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

Maybe it has always been this way, but 10/20 seems like a shark fest these days. Every table I sit at, I see the same players, day after day. How some of them manage to play every day without going broke is another story, but for the most part, most seem to be decent players and I'm sure a good number are 2+2ers.

On the other hand, you have 5/10 with about 300 million tables running at all times filled with some of the worse poker players on the planet. Even most of the good players are so easy to play against because they are so damn TAGish and they let you punish them with position, especially against their blinds which they happily hand over.

It's so easy to find 4 or more great 5/10 tables that it seems you could easily be 6 tabling that game whereas 2-3 tables seems to be the norm for 10/20. In fact, I was quite surprised to see in one of the recent threads how many people aren't massively multi-tabling the 10/20 and instead opt for just a couple of tables. I thought 8 tabling was very en vogue at 2+2. I am also surprised when I see WR's mentioned that many people aren't even clearing 2BB/100 (myself included, in fact I think I should post another thread altogether about my pathetic WR in the 10/20).

Overall, it seems that when you combine rakeback with the ease of the game that multi-tabling 5/10 could be a more profitable game.

Has my running bad for the past 5 days in this game gone to my head? Is this just crazy talk?

Nigel

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

I think you are absolutely right. I strongly encourage 2+2'ers to avoid the Party 10/20 6max game at all costs.

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

I was going to post something similiar to this with 8 tabling 1/2 vs 2-4 tabling 5/10. But then I came to my senses. Do you guys think 5/10 to 10/20 is a bigger jump than 1/2 to 5/10? It can't be IMO

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

I see tons of horrible players at 10/20, I don't think the games are shark infested at all. But I still can't seem to win of course. Only 4k hands though.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Has my running bad for the past 5 days in this game gone to my head? Is this just crazy talk?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine it to be true. The players are bad, just different. I'm not sure it's much less profitable if at all. You also have to consider the reduced effect of take on winrate.

Krishan

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

Krishan,

But you are of the opinion that it's close? That 10/20 is not vastly more profitable than 5/10?

I am kind of surprised that more people aren't commenting on this thread. Given the plethora of 'moving up' posts in the past, I would think that more people would have some long term experience with which game has earned them more $$/hr.

Thanks,

Nigel

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

[ QUOTE ]
But you are of the opinion that it's close? That 10/20 is not vastly more profitable than 5/10?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not there permanently yet. 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.

I can see how great 10/20 players can make way more than 5/10 players. I think it's just when you move up that your earning potential goes down.

Krishan

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

Just opion about myself here. And dont have a large enough sample at 10/20 yet to do anything but speculate... but I think it would be somewhat more profitable for me to 2 table 10/20 than to 4 table 5/10.

I say this because I dont feel super competant at multitabling, while I feel I have an edge on analizing who is doing what and what it means.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Just opion about myself here. And dont have a large enough sample at 10/20 yet to do anything but speculate... but I think it would be somewhat more profitable for me to 2 table 10/20 than to 4 table 5/10.

I say this because I dont feel super competant at multitabling, while I feel I have an edge on analizing who is doing what and what it means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maxx,

I feel the same way. Although I have managed to do ok multitabling, I have recently felt that my play has improved dramatically since dropping down to 2-3 tables. Unfortunately, I am in a massive downswing which is normalizing all the results of my 2-3 table experiment and I'm starting to wonder if I have overrating the negative effect a couple more tables had on my win rate. I'd like to give this downswing a chance to even out, but I fear that I'm wasting a lot of money trying to find out what's what.

Safe to say, I'm one confused poker player right now. Since I've been posting like a maniac today, maybe I should start a thread on the effects of multitabling.

Nigel

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

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.

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

Re: AWE & WONDER
 

There's an article in this week's Sports Illustrated about online poker, and it profiles an Indiana University student who has lost something like $55K on gambling (most of which, I gathered, is poker), admits he doesn't play correct strategy, but asserts that he is not addicted because he could in theory walk away at any time (though apparently he hasn't yet). His credit is shot. He initially earned the money to play by buying and reselling tickets to concerts, sporting events, etc.

There are links to free online articles at SI.com that profile this individual. You can find them somewhere in NVG.

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

Wow. YOu really need to take a step back and realize i am in no way attacking you. In the other post you gave the OP bad advice and i mearly corrected it. Here you asked if 10/20 can be more profitable than 5/10. For me and many others the answer is yes. If you are making less over lots of hands then its becusae you still have alot to learn about the game.

