The 2/4 to 3/6 Jump

[Kevin]

[ QUOTE ]
. Does someone have some long term rake % numbers to show the difference between these levels?


[/ QUOTE ]

2/4: 27,387 hands, average rake: $0.98, % of Pot 3.46%
3/6: 152,576 hands, average rake: $1.46, % of Pot 3.59%

Been a few months since I was in the 2/4 and the sample size is pretty small, but probably adequate sample for 3/6

[helpmeout]

Personally I think your winrate is a bit too weak. I think 3bb/100 is nothing special at $2/$4 so you should at least get it above this.

If you want to improve cut back on tables and concentrate on the game, you obviously dont need to make a living from it.

$2/$4 is a very easy game and yes $3/$6 is much harder its a totally different game.

$3/$6 is much more aggressive with less limpers, you will find that there arent as many fish.

The blind structure is also different and takes a bit of getting use to.

6max is good to learn, it'll help your play in late position as well as blind defense. The 6max games at the higher limits are also 10 times better than the full games so you better get some cheap experience.

[alekhine8]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for you though Stupendous. Why buy the second monitor when you can just ad more party skins? You may not be aware but there is a little registry trick to play more than 4 tables at a time with party software.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on a second - are you saying you can play more than four tables at a time on one Party skin?

[Festus22]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think your winrate is a bit too weak. I think 3bb/100 is nothing special at $2/$4 so you should at least get it above this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dagnabit Help, that's what I was thinking when I made the original post and had convinced myself that I should take a shot at 3/6. Now you come along and ruin my nice little plan [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

Seriously, I hear win rate quotes all the time and many claim 3 or 4 BB/100 at 2/4 routinely. Without any other reference, I take it at face value that their numbers are accurate and valid and quite impressive. Maybe it's a timing thing that I only play afternoons and early evenings EST. Who knows.

But back to my original dilema, 2.5/100 at 2/4 seems pretty pedestrian by 2+2 standards so maybe I'm back to the drawing board. Other thoughts on this subject?

[Victor]

2.5BB/100 is a great winrate. you are beating the games and beating them substantially. this shows that you have working knowledge of poker basics and are able to make adjustments.

so, when you sit down, will you immediately be a winning be a winning 3-6 player? proly not, but no one is immediately a winning player in new environments. however, i do think that you will make the necessary adjustments that you will win very very quickly. if not, who cares, go back down to 2-4. so long as your bankroll size does not effect your lifestyle i think you should take as many shots as possible.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
2.5BB/100 is a great winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. 3+ is crushing the game, don't let anyone tell you different.

[helpmeout]

We are talking about $2/$4 arent we? not $15/$30.

The problem with a low winrate like that is when you move up to a tougher game your winrate will drop unless you improve significantly.

You might go from 2.5 to 1.5 or even less.

Festus how do you feel your game is going at $2/$4? Do you feel that the game is too easy and you need a new challenge or do you think you are just beating it and looking to make more money?

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2.5BB/100 is a great winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. 3+ is crushing the game, don't let anyone tell you different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also agreed. I'm sorry, but helpmeout continues to talk about beating 2/4 or 3/6 for 5 BB/100, and that's just ridiculous. I highly doubt anyone on here can beat either 2/4 or 3/6 for 5BB/100 in the long term, and anyone skilled enough to has no reason to play enough hands to have an adeqate sample size to prove it.

As for moving up.

Put it this way -- many have speculated that 2/4 may be juicier than 1/2, because 1/2 is unduly tight for some reason. My winrate in 16k hands at 1/2 is 2.4 BB/100. My winrate in 22k hands at 2/4 is .74 BB/100. My winrate in 9k hands at 3/6 is 2.52 BB/100.

It's been said before, I just think that this is a nice illustration. 10k hands is a small sample size -- I doubt that I'm really beating 3/6 for 2.5 BB. 20k hands is a small sample size -- I really REALLY doubt I'm beating 2/4 for only .75 BB. Most likely, my win-rate is somewhere around 2. But even after 65k hands over four levels, I can't say that with any solid degree of confidence.

If you're bankrolled and you're winning 2 BB/100 or so at 2/4, or if you feel your winrate is skewed because of a real bad streak (as I know happened twice in my 2/4 hands) then take a shot at 3/6. You can always retreat back to 2/4. I've done it multiple times, mostly because I occassionally withdrawn money and then have to replace it, or whatever. Just make sure to play it safe enough that you've got a roll of some kind. If 3/6 gets off to a bad start and you drop 50-100 BB, then take time to recuperate at 2/4.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think your winrate is a bit too weak

[/ QUOTE ]
You also think that people shouldn't multi table unless they're winning >5 bb/100.

[ QUOTE ]
I think 3bb/100 is nothing special at $2/$4

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong. Winning 3 BB/100 at 2/4 is playing very good poker. People seem to think 3 BB/100 is standard, it is not.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to improve cut back on tables and concentrate on the game

[/ QUOTE ]
THis really isn't true in all cases. I've been playing 6 tables for my last 6Kish hands and its really helpes me to focus more. I had too much downtime playing 4 tables and it caused me to distract myself with other stuff. Playing 6 had made me focus a lot more.

[ QUOTE ]
$2/$4 is a very easy game and yes $3/$6 is much harder its a totally different game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that 3/6 is ahrder than 2/4. I wouldn't say 3/6 is much harder or totally different. It's tighter, but not even by that much.

[ QUOTE ]
$3/$6 is much more aggressive with less limpers, you will find that there arent as many fish.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're overstating the degree to which this is true. It is, but not by as much as you claim.

[ QUOTE ]
The blind structure is also different and takes a bit of getting use to.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the single most important factor in the switch. Very good point that needs to be emphasiazed mroe.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The blind structure is also different and takes a bit of getting use to.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the single most important factor in the switch. Very good point that needs to be emphasiazed mroe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The 1/3 blind structure really has to give you pause on some of the hands you complete with, especially with the somewhat tight tables. Plenty of hands that I would automatically complete the SB with in .5/1 and 1/2, even 2/4, have to become a fold at times in 3/6. The "any two suited" rule is a good example of a rule that doesn't always apply anymore -- I won't complete 92s in the SB playing 3/6 unless there've been more limpers than normal for a 3/6 game.