5/10 vs 10/20

I always made the assumption that as you move up in limits, the game would get tougher. By tougher, I mean, tighter, better starting hands, and less people playing poor hands to a SD. Although my sample size is not huge (about 15K on 5/10 and now about 6K on 10/20), it seems to me that the 10/20 is a much looser game (this is on PP). I have found it more profitable because I am getting paid for my good hands, whereas on 5/10, quite often, a raise pf would get too much respect and I wouldn't get paid for my good hands and since I play Sklansky's SSHE type hands, I need to win on my good hands, because I am not in that many hands to begin with. Is this just an anomaly due to insufficient sample size, or were my assumptions about higher limits wrong.

70 plus reads and not a single reply. is my question that bad?

The players will be more aggressive and play better/harder postflop.

That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to be the case. I find that they seem to play worse post flop, that is, pay off on poor hands much more frequently.

[stillbr]

You could just be running good. From what little experiance I have at 10-20, it seemed much more aggressive than 5-10.

Small sample size most likely. When moving up in limits, the games generally don't get easier.

[aslowjoe]

There are alot of bad players at bith levels. But the good players are better and there is a few more of them at 10/20. I do agree 10/20 is more aggresive. And generaly a loose passive player is easier to play against then a loose aggresive and tricky player.

The game is of cause tougher at 10/20. But you are maybe riding on a winning streak at the moment, or maybe you've been up against some loaded american business men;)

[cnfuzzd]

to quote, er, to paraphrase "have a friend hit you several times in the nuts. if you can handle that, you are ready for the 10/20 game"

youve been on a nice streak. Get ready....

peace

john nickle