The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.

Don't take out your frustration from not winning as much as you like at 10/20 on me. Don't be a Jopke.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. YOu really need to take a step back and realize i am in no way attacking you. In the other post you gave the OP bad advice and i mearly corrected it. Here you asked if 10/20 can be more profitable than 5/10. For me and many others the answer is yes. If you are making less over lots of hands then its becusae you still have alot to learn about the game.

The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.

Don't take out your frustration from not winning as much as you like at 10/20 on me. Don't be a Jopke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure how folding Q hi to a river raise on a 4BB pot (including the raise) is bad advice.

Sorry I'm a jopke. Whatever the heck that is.

Nigel

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

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.


[/ QUOTE ]



Plenty of good players stick at $10/$20 purely for the huge game selection at this limit.

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

i understand where you are coming from silverback, but i do think jopke is on target here. i think the point he was trying to get across is that the real good players of internet poker dont just give up on beating 10/20, most of them go on to play in games of higher and harder limits. i think hes trying to say that if you cant beat 10/20, its not because its less profitable for all players, but less profitable for those who are not good enough to move up yet.

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

I think that during the initial jump into 5/10 most of us will have significantly more success than during the initial jump into 10/20. It will just take most 2+2ers a little while longer to master the type of play because it is more aggressive probably than any game we have ever played in. However once you reach a comfort zone I am pretty certain that any jump in limits will result in a jump in profit if you are a good player and ready to make the leap.

For the record, I know small sample size but: 30k at 5/10 2.9bb/100, 10k at 10/20 1.7bb/100.

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

I never meant for this thread to turn to 'is 10/20 beatable' or 'who's beating 10/20'.

Cleary the game is beatable, and for go
od money. What I was going after is, how profitable is the game relative to other levels of SHed play, or even the same stakes at other sites other than Party.

Personally, I've found Party's 15/30 full tables that have gone short to be far easier than the typical 10/20 table filled with 3-4 regulars. I've also done well enough at 5/10 running 6 tables (more than I could safely run at 10/20) to make it so that 5/10 is on the whole more profitable for me. That, with much less stress and basically not much in the way of downswings.

However, I couldn't agree more with what Arkady said about multi-tabling stunting your poker growth and leading to burnout, and I think Togni's comments on table difference's are so true. Some 10/20's play very easy. But I find the majority don't, unless I just have bad luck when it comes to finding juicy tables. And I do know that it is important to keep moving up through the limits, so I play 15/30 as my full time game and am taking shots at 30/60 as well.

Maybe the answer is above 10/20 rather than lower. I'm just feeling like 10/20 isn't an optimal difficulty/stress to $$/hr tradeoff. For those of you that play higher than 10/20 or 15/30 on a regular basis, are the short games that much more difficult than a tough 10/20 table?

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

Hi Folks

Personally, I find that with proper table selection, the 10/20 games suit me better than 5/10, and I have had more success. (On party/empire, and even at UB - which never used to be the case)

I tend to be semi-loose agrressive passive (SLAP)
28VP 18PFR, and generally can find a couple of people playing 50% or 60% + VP at a 10/20 6 handed table. I play enough hands to get action, but no so many as to be too loose.

Mind you I have not played 5/10 in a while, so maybe I am just running good.

PS. I don't seem to find that TAGS (in general)do that well at 10/20. If they are multi-tabling they don't seem to defend the blinds well and when they play a big Ace they can be pushed off a pot easy on a missed flop...

These are GENERAL comments, but I find that the multi-tablers, when pressed for time on a decision, often default to fold unless you have really fishy stats. Cause we know they are all tracking......

Re: AWE & WONDER
 

[ QUOTE ]
AWE: I'm in awe over how bad some of the players are still at 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

These were my first thoughts too.

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

i know that you were trying to compare which games to be more profitable, and werent at all trying to say that 10/20 is not beatable.

ive also decided that im not going to stay at 5/10 for much longer. i plan on moving up to 10/20 shortly. ive played a few tables of 10/20 and the games are much fishier than some people would say, which seems to be the case for every level.

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

nice post arkady-very informative

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

from a large $10-20 6MAX database of 379K hands -the average players pays 1.59BB per 100 hands in rake.

from a large $5-10 6MAX database of 421K hands-the average player pays 2.35BB per 100 hands in rake.

a 0.75BB/100 difference which is huge.