What is the lowest limit with sophisticated strategy?

[shmoe]

I've been playing poker and studying poker (Sklansky/Brunson/wpt etc.) for the last year. This is my question: I want to make a move at the casino but if I play too low a limit and the play is too wretched and I won't beat it. But if I sit, say... 40-80, I stand a chance of getting blown out of the water. Is 10-20 a good limit to start playing? Any advice?

[calig]

I have seen a difference in play when I moved from 5/10 to the mid limits (10/20 to 30/60). I expect that the next difference in play would occur at 50/100 but I have never played this high.

[ike]

The idea that you can only beat games with good players makes absolutely no sense. You say you've been studying Sklansky, so you should recognize that the most profitable games (in terms of BB/hour, obviously you make more money at higher stakes) are the ones in which your opponents make the most Fundemental Theorem of Poker mistakes, i.e. the games with the worst players. You may have to "dumb-down" your play a little and make fewer sophisticated plays than you would against competent competition, but I recommend you play the lowest limit games the casino offers and make sure you're actually beating them consistently before you jump into 10-20 if you've never played live casino poker before.

[Akzhel]

I agree with Ike. If you cannot beat the lowest limits then you cannot (probably) beat the higher. But if you are a low limit player who wants to try sophisticaded strategies (it's easy to get bored with the no-fold-em-holdem) then you have a viable point. Don't expect to make any profit though. Strategies like the semi bluff is useless on the lowest limits since no one ever folds. Besides this players tend to give free cards half of the time you check the flop.

[PDosterM]

I have to strongly agree with ike. At 10-20 and 15-30, I run into quite a few players who bemoan the lower limits because the players are not strong enough for them to beat. These complainers are the people that wind up paying for my little luxuries in life.

Develop your basic skills at the low levels and move up later.

[I.Rowboat]

It's a very broad question, and there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. Certainly, you should plan on paying some dues (and gaining some valuable experience) by playing the lower limits for a while. "The lower limits" can mean whatever you want it to, but for most folks this means games up to about the 6-12 level. This is classic no-foldem holdem turf, so you will get a lot of experience folding, and your most sophisticated play will be learning to fold the second best hand (a VERY valuable skill).

How long you choose to play at a given limit depends on your bankroll and goals, but many people would recommend 2000 net profitable hours at a given limit before moving up.

5-10, 6-12, 8-16, 9-18, and 10-20 all fall into a broad category of "the upper low limits". Often, these games aren't a whole lot tougher than 3-6, although of course good players exist at every level in the casino. But you'll still see a lot of people cold calling three bets with suited crap from weak position at these limits. So while these games can be profitable, they aren't often very sophisticated.

I've been playing poker in cardrooms and casinos for about 20 years, and I've found that, in a very gross generalization, the dividing line between sophisticated and unsophisticated play seems to be around the 15-30/20-40 levels. Most (but thankfully not all) players at these levels are solid, some are even imaginitive, and you can be well rewarded for playing creatively and deceptively. Above this level, the average player tends to be much better and much more aggressive, and game selection becomes critical, especially if you are still honing your skills. But for a player looking to test his/her mettle, I think 15-30 or 20-40 is a fair test. If you can consistently beat a 15-30 game for one or more racks you are on the right track, whereas if they consistently clean your clock or you can only break even you can be sure your game has a number of leaks and needs soem work.

Anyway, that's my take on this. But really, there's no substitute for putting in a lot of seat time and getting experience.

[obi---one]

15-30 is a good place to start if you can afford it and want to play a game with a little more sophistication

[shmoe]

Thank you rowboat.. That was a very informative answer.

To those calling this logic flawed: 1)Annie Duke, after busting out of the WPT classic about a few months ago sat 3-6 against my friend because the tables had 2 hour waiting lists. She would not stop bitching about the play and couldn't seem to win.
2) 2 friends go to foxwoods.. Equal level of skill, but one has a bankroll and the other does not. One guy sits 15-30, the other sits 2-4. Well, after eight hours one guy was up six fifty and the other guy was down a hundred fifty. Four callers in every showdown.
I could be wrong. This could have been a fluke. But all card players know that the only way to really learn a lesson is to lose money. Hopefully some of you profit in my quest for knowledge.

[David Steele]

It is not the bad players that are the problem, it is the rake makes the low-limit games hard to beat. You want lots of bad players at any limit.

Based on what you have written, I would guess you don't have a chance at any limit but if you are ready to start figuring it out and have a little money then 6-12 would be as high as I would go.

D.

[shmoe]

It's tough attempting to write this and browse internet porn at the same time.
5/10 Atlantic City, weekend game is where I'll start. Thank you for all of your comments. They were very helpful. And to Mr. Steele, and Joe Tall... I din't meen to offend you.
You are obviously professional poker players too busy winning large stake tournaments all over the country to waste time talking $#@T to little old me. DIdn't mean to waste your time.

See you on television!
Whee!!!!!!!