Should the stakes really ever effect your LHE game?

[TheBusiness]

One thing I have noticed in the last two years or so as I have moved up in limits is that, all other factors being equal, you should play your same game irrespective of the stakes. Obviously, you always have to adjust to the way your particular opponents are playing, and to a short-handed game, etc. But assume a full game, assume the same opponents and the same playing styles, is there any reason you should play a 4/8 game any different than a 40/80 game? Hell, sometimes the 40/80 game at the Borgata in AC or the Mirage in LV play just like a 4/8 game, except people are using $10 chips instead of $1 chips. Now the biggest game I play in is 80/160, so maybe once you get much beyond that I am wrong, but it seems to me that a good, winning player will treat a big bet in a 4/8 game precisely as he treats a big bet in a 40/80 game, even though the latter is worth a lot more actual money. Thoughts?

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
is there any reason you should play a 4/8 game any different than a 40/80 game?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rake.

[mach3]

Obviously, if you're a pro - you should play your game at every level. But sometime you might play at lower limits for fun - you might play really loose to blow off steam.

Poker is a game of adaption - I don't think you should have a "standard" game. Adjust to how your opponents play - that is your game.

[pdavester]

I think you have to change your game for each different level. Each game plays at a different level of aggression for which you need to adapt to.

One good example is the semi-bluff. I dont think semi bluffing a flush draw on the turn works in a 4/8 game but I've seen many times at higher stakes that it will get them to fold a better hand. You see more river folds higher up because one bet is more real money, so some of the tourists might not make that crying call with A high in a 40/80 as they always do in a 4/8.

just my opinion from what I have observed. Anyone notice different?

[TStoneMBD]

there is a certain fundamental correctness to playing tighter at different levels depending upon your bankroll. some plays are simply too high variance to be done on a 300BB bankroll, and therefore you should only be attempting such plays at a limit in which you have ample bankroll. most players do not know how to distinguish when a high variance play becomes bad because the risk of ruin supersedes the maximization of ev, so its better for most people to simply pursue maximizing their ev instead. also, its fairly unusual to encounter a situation where maximizing ev is incorrect, so its not really worth dedicating your time to learning about it.

[InfernoLL]

This question sounds asinine. Obviously the size of the bet is irrelevant if you're taking into account every other aspect of the game. The only place where this isn't true was pointed out, when risk of ruin is a concern. But in that case you sholdn't be playing that high at all. Reminds me of the "how many BB do I need to multitable" question. The two things are independent of one another if every other aspect of the game is taken into account.