Wondering what other posters thoughts on this are.
The two places I frequent have big games relative to their area: 80/160 and 30/60. In both places the 2nd biggest games, 40/80 and 15/30, have been decimated. They either flat out don't run or rarely run at all. I've read in other areas there is a similar problem: There's a regular big game, then every week or blue moon a huge game runs. I'll define huge as something more than double the regular stakes.
Observations I've found in the 30/60 are the player pool is small. Most people know everyone on a first name basis or recognize everyone else. Total strangers plopping in is rare. Oddly, even when the 15/30 was stronger, there were few shot takers from the pool that rarely if ever play 30/60. Call the impact here neutral or slightly negative. There are nearby places that run 15/30 and 20/40.
Observations I've found in the 80/160 is two games run quite frequently and at a higher clip than before. The loss of the 40 adds to the strength of the 80 which I don't think I can say for the other place. This is great if you play 80. It's terrible if you play 40 or play 20 but want to take a shot. There are no games that run anything close 40/80 nearby.
It seems like LA has games that range from 20/40 => 60/120 that run nonstop and the occasional 1/2+. Is having that gap an issue long term or does it not matter?
It's not clear to me what you mean by whether a big jump in game size is an "issue." It's clearly an issue for someone that is trying to incrementally move up in stakes, which the thread title seems to be getting it. That's probably a pretty small group of people these days.
Is it a problem for the health of the bigger games that do run? Probably not. It likely forces some people to play bigger than they'd prefer. If there isn't sufficient interest in the biggest games anymore, the lower games will probably start up again. The only real risk is that some of the big donators lose too much too quickly and get scared off or their partner checks them into rehab or something.
The health of poker economies generally depends on having regular losers who are willing to keep doing so. Those players frequently play at different stakes (i.e, they might play bigger when they've been winning), but they are by no means ladder climbers.
Yeh the 40 game at bay 101 isnt doing great. Not really sure why. But my recommendation is just play the 30 at the oaks and then move up to the 75 at m8trix. And dont bother with any other games. I would have said the 80 at bay 101, but due to recent rake increases i cant recommend that game anymore.
