Playing -EV in high stakes = +EV?

[jetsonsdogcanfly]

You're misunderstanding Joe's point, probably because his first sentence isn't exaclty correct. The point is that expectation is situational, so where a play might be -EV in one situation, it might very well be +EV in another. The fact that representing an Ace againts a preflop 3bettor is basically always -EV in small stakes does not mean that it is, by its very nature, a -EV play in all games always. In higher stakes this play may be situationally a +EV, good decision because you know your opponents actually know how to fold.

That highlights what you yourself said, that at higher limits, the rules change. As other responses have noted, you play straightforwardly in low limit games because the player base is huge and pretty homogenously predictable. There is little reason to mix up your play against these opponents. This is why, why when talking about lwo limit holdem, it is not so incorrect to make generalizations like saying a certain play is broadly -EV in low limit games .

[ QUOTE ]
We've all read small stakes hold'em. We all know pot odds etc.

Yet when we get to high stakes games like 50/100 and 100/200, a lot of the rules change.

We no longer raise aces every time, we don't always protect our hand and we constantly raise and check-raise with nothing.


All of these are very basic mistakes that I am pointing out to people who just started playing, don't go too far with marginal hands, only raise when you know you got it etc.

Plays like betting on the flop right away with 2 pair as opposed to waiting till turn to check-raise. ALl of these are common schemes on 50/100 I find, whereas they are nowhere to be found in 30/60 and below games.

This confuses me a great bit. Is this what being "tricky" is? This is what separates high stakes players from average crowd?

Discuss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]




What separates high stakes players from everyone else is generally bankroll and/or a lack of risk aversion along with a strong enough grasp of a particular poker game that in their mind warrants them to play high stakes.

The biggest difference in high(er) stakes games is the aggression level, and since the group of players, like, for instance at 1/2 on party isn't nearly as large as it is for 15/30, players often pickup on specific playing styles from playing with the same opponents so long, and therefore play accordingly, which, to the naked eye might appear as exert, lunatic, passive, or whatever.


The answers to your questions can be found in the archives. I agree that the forums have a little excess arrogance, but IMHO, this post wont spark any good discussion because it's already been discussed ten times over.




Tex

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
What separates high stakes players from everyone else is generally bankroll and/or a lack of risk aversion along with a strong enough grasp of a particular poker game that in their mind warrants them to play high stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that all may true, I think the biggest general differences between high-stakes players and lower-stake players is that high stakes players adapt faster and tilt less.

Tommy

[AlexSem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What separates high stakes players from everyone else is generally bankroll and/or a lack of risk aversion along with a strong enough grasp of a particular poker game that in their mind warrants them to play high stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that all may true, I think the biggest general differences between high-stakes players and lower-stake players is that high stakes players adapt faster and tilt less.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experiences, it is a lot easier to tilt at higher limits because you actually notice who's playing what and once the same person rubs it in day after day, you tend to get upset, wheras when I played like, 6 tables of 3/6 back in the day, tilt was non-existent, I didn't even know who the hell I was playing against.


As for adapting, I am not so sure people adapt CORRECTLY at times. For example what's with constant coldcalling of hands?

Is that some sort of +EV strategy against people who oftentimes raise with mediocre hands? How about re-raising with low pockets pairs?

I find that higher stakes, people play extremely bold and unpredictable. I can't say they are playing correct (of course a lot of them do). Hmph?

[Tommy Angelo]

"Yet when we get to high stakes games like 50/100 and 100/200 ... We no longer raise aces every time, we don't always protect our hand and we constantly raise and check-raise with nothing."

We do? Call me stubborn, call me predictable, but I intend to continue raising with aces and to protect my hand and to not raise and checkraise with nothing at all limits until death do I part.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
"Yet when we get to high stakes games like 50/100 and 100/200 ... We no longer raise aces every time, we don't always protect our hand and we constantly raise and check-raise with nothing."

We do? Call me stubborn, call me predictable, but I intend to continue raising with aces and to protect my hand and to not raise and checkraise with nothing at all limits until death do I part.


[/ QUOTE ]

you mean. except for the times when you fold aces pre-flop.

[Peter_rus]

"Plays like betting on the flop right away with 2 pair as opposed to waiting till turn to check-raise. ALl of these are common schemes on 50/100 I find, whereas they are nowhