<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>MattMatros.com - Latest Comments in Harrah&amp;#8217;s Day Two</title><link>http://mattmatros.disqus.com/</link><description>Matt Matros.com</description><atom:link href="https://mattmatros.disqus.com/harrah8217s_day_two/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:52:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Harrah&amp;#8217;s Day Two</title><link>http://mattmatros.com/?p=220#comment-4432909</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Matt--&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I think this is something we're stuck with. As long as the masses measure the "depth" of a tournament by the number of BB's in a starting stack, this is how tournaments responding to market forces will measure it too. (A wonderful exception to this is PokerStars, which satisfies the masses with a big initial ratio, but also slows down the blind increases substantially at level 10 or so, at least in many of its biggest tournaments.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this is something I don't get bent out of shape about, simply because it's ultimately generated by the same sort of ignorance that also generates my profit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;--Nate&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nate</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:52:05 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>