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.