For the record, Nelly told me that a good player must know how to manage every situations, and I fully agree with that.
But that was not my point. I wanted to say that managing newbies or unskilled players inside a game lowers the average level of the game.
Your strategy for the game repeats itself, as I said, you know you have to be extra careful the first 10 hands because of all-in, following that you know you'll wait really strong hands because of calling stations and so on until it only stays in the game good players. At this time you can begin to play a higher poker level, more complex strategies.
That's a pattern today I know by heart and it's not really motivating any more.
That's why a league system would be precious. While playing with good players from the start, strategies and averall game levels will be higher, so more interesting for good players able to reach the high steps of the league ladder (so having proved they can manage any situation before).
The administrator has disabled public write access.
And I noticed exactly the contrary. It's obvious a good player playing with unskilled players has never increased his level. The only way to improve your level is to play with players as good as you or better players. It's true in poker and everywhere else...
At each step, newbies come in, learn by playing with strong opponents. They become better, begin to win, the newer players in the step learn from them. Once the player level is really above the current level, he climbs a level. It's like in the educative system, you do have different classes with different levels. The league system is exactly the same.
Moreove, in the current ladder system, a smart guy can check people in the games before joining, leaving the game if it finds people better than him, in order to have greater chances to win the game. In a league system, the gap between the levels of different players is less strong so it discourages his bad behaviour.