10-20 is more fun
 

I have played both the 10-20 & 5-10 6-max. I am not a super serious player nor do I keep super accurate records, so I am not sure which limit is more "profitable." However, it seems generally the 10-20 games are loose, aggressive whereas the 5-10 games are mostly tight passive and sometimes loose passive. So whereas the 5-10 games are probably a lot easier to beat, they are also a lot less exciting/fun for those of us that gamble for the good old fashioned adreniline rush, and not just to maximize our bb/100.

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

10/20 can be >> 5/10. Just means you stil have a long way to go. No biggie. SOme day after you've played higher for a while youll look back at the 10/20, remember this post, and laugh your ass off.

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

[ QUOTE ]
10/20 can be >> 5/10. Just means you stil have a long way to go. No biggie. SOme day after you've played higher for a while youll look back at the 10/20, remember this post, and laugh your ass off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for yet another useful post. You're really on a roll.

I have 75k-100k hands above 10/20. It still doesn't change my original question.

Nigel

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

[ QUOTE ]
im really glad someone posted this thread, because this is interesting and disappointing at the same time. i had been planning to make the jump to 10/20 shortly, but may now just stay at 5/10. my plan was to 4table the 10/20 game, but maybe its just a better idea if i 8table 5/10 instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

Doing more than 4 tables of anything is going to be a pure auto-pilot game. This gets dull quickly and your growth as a poker player is entirely stunned. If you combine the rake PLUS the rake back you have to add a significant number of 5/10 tables to make it more profitable than 10/20. Getting back to the original point though, playing less tables (2-4) of 10/20 allows you to concentrate on your game and provide a skill set that will help you beat higher stake players in the future. This is paramount for anyone playing poker, because ultimately we all want to move up. If you talk to some of the 2+2ers who are playing the 50/100 - 100/200 game, all will encourage you to move up faster. This is not to suggest that everyone should drop what they are doing and head on to the high stakes, because time + experience + BR management are skills you need to acquire first, but it should be a priority. While I respect Tstone, 8tabling 5/10 will do very little for the overall profit and do wonders on the burn out scale.

That being said, I have over 75k hands of 10/20 mostly 4 tabling. I have during this stretch experimented with 2 tables and while my bb/100 was proportionally slighly better, the game was more interesting. I was able to captilize on specific players and the game was more rewarding, not to mention less stressful! My bb/100 over this stretch has been a dissapointing 1.45bb/100, but I do a lot of experimenting and my game fluctuates every 20k hands. For some reason A9o has been a (.20) loser and that seriously affected the bottom line. I can probably contribute my bad win rate to bad stretches and shitty luck, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the game is less profitable than the 5/10. Ironically my success at 5/10 over a 100k sample in terms of bb/100 was not much better. I think I do better in a LAG environment, so I suppose each of one you needs to determine what kind of playing setting is best suited for you.

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

I wouldn't say less than 2 BB/100 is a bad winrate. For myself, I ran at less than 1BB/100 for the first 100k hands at 10/20. This was still a significant amount of change, and making money while masterinng a new limit was great.

That said, the last 50k hands have ran at about 4BB/100. I think it's as beatable as 5/10, just a lot harder to do so. Table selection is much more important, as at 10/20 your LAGs are better, your TAGs are better, and that guy with a 33 VPIP and a .3 aggression rating randomly bluffraises the river. I've found terrible games full of 3-4 awful players, and I've looked up from multitabling to find myself with 2 players who are 20/15 and 2 players that are 30/20 and are trying to outplay me on every flop.

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

An often forgotten fact is that you are paying on average .7BB/100 less in rake on 10/20.

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

[ QUOTE ]
An often forgotten fact is that you are paying on average .7BB/100 less in rake on 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is this true?

I was trying to calculate this the other day, but did not come up with that figure.

Oh, wait... when you say "0.7 BB" do you mean BB = $10 or BB = $20?

EDIT: Ahhh.... got it. You mean in *respective* BB's... Actually, I came up with a rake of 2.7 BB/100 at 5/10 and 1.7 BB/100 at 10/20.... even better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


hmmm... just did it again using my *own* rake from the General PT Tab... comes up to about a 0.8 BB/100 difference. So I guess it's fair to say somewhere between 0.8-1.0 BB/100 difference. Nice still.


Adam

AWE & WONDER
 

I've been taking a few stabs at 2-tabling the 10/20 SH game... only 1500 hands so far, but there are two things on my mind thus far:


AWE: I'm in awe over how bad some of the players are still at 10/20. Lots of players with stats the likes of 45/9/0.5. And others who are maniacs. Simply awesome, especially if you get them on your immediate right. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

WONDER: Seeing these horrible players, it makes we wonder where all the money is coming from. I mean, $500 buy-ins are no longer "petty cash" and doubt many people has this type of regular disposable income. Does the money trickle up from the micro-limits? or is it mainly coming from degerate gambling addicts and/or rich folks looking for entertainment?


Adam

Re: Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe from the hands I've see that your basic 2+ BB/100 player at 5/10 would be less than a 1 BB/100 player at 10/20. I think the move will be tough because you have to cut down on tables while earning a lower winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that it's actually possible to maintain one's same winrate due to the fact that the rake is 1 bb/100 less.


True anyone?



Adam