1

In discussions of how hand histories should be tagged, and using symbols in tags (like $1-2nl), it was suggested that that may be too granular for a tag. Someone following 1-2nl may miss out on 1-3nl, for instance. I propose we use/enforce:

micro-stakes, low-stakes, mid-stakes, high-stakes

Instead of actual blind levels/stack sizes. However, we need to define what those stakes are. The trouble is that traditionally, these levels mean different things between live play and online. So what do we do?

3 Answers 3

1

I don't think there is enough of a standard definition for what constitutes each stake for us to use these broad categories. People will end up having to click through multiple categories to find what they want. For example, $2/$4 online is rarely, if ever, removed from the mid-stakes category. But live $2/$5 certainly should be. One group or the other will fail to find the game where they search. Similarly, I have a hard time thinking $10/$25 online is anything but high stakes.

I think we should stick with using specific stakes and defining tag synonyms to deal with different naming conventions for each stake.

1

I think we should discourage the tags about the actual stakes. The money is relative and actual values (as opposed to values relative to the blind/pot size) are irrelevant to the game of poker. If we really must a High-Stakes tag may be useful.

4
  • 1
    I strongly agree. Jan 22, 2012 at 17:46
  • 1
    Money is relative, but the stakes are relevant in that the default opponent at a given level will be different. Playing an unknown at $1/2 is going to require a different strategy than playing an unknown at $25/50. Jan 23, 2012 at 13:54
  • 1
    There will definitely be people who only want to read questions related to the stakes they play. Having these as tags makes that much much easier for those people. Jan 24, 2012 at 21:28
  • Discouraging tags about the actual stakes will alienate so many serious poker players that want specific content on their levels only. No disrespect but this is not a good idea.
    – Toby Booth
    Jan 28, 2012 at 19:24
-3

I propose the following:

  • micro-stakes - Big blind is less than $0.50.
  • low-stakes - Big blind is between $0.50 and $5, inclusive.
  • mid-stakes - Big blind is above $5 and below $50
  • high-stakes - Big blind is $50 or higher.

For limit games, the big bet would be used with the same criteria.

7
  • Granulaity of stake definitions is incredibly important to tagging hand histories. Discrening the precise stakes adds to the level of accuracy in the discussion.
    – Toby Booth
    Jan 15, 2012 at 18:02
  • I agree that the precise stakes should be included in the hand history. I don't think they add value as a tag. Jan 16, 2012 at 12:43
  • 1
    I use the tag system to subscribe through rss to the stakes/posts i'm most interested in. It works best for me rather than searching through the question titles or posts themselves. Just an example of how I find the tag method useful.
    – Toby Booth
    Jan 16, 2012 at 13:21
  • @TobyBooth - Why do the stakes matter? I can see a tag for the games types but I would think the stakes are actually irrelevant to the game theory. I am asking because maybe I am actually missing something.
    – Chad
    Jan 23, 2012 at 13:51
  • @Chad The stakes are relevant in that the default opponent at a given level will be different. Playing an unknown at $1/2 is going to require a different strategy than playing an unknown at $25/50 Jan 23, 2012 at 13:54
  • @ChrisMarasti-Georg - For you. And that is my point there are people that those are basically the same stake, either more than they can afford or so small any losses are irrelevant. I can kind of see the value in a high stake tag (though I was thinking $500+) and a low stake tag (Maybe <= $2) because I agree you are probably playing with different caliber of players but in that in between range I do not see any real value added.
    – Chad
    Jan 23, 2012 at 14:05
  • @Chad perhaps your last comment could be put into a question of it's own, including your reasoning, and we could discuss it there.
    – Toby Booth
    Jan 23, 2012 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .