Is A Higher Limit Game Easier For Some People?

[TomBrooks]

Most people believe the higher the limit, the harder the game. However, there are some who feel some higher limit games are easier than the limit just below it.

Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, most of the people who make claims like this do so based on a completely insignificant sample size.

They play some low limit poker and always get sucked out on. So they move up, catch a good run, do well and then claim that the higher limits are easier. Or, they simply have one speed (one style of play) and they can only make that style work at a specific limit. They're not really a great player because they have no clue how to adapt their play to fit a variety of limits - or more accurately a variety of tables. Instead of adjusting their own style of play/strategy to the table/limit they're playing - they adjust the tables/limits they select to fit their style of play.

There are some big problems with the second example. Some games are going to be tight, some games are going to be loose and some games will fall in between - regardless of what limit you're playing. This again is a sample size issue where, for example, the person in question doesn't have enough experience to have seen the games at "their" limit play anything but tight. In time they will find that the current game at "their" limit becomes super loose for an extended period of time. They will fail to understand why they're not beating the game. It has nothing to do with the limit - it has to do with the player's failure to adjust to the table texture.

IMO, if you played at the same limit, at the same table, with the same 9 opponents, who always played exactly the same way - you could easily be taught to beat the game. But, poker is not played in a vaccuum like this. Tables change, limits change, new opponents come and go and these players change their strategy from time to time (either randomly - or because they get better or worse).

The good, experienced players adjust to these changing conditions and continue to beat the game. The bad players make statements like "I should stop playing 2/4 and move to 10/20 where players respect my raises".

[restless]

Possibly, if they're bad.
Weird huh?
What I mean is that if a player is unable to adapt to for example a loose low-limit game, he may have a higher earn-rate if he consistantly can find tight-weak games on a higher limit. Mainly I don't think it has anything to do with the actual limit, more a question about table conditions.
It's absolutely silly to think that anyone is "too good" to beat low-limit games.

[ QUOTE ]
where players respect my raises

[/ QUOTE ]. I still don't understand, after 250K hands online and probably 100K B&M, what that sentance is supposed to mean. If you raise to me, I should fold? I see it all the time here, and I was playing last night against a TAG, flopped a set, bet, he raised, someone 3bet, I capped. Who is respecting who here?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
probably 100K B&M

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this?

[damaniac]

I feel that some players do better in higher games. For ex, I have a friend who just sucks at .50/1, but does alrght at 3/6. Granted sample size is a big part of this, but it also has to do with his inability to adjust. .50/1 is pretty darned passive, and he fails to take that into account when playing, so while his assumptions of donkishness are more accurate at 3/6 (and this his play is more correct), his failure to account for changes at different levels hurts him.

Now of course, all this means is that he is a fairly poor poker player, even if he can beat the 3/6. Poker is in large part about adjusting to different conditions, what is right against one player in one instance isn't right in another situation against the same player, or a similar set of circumstances against a different player. So if you go into .50/1 hardwired to play like you're in a 5/10 game say, you won't win as much as you should. However, you probably aren't a very good player if this is the case, and I'd still be surprised to see a higher winrate over a large sample size at the higher level, but even so, beating 3/6 for 1.5/100 and .50/1 for 2/100 is probably somewhat alarming.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that was wild. My keyboard went nuts there. Thats 1K, not 100K. I think I was typing 1000 and instead hit 100K. Sorry.

[sfer]

A regular at the old Playstation told bdk3clash (they were playing 4/8) that his game is really more suited to 40/80. I can't wait to run into him again in AC.

[Shiva]

To answer your question last nite I played on two tables of $15-$30 on Pokerstars. Table stats are as follows:

Table 1
VP$IP - 38%, Aggression 9% BB -1.4 table had 3 players playing 70% of their hands

Table 2
VP$IP - 42% Aggession 8.1% BB +1.2 table had 2 players who played 60% of their hands

My $3-$6 tables averages VP$IP 26% PF Aggression 4.0 mixed bag of tight fishies and calling stations.

After almost 200K hands at all limits I find the higher limits tend be somewhat looser with much more aggression preflop and deception post flop.

So it really depends and how good you play in LAG games and how much variance you are willing to put up with. What is interesting is I average almost 5BB/100 at $10-20 and up and almost $3BB/100 in $3-$6 and below. Now if I could just stay away from NL...that's another story

Poopy Pants

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is I average almost 5BB/100 at $10-20 and up and almost $3BB/100 in $3-$6 and below.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is crunchy's point. I'll go out on a limb here and posit that you don't have a very large number of hands in the 10/20 and up range.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
After almost 200K hands at all limits

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I average almost 5BB/100 at $10-20 and up

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this?

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't think this situation occurs very often, if at all. Higher limits have generally better players. "Better players" doesn't mean just "more aggression" or "tighter" or "better hand reading". "Better players" means, in general, "better at taking advantage of their opponents weaknesses."

Let's suppose PlayerX is a habitual bluffer. Now in theory, you could argue that PlayerX will have better results at 5/10 than .5/1 because 5/10 players are more capabible of folding to bluffs than .5/1 players are. And while this may be true for a short while, there are also a larger number of 5/10 players who will adjust to PlayerX and start punshishing him for bluffing so much. And I have to believe that the money lost because opponents adjust to PlayerX has to far outweigh the money won because PlayerX's bluffs work more often.

As a sanity test, try applying this to any other skilled discipline. Are there baseball players who are better against major league pitching (with better pitches and better pitch selection, and better adjustments to the batters tendencies) than against minor league pitching? I suppose there may be rare cases, but there aren't many.

Part of the beauty of poker is the huge impact of short-term luck. People can play thousands of hands and have an earnings rate that far exceeds their actual quality of play. This makes it very hard to accurately judge the calibre of their opponents, and makes it easy to say things like "I'm doing good because this level is easier than the other one" when, in fact, it's just short-term luck doing its thing.

[paperboyNC]

If you play brick & mortar poker, you are paying $4 in rake per hand + $1 in jackpot + $1 in tip + waitress, chip runner and cashier, valet parking tips, etc.

It's very hard to overcome all of these expenses playing $2/$4. So it can be much easier to come out on top playing a higher limit.

paperboy

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, this isn't true, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Most of the people who claim to lose in small games, but beat big games don't have a clue.

There is a well known donator who plays at the Borgata. He told me that when he plays 20/40 he doesn't take it seriously, but when he plays 40/80 he plays "real poker." So I told him, "Wow, imagine how good you could be if you played 80/160!"

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very hard to overcome all of these expenses playing $2/$4. So it can be much easier to come out on top playing a higher limit.


[/ QUOTE ]
True. But this has nothing to do with playing style. This is simply a function of the economics of B&M poker.

[silkyslim]

i know its not necessarily true but I find 2/4 easier than 1/2. Do you know why, because when I was playing 1/2 I had 50,000 less hands under my belt.

[MaxPower]

One thing is definitely true. Loose-passive players are the most profitable opponents to play against by a large margin (no matter what your individual style). No other type of player even comes close.

In the mid-limit games online, they are almost non-existent.

In mid-lmiit live games they exist, but the are a lot more lags.

Lags are not nearly as profitable as loose-passives, and they are much more difficult to play against.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a well known donator who plays at the Borgata. He told me that when he plays 20/40 he doesn't take it seriously, but when he plays 40/80 he plays "real poker." So I told him, "Wow, imagine how good you could be if you played 80/160!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you this in confidence you bastard.

[sudic]

Ok Guys!
This is a true story!

I have a friend who plays low level semi-pro.

He's been playing about six years.

1st year he lost a few thousands.
2nd year he broke even.
3rd year he won back what he lost the first year.
4th year he won $43K
5th year he won $105K
6th year (this year) he's averaging 20K a month.

He almost played in the WSOP but he chicken out at the last moment.

He usually plays 30/60 and up.

When I asked him did he ever play at the low limits he said he played some of the spread limits 1-5 for a little while, a couple of months, then moved up.

His coach is one of the guys who do play in WSOP and those types of tourneys and wanted him to move up to the real money.

I have watch him play online in some of those 30/60 and up games and he does win hundreds and some time 1K in a hour or two.

He only plays a couple of hours a day and his bankroll is over 100K!

One time I was whining to him about the bad beats and suck outs that was driving me crazy and he decided to play at 2/4 and show me how its done.

Guess what!
He couldn't win!

He only played for an hour on three boards but the best he did was break even on one of the boards.

I know its a very small sample size but all his semi-bluffs, c/r, aggression., etc didn't help.
They just called him down every hand.

He finally admitted that he doesn't have the patience to win at such a low money level.

It was a question of desire not skill!

It can happen in other areas of knowledge.
A Grandmaster chess player who doesn't have the patience to teach a beginner or a math professor with several letters behind his name who can't get across algebra to his students.

Oh well my 2.5c worth.

Sorry for the long post!

[Shiva]

Unless Poker Tracker is lying I am quite sure. I think Crunchy's point is right on. I have only 25K hands online at $10-$20 and up by playing a tighter more boring brand of poker at the higher limits. Playing exclusing at $20-$40 in the Bay Area live ring games I notice similar behavior in those game as well. Guys at lower limits taking their shots in a much more aggressive, deceptive and generally looser game than the online $3-$6. What I was trying to say is that adjustments are need to succeed at each level.

[Shiva]

Exactly Crunchy's point. With only 25K hands I would say the short term luck factor definately works here.

[winky51]

Higher limits are tougher.

There is a significant difference between 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, and 5/10 (ones I have played)

Big difference from Full Table to Short Handed at the same limit, 3/6 for example.

You also have to adjust to the average # of callers, how often they raise, and the players themselves.

With the same hand and flop with one young aggressive (bad) player I will call down. If the little passive old lady raises me I fold the same hand. Really depends.

Like if your in a low limit game with 6-8 people to the flop and its almost never raised preflop then calling with Axs in EP is correct. If you don't loosen up in these games you are only losing.

To the same effect you try that at online 3/6 and you will get eaten alive as usually PF is raised.

If you don't adjust you lose and yes one player's style can fit a particular limit. I had to adjust back to playing 1/2 at the indians (for fun with wife). I was playing too tight and losing money. It was driving me nuts. Soon as I loosened up things changed. Of course I couldn't play this at PP's 3/6. I'd lose my ass.

So adjust to the table as a whole, # of callers, how often they raise preflop, and the player types.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
...he decided to play at 2/4 and show me how its done.

Guess what!
He couldn't win!

He only played for an hour on three boards but the best he did was break even on one of the boards.

I know its a very small sample size but all his semi-bluffs, c/r, aggression., etc didn't help.
They just called him down every hand.

He finally admitted that he doesn't have the patience to win at such a low money level.

It was a question of desire not skill!

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - 1 hour * 3 tables != sufficient sample size

2 - "they called him down every hand" - so why was he continuing to semi-bluff, etc? A "good" player would have stopped doing that and started value-betting until his finger fell off.

3 - While he may not have the patience to play for a long period of time at that low level (which is understandable, since he's theoreticlly costing himself hundreds of dollars each hour he stays there), saying it's all a matter of desire doesn't appear to be accurate here (see point #2)