Playing multiple limits

[bdubs]

I was wondering what everyone's opinion is on playing multiple limits at the same time. For example, playing 2 5/10 and 2 3/6 games at the same time.

If my bankroll is large enough to play on 4 5/10s am I doing myself an injustice by playing below 5/10? My reasoning for this is if I go on a upswing on a 3/6 table while going on a downswing at a 5/10 then I am cheating myself out of a fairly significant sum of money.

Thanks as always!

[W. Deranged]

You should certainly be willing to play at lower levels given:

1. You can find profitable tables at that limit; particularly so when you cannot find profitable tables at 5/10

2. You don't have significantly more data for the higher level or something like that that might mean you are much better equipped to play the higher levels.

3. You are aware of the small adjustments necessary to switch between limits (the 1-3 blind structure in the 3/6, for example).

It is obviously stupid to pass up on playing lower limits when they are particularly profitable for pride/vanity/whatever reasons. You should simply be playing the most profitable tables that are available to you based on bankroll. If those tables are 3/6 and not 5/10, play the 3/6.

[Harv72b]

Play the best tables vs. the worst opponents. I mean, at some point you have to determine that it's not worth the extra BB/100 hands to play that much lower, but if we're only talking 1 or 2 levels' difference, that's just smart poker. I regularly multitable on different limits.

In fact, I think it's a huge error when people get stuck on the idea of being "a 3/6 player" or a "5/10 player". If you're bankrolled for 5/10 and that's what you normally play, great. But if you're slogging your way through a rock garden on a 5/10 table while there's a fishfest going on in a 3/6 game, then you are cheating yourself out of a significant amount of money.

[goodguy_1]

so true..play where you can make the most money no matter what the stakes game etc as long as you arent underplaying your skill-level and BR.
Problem is some players should perhaps be playing at one or two levels higher even if they play in mediocre games at the higher stakes they will be costing themselves money if they move down just to get in a "good" game.

For awhile I stopped playing short NLHE even thu I do well in those games. The reasons I stopped? NLHE you make less in rakeback and the games are more difficult to multi-table but there are certain games usually at nite where people are literally giving their money away..so now I keep an eye on a couple limits spread out over 2,3 different games.. $3-6,$5-10 F/6M and $100/$200 NL/PLHE F/6M and some PLO. If I step down to play a particularly "good" game and the action is spent-often the fish have busted out and you dont know it..I cut and run fast not to waste time putting in hours at a lower earn.

Party pot averages if I recall correctly use the prior 25 hands to compute pot averages- being there playing against the fish before they get busted is not easy to manage. Often if it's only one fish and the rest of the table is playing very tight and playing off the maniac this may not be the best game. I find it's best when you have 2 or 3 of these types of bad players for optimal conditions. So you often step down to what you think is a great game and instead it may not be worth your time considering the dynamics of the game ie laggy erroneous pot averages,your position to the donks etc-pot averages can be very deceptive.

[bdubs]

Thanks for the insight guys. I definately see what you mean about a juicy 3/6 game being more profitable than a tight 5/10 table. I have grown to see myself like someone put it as a "5/10 player," and now realize that I most likely have been cheating myself by playing in games that I know are not optimal but due to the fact that they are 5/10 I play in them anyways. Thanks again, best of luck to ya'll!