Can you get into bad habbits when making tthe switch from 1/2 to 2/4

[me454555]

After getting my butt kicked playing 2/4 for the last month, I dropped back down to 1/2 to regain my confidence and build up my bankroll. The results were amazing.

When playing 2/4 I hit a 100 BB downswing. Now I konw this isn't a HUGE life altering swing, it did make me analyze my game a lot. Today while playing 1/2, I immeidatly won 45 BBs. I know these results are due to the strandard deviation of the game and can be attributed to luck but I seemed to notice something significantly different about the 2 levels while I was playing.

It seems that in 1/2, aggressive play is rewarded a lot more than in 2/4. 1/2 seemed a lot tighter. I was able to semibluff and acutally get people to fold. While playing 2/4, they just call all the way to the river, drawing out on you. By playing draws aggressively on 1/2, I was sometimes able to win the hand by actually folding people instead of just getting called and having to hit my draw to win.

All this brings me to my question. Is there a better stratagy to employ when playing the looser and aggressive 2/4 than the more tight passive 1/2?

It seems the aggressive tactics I use to bully people out of the pot wastes money in 2/4 while they work great in 1/2. Does anyone else find a need to tone down their aggressive play b/c of the number of calling stations?

I feel like when I play 2/4 I play too passive or too aggressive. If anyone else felt like this when they made the switch, I'd like to know how you got over the hump.

[asdf1234]

Value bet more, bluff/semi-bluff less.

[me454555]

I was looking for something a little more concrete. Can you give specific examples

[Dylan Wade]

As the games get tighter I tend to bet my draws less agressively... often I'm forced to call or scare away pot odds. For example, say you have a flush draw, you're UTG+1, UTG bets, 3 callers behind you. In a very loose/passive game I raise every time. However, in a very tight/passive game-- I'll call hoping someone will raise behind.

On the other hand, trying to pick up pots is pretty stupid in a loose/passive game. Also, naturally in a tight game, you'll be much shorter handed. In these games AK has a legitimate semi-bluff/value bet on most flops that miss. When AK misses completely vs 9 players----- proceed (or not) with caution! 66-JJ are monsters in a shorthanded game, but their strength is greatly reduced when you see a flop with 9 opponents. They still have a lot of value..., but know when you're beat.

I don't think agressive play is any more useful in either game... it's just that you choose different spots to be agressive.

[Styles]

wow total opposite experience here.

2/4 rewards aggression more than 1/2. I'd say around twice as much /images/graemlins/wink.gif

2/4 also punishes bad judgement more than 1/2. I'd say around twice as much /images/graemlins/wink.gif

When I move down to 1/2 now it's like a watching a circus act.

[LetsRock]

I've found that 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, and 5/10 all have about the same level of play, depending on who is there. Any of the games can be tight or any of the games can be fishing expeditions.

You need to learn to adjust you play to the texture of the table regardless of the stakes. I don't know at what limit the play becomes generally "better" (more predictable), but part of being a good player is the ability to read the table and change gears as necessary, often in the middle of a session.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a better stratagy to employ when playing the looser and aggressive 2/4 than the more tight passive 1/2?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
While playing 2/4, they just call all the way to the river, drawing out on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second statement does not seem to indcate an aggressive game at the $2/4 level. It sounds like it is loose and passive with lots of calling stations, as opposed to the somewhat more tight (but presumably also passive) gaames you found at $1/2

I find this a little surprising since games generally get tigher and more aggressive as you go up in limits although there is, of course, great table variation in this respect. I would think it is harder to push people off hands, in general, at $1/2 that an $2/4.

That said, the advice given by asdf1234 to value bet more and bluff-semi-bluff less is excellent. If they won't fold anyway, don't waste chips trying to push them off hands. It won't work. Bet your draws for value if you can but don't semi-bluff bet where you have almost zero chance of scooping the pot. Bet your top pair (even if your kicker is suspect) against multiple opponents on the river. They will call with as little bottom pair or worse.

I hope that this helps.

Colgin

[me454555]

I just feel like when I play 2/4 I have to play so much more weak tight than 1/2 b/c of the # of calling stations.

Does that make any sense to anyone?

[JDErickson]

Yes it does. There are big differences between 1/2 and 2/4. 1/2 you can play more agressive, semi bluff occasionally and actually get people to fold sometimes. Most 2/4 tables are much looser and more passive. Playing agressive doesn't have the same benefits as at 1/2. You still want to play your made hands or good draws aggressively but forget semibluffs. They are not going to fold. You are going to have to show down the best hand. If you AK whifs every street I may bet the river at 1/2 and expect to win the pot enough times to make it profitable. At 2/4 I will ck/fold it as they will not fold no matter what they have.

YOu definately have to adjust your game for 2/4 over 1/2

Jim

[me454555]

Thanx for the response. I was really hoping to hear from ya. As one of the players, I tend to play w/most often, you've got the best vantage point to analyze my game. I'm starting to think that a more weak tight approach to the 2/4 game will lead to better results.