Attempt to define specialization
Here's a list of forums.
High Stakes NL
Medium Stakes NL
Small Stakes NL
Micro Stakes NL
Medium-High Full Ring
Small Full Ring
Micro Full Ring
Heads Up NL
I think that's just amazing. They don't distinctions between pot limit and no limit (which are actually different games) but do distinguish based on blind size. I'm just floored by that.
If you don't at least play 5-10nl or higher then don't give advice in strategy threads. Without a familiarity with the games and players in question your advice is not relevant to the discussion. If you are a lower stakes poster you probably are also not thinking on a high enough level for your advice to add anything but clutter.
It is generally assumed that players in the Mid Stakes forum will have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of NL Holdem. Questions related to math (odds), fundamentals, and basic ABC play belong in Small Stakes.
The SSNL forum is centered around discussion of shorthanded no-limit hold'em cash games from the $0.50/$1 blind level to $1/$2. For full ring games or other blind levels, use the forums listed below.
This is all just nonsense. They are attempting to make fine distinctions between situations (blind sizes) where no actual distinctions exist. But the one place that has real distinctions -- the difference between pot limit and no limit -- they completely ignore.
I wonder if there's anyone at all at 2+2 who has any concept of what poker is actually about?
I sometimes play in a cardroom in Newkirk, OK that spreads no limit games with two different blind structures. A 1/3 blind and a 1/2 blind.
But the one with the smaller blind also has a $5 minimum bet -- it's played as a "red chip game". That makes the 1/2 game much, much bigger than the 1/3 game. It also changes player habits. There's a lot more preflop raising in the 1/3 game than in the 1/2 game.
There's a hell of a lot more to strategic theory than the size of the blinds.
I tend to agree with the commenter that says he thinks 2+2'ers are arrogant, egotistical jackasses.
I think there's an explanation for that which is important to keep in mind whenever you follow any sort of intellectual pursuit.
The 2+2 publishing company touts itself as a provider of "correct information". I'm not sure that phrase actually has any real meaning, but the thought behind it is very comforting to a class of people who want desperately to be able to think of themselves as intellectuals even though they don't actually have the mental capacity to engage in true intellectual pursuits.
Such people tend to be quick to support ideas that simplistic and rigid. Being correct takes on some sort of meaning with bears no resemblance at all to being accurate. Complicated situations make them very uncomfortable. So they are quick to just assume away situational complications.