Why do mid-high stakes games exist?

[iversonian]

I'm a 6-12 player. When I see a 20-40 game, for the most part, I see notice that the players are basically competent, and that they could probably beat the 6-12. Now, at that 20-40 table, there are some players that are not playing with an edge. Why is it that they play the 20-40 instead of a lower limit? This applies to higher stakes players as well. The 3-6 and 6-12 players, they're just looking for some diversion from daily life and lose a couple hundred bucks at the tables, no big deal. But folks playing 20-40 are, I would imagine, smart enough to realize that losing money, when they could be winning it instead, is kinda stupid. What is a typical personal profile of a losing 20-40 player?

[mmcd]

But folks playing 20-40 are, I would imagine, smart enough to realize that losing money, when they could be winning it instead, is kinda stupid.


lol

[elindauer]

Everyone thinks they are better than they are. Also, many people simply enjoy gambling, and don't get the same thrill from the lower limits.

[iversonian]

Alright, what limit do you play? One limit above that, why do THEY play that limit?

[Paluka]

Ever hear of gambling? Some people seem to enjoy it.

[mmcd]

I'll anywhere from 15/30-100/200. I assure you there are plenty of idiots at all levels of poker except for the highest (1k/2k, etc.). In a typical live 20/40 game, I'd be very surprised to see anymore than than 3 players that are competant.

[BarronVangorToth]

This is an interesting post. I fall into the category of someone who does from time to time play higher stakes, but I normally play lower than I can play simply because I do better (not only BB/hour -- but total profit) playing at 5/10 or 10/20 than I do at 20/40. The reason? It's obvious: poorer competition. However, one cannot get better without playing with better people from time to time.

You can take this further down to the times I was playing the 3/6 game at the Goldstrike in Tunica when I was there last month and I almost felt like it was a colossal waste of time as there was just such poor play, I almost felt like I was getting worse every moment I sat there.

While I don't play for a living, I do want to get progressively better -- all while at the same time NOT losing any money -- so in order to do this, I work up the limits slowly. I imagine that I would get a lot better a lot quicker if I just played 20/40 ... however, I would invariably LOSE money in the short-term and that would annoy me. Seeing as how I don't want to be annoyed in something I'm doing for fun, I choose to work myself up gradually with occasional shots at the higher games ONLY when I see horrendous competition ... or if I'm just waiting for my seat to open at a lower table.

Those are my reasons. I'm sure others have other ones.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Ulysses]

Some people have a lot more money than you do.

[SA125]

I played in a 10-20 game yesterday. A guy was playing almost every hand and raised almost every one he played. He called 2 cold and later open raised himself with 23o and won both. No lie.

If you have the bankroll and skill level for it, would you rather play him at 6-12 or 10-20? They find their way into the 15-30 also.

[GuyOnTilt]

They find their way into the 15-30 also.

I haven't played high stakes yet, but at my 40/80 tables there are tons of uberfish. The difference is it takes more skill to know how to take advantage of their tons of leaks increase your expectation from your typical 40-game fish than your typical 10-game uberfish. From my limited experience, most of your solid 10 game players would BE the 40 game fish. It's all relative.

GoT

[SA125]

"From my limited experience, most of your solid 10 game players would BE the 40 game fish. It's all relative"

That's interesting. How would you compare the 15 and 20 players to the 40 players? I play mostly 10 for BR reasons, but also play 15 with no problem and I'm close to having the roll to play it regularly.

I've played with plenty of regular 15 and 20 players when they drop down and don't find them to be yards above the best of the 10 players. Then again, there's always a 20 game and maybe the guys who never have to drop down are a level above. What do you think?

[shant]

I play 6/12, and I've seen horrible players that I thought were getting up to go home find their way to the 15/30 and 20/40 tables. This has happened almost every time I've played 6/12 at that particular B&M, and it happens with several of the players. Some people like gambling.

[Ryno]

Suppose you play 20/40 Holdem with an expectation of -5BB/hour and a stdev of 25BB/hr. You are a wild LAG, who loses a lot. In $$ terms, you are losing $200 per hour with a stdev of $1000 per hour.

Now, take an average blackjack player betting $100 a hand, seeing 85 hands per hour. He will have a standard deviation of ~$1000. His turnover is $100 X 85 = $8500 per hour. If the house has a 2.35% hold on the player, he is no better off playing blackjack than poker.

2.35% is a lot, relative to the best achievable 0.40% or so at the Indian casinos around here (assuming we are not counting). But the casinos claim a hold rate of 2% on blackjack, including the many people who play good basic strategy, so the bad players are losing more than 2%.

Poker is more fun than blackjack, with odds similar to or better than most casino games, even if you suck at it. The question should be, why aren't more people playing poker?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a 6-12 player. When I see a 20-40 game, for the most part, I see notice that the players are basically competent, and that they could probably beat the 6-12. Now, at that 20-40 table, there are some players that are not playing with an edge. Why is it that they play the 20-40 instead of a lower limit? This applies to higher stakes players as well. The 3-6 and 6-12 players, they're just looking for some diversion from daily life and lose a couple hundred bucks at the tables, no big deal. But folks playing 20-40 are, I would imagine, smart enough to realize that losing money, when they could be winning it instead, is kinda stupid. What is a typical personal profile of a losing 20-40 player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys who work on the trading floor I work on make 6-7 figures. On Fridays, there is a 1-card Trivial Pursuit contest between two of them, and most of the floor wagers on the outcome. There will typically be a thousand dollars or more total riding on this. One of the guys got audited last year, the IRS claimed he owes $2 million. He went in and fought it and got it reduced to $30k. He still claims it's wrong, but several of the other traders told him to just pay the $30k because it wasn't worth it to fight it any more.

You think these guys would get any thrill out of a game below 15/30??

[Justin A]

But folks playing 20-40 are, I would imagine, smart enough to realize that losing money, when they could be winning it instead, is kinda stupid.

Ask yourself why there are Blackjack and Craps tables with $100 minimums. Why wouldn't these players play at $5 tables when they can figure to lose a lot less? It's because they can also win a lot more. And poker players usually think they're good enough to beat the game, so by playing higher they think they're making more money.

Justin A

[obi---one]

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you there are plenty of idiots at all levels of poker except for the highest (1k/2k, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I assure you there are idiots/maniacs in the 1-2 games