this is a terrible idea.

I will support the OP by shouting the following in the local library:

hey hey

ho ho

online nanostakes poker needs to go

(for the sake of the poker economy)

Yes! Also, everybody playing 2NL plays solid. No money anymore.

I love OP's train of thought:

grinding 2nl sux

convince the doomswitch creature to shut down microstakes

win at small stakes

people really think that $2nl players are doing it for the money lol. Sheeeeet, id play for matchsticks if that was the only option. I think alot of the regs that play these stakes are playing for the fun, the games are more competetive than any play chip games. I think that rake is the reason players arent moving up. In the old days on stars they wouldnt even rake the pots unless the pot got over a dollar.

I fundamentally disagree with you.

If people want to play a certain level, sites should be allowed to offer it.

5L and 10NL could also be considered nano staked.

Also all these stakes are already very soft, so that's certainly not the problem.

The reason why u can't beat them is not because the buy in is low but because the effective rake too high and they are unbeatable as a result of their effective rake.

a poker game is always soft, except when the effective rake is too high.

Poker without rake would be such an easy game to beat. It's amazing how much of a devastating effect rake has on the game. Yet so few players are completely clueless of the impact rake has.

It's such a shame that everyone is so well educated about it.

To have the 20 buy in you need for BRM wouldn't you need to deposit a huge amount of money to play 25nl? I have been depositing 50-100$ and trying to grind up at the micros (2-5nl), not because I want to but because I can't afford to deposit much more than that to take shots with.

Pokerstars micro sucks though, everyone is crazy nitty. 888 has been good for me at the micros, as well as bodog.

I think the point is that there's few other entertainment options that require only a 2 dollar investment (except stuff that is free or "free" of course like internet porn or TV) so people will go that route. If the entertainment someone gets from donking off a stack now costs him $25, that amount of money now opens him up to a much wider range of options whether it's going to a sports match or the cinema or getting drunk. So it might not be that significant money but I do believe it makes a lot of difference, at least for poorer people or players from less wealthy countries.

Of course it's possible that people just get more out of poker than other options but I don't think many people like that are fish or stay fish for long.

Effective rake is only an issue in online poker because multitabling regs make the games so absurdly dreadful. Effective rake is virtually irrelevant in live poker because the games are juicy and win rates greater even though live rake per hand is so much higher in both % and cap. The concept of effective rake is largely irrelevant in live poker because a much larger proportion of pots hit the rake cap which is a good thing.

OP is right (not for the reasons he states though) - Nano stakes are terrible for the poker economy. All they do is allow beginners to get in at the ground level and learn how to multi-table effectively and play a horrible form of poker that is (marginally) profitable. Why the hell would you want to allow that? Online players are so focussed on effective rake and being able to eek out a miniscule win rate it's laughable.

Live 1/2 is ridiculously soft because for beginners and recs it's usually their only option. Visit casino's where the smallest game is 2/5 and it's even better.

Why in the world decent players would argue that nano stakes should exist is completely beyond me. Why you'd want to 24-table NL2 for a smaller hourly than you could make single-tabling NL200 if it was the smallest game running is also beyond me.

THIS.

Plus even when short stackers play in any 1/2 or 2/5 live game it doesn't take away from the game almost at all. They aren't jamming pre every time trying to flip it a few times, they mostly limp and call raises until they get to $15 and say "oh well" then usually leave.

The mass table grinding cash games has hurt the game a lot since most people since game selection is atrocious for most sites and fish don't have all day long to play a large field MTT. Mass tabling MTT's is not really a problem though due to timing out and inflating the prize pools. I actually enjoy when ppl are chatting in the box online it lets me at least know they are human.

I really believe bovada has hit the nail on the head, limited tables, anonymous is good because there is always some moron posting a fish's sharkscope when he gets stacked and hurts the game, easier for collusion yes, better for the long term game yes, ironic, maybe. 25-25NL should be lowest stakes offered as people will be chatty playing one table, helps create more action instead of fold fold fold, fish would be able to see an actual profit if they made a little cash.

because people cant afford to lose 6 buy-in of nl500 live poker ?

the only solution here is to put pressure on 24 nitreg at nl2. stars should tell them to move up in a month or they are ban. actually, they should applicate this strategy in a bonus form.