Is this correct to assume

[Smokey98]

Let's assume I've been playing .50/1.00 games are party and I'm up say $10 in 20 minutes. Is it safe to assume that if the game wasn't .50/1.00 and was 2/4 instead that I would have won $40? In the first example it's 10xBB so 10xbb in 2/4 would be $40.

[mrjim]

Only if the card distribution is exactly the same, and your opponents (and you) play them exactly the same way.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume I've been playing .50/1.00 games are party and I'm up say $10 in 20 minutes. Is it safe to assume that if the game wasn't .50/1.00 and was 2/4 instead that I would have won $40? In the first example it's 10xBB so 10xbb in 2/4 would be $40.

[/ QUOTE ]

20 minutes in poker is so short that it's almost entirely random. I don't think it would be safe to assume anything based on it. Why do you ask?

[sucka]

I see the 'real' question that's being asked, in a nutshell, "are the games as good at the 2/4 level that I could beat them at the same rate I beat the .5/1 level?"

The answer is - there are more poor/bad players than good players at just about every level online. However, how well you play at a given level depends on several factors - many of them psychological. For example, if you only have a $50 bankroll and you jump into a 2/4 game, that would very likely affect your decision making process (I'll just call here and see what happens instead of raising like I should...).

The correct answer to your question has already been given. If all things were equal with the exception of the limit then you'd be up the same amount.

However, if you can't CONSISTENTLY beat the game over say 4000+ hands then you shouldn't move up to 1/2 or 2/4 until you've built a suitable bankroll (~$1200) and can safely weather the swings you will no doubt face there.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Only if ... your opponents (and you) play them exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... which is unlikely.

[Smokey98]

I don't know it just got me thinking.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only if ... your opponents (and you) play them exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... which is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the original poster would make fewer BBs at 1/2, but about as many at 2/4. The play is a smidgen better, but the rake is alot lower. 1/2 is the final resting place of many rocks.

Also 2/4 is pretty much the last shark free limit. Especially after SSH you're going to see a significant jump in sharks at 3/6 compared to 2/4.

But in general the higher the limit the lower your expected winnings counted in Big Bets will be. Mason has an article on this in his Poker Essays. Though with the significant drop in rake and miniscule increase in opponent skill level I think 0.5/1 and 2/4 are almost even.

[moondogg]

I only ask "why?" because it can be a treacherous line of thought. It sounded a lot like you may be tempted to use it as a reason to move up. It usually falls into the mistakes that losing gamblers make.

There are several reasons to move up, but a winning streak should be not be one of them.

Generally speaking, winning 10xBB in 20 minutes is a fluke. No matter how well anyone plays, that is quite simply a string of amazing luck. It happens to everyone from time to time, but you'll also get some -10xBB streaks, along a vast wasteland of 0xBB stretches.

20 minutes just can't tell you anything. Be careful about looking for any meaning in it, because there is none. If you look at it enough, you wills see something, because you want to see something, and it's just a mirage.

IMHO

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Though with the significant drop in rake and miniscule increase in opponent skill level I think 0.5/1 and 2/4 are almost even.


[/ QUOTE ]

And there's a HUGE difference (4x) in bankroll required. It only takes about $300 to play .5/1, but it takes about $1200 to play 2/4.