table types low limits on party

[diebitter]

I've been making my bones playing at 0.5-1 at party for about 7K hands, and tried last night to play both a 1-2 and 2-4 game.

I found the 1-2 games much, much tighter than 0.5-1, and it took ages to spot a suitably loose game. On 2-4 however, it was pretty much like looking through the 0.5-1 games, and maybe even looser...

Is this just a blip when I happened to be looking, or is this anyone else's experience?

If it is like this all the time, why? Is it all the 0.5-1 players moving up a bit, and deciding to tighten up, or what?

Also, does anyone have any experience at 3-6 and 5-10, and can comment on the different levels?

[Bodhi]

I have also found 1/2 to be tighter than 2/4. I don't know why and can't explain it.

[aron]

Don't play 2/4 but I've heard that it's beacause it's normally the lowest game in B&M.
So live players trying on line test their luck on 2/4.

-aron

[diebitter]

Hmmmm, sounds like the easiest thing to do is wait till my bankroll suits 2-4, and just jump 2 levels....

Any comments on how 2-4 compares to 3-6 and 5-10 on party?

[imported_leader]

I've never played .5/1. 1/2 has got a kind of semi loose passive feel to it. 2/4 is much LAG'yer by comparison. 2/4 has a lot more good players, but it also seems to have more really bad players. They are more bad aggressive then 1/2 fish.

[kapw7]

1/2 full ring in party is just a waste of time

[thesharpie]

No it's not.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say that, but I think I'll just be lazy and quote you.

[Nfinity]

[ QUOTE ]
1/2 full ring in party is just a waste of time

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. Amongst the many things I'm learning at 1/2 full is how to gear your play towards people at the table, instead of the table as a whole. Not to mention you get experience playing with a wide variety of player types that are virtually non-existant at .50/1 en masse.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1/2 full ring in party is just a waste of time

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. Amongst the many things I'm learning at 1/2 full is how to gear your play towards people at the table, instead of the table as a whole. Not to mention you get experience playing with a wide variety of player types that are virtually non-existant at .50/1 en masse.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can do all these at 2/4. And when you complete your "training" you make at least double the profit than 1/2 full. I guess it's a matter of BR (easy to build with all this BWing from what other ppl say) and taking some risk. But why do you gamble if you cannot take risks?

[bottomset]

because if you take a 50bb loss(not uncommon) it feels like a 200BB loss if you just made the switch

the 1/2 game is very very soft, 2/4 is a tougher game, more profitable but better average players

there is also a tendency to get gunshy at higher limits, when you first start there ... its more pronounced when you skip levels

and you guys do realize 1/2 is looser than all games 3/6 and higher

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
But why do you gamble if you cannot take risks?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because winning isn't about taking risks, it's about getting an advantage and grinding the other players into oblivion. Do you think the casinos are gambling with their 17% or so edge?

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
because if you take a 50bb loss(not uncommon) it feels like a 200BB loss if you just made the switch

[/ QUOTE ]

50bb are 50bb in any limit. Unless you are underbankrolled a 50BB is not a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
the 1/2 game is very very soft, 2/4 is a tougher game, more profitable but better average players

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to play with better players if you plan to become better

[ QUOTE ]
there is also a tendency to get gunshy at higher limits, when you first start there ... its more pronounced when you skip levels

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't have the balls don't risk money playing poker

[ QUOTE ]
and you guys do realize 1/2 is looser than all games 3/6 and higher

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe more passive. But looser? Again my experience is limited in 1/2 full ring. I found it too boring.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why do you gamble if you cannot take risks?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because winning isn't about taking risks, it's about getting an advantage and grinding the other players into oblivion. Do you think the casinos are gambling with their 17% or so edge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about winning in poker or in chess here?