Quote Originally Posted by HalvSame
I was torn within as to wether I should post this or not, it's not like I want to create a huge e-dramabomb or anything over what is not really a big deal. I luv all you guys and will of course agree to what ever is decided.

With that out of the way; if we were gonna allow 1kNL+ midway through, why did we cap the allowed stakes in the first place? I remember us discussing this in the original balla thread, and when it was decided that 5/10+ should not be allowed I was saddened as this would mean that I would not be able to participate. Still the reasons for capping it at 600NL were good, and frankly I don't see how those reasons have changed since then. To go ahead and un-cap after all half-way through the challenge sounds pretty strange to me, and I don't understand why I'm the only one who sees/thinks this.

Unfortunately being the one closest to sauce in the standings, coupled with the fact that I'm not gonna play higher than 2/4 for the duration of the challenge regardless, makes me come across as a bit of an asshole by pointing this out. To remedy this, here's a picture of a polar bear cub hugging his mother:


Edit: lol, couldn't sauce in theory just count his 5/10 live winnings FTW then?
yeah obv it doesn't follow any kind of liner rational set of rules

I figured having sauce count 60% of his profits at nl1k from this moment on would only help other ppl's chances (assuming the 1k games are tougher...).

I understand your reservations Halv. Since we all agreed to the terms at the start of this, it's best that we stick to them unless the 60% of winnings at nl1k seems like a good deal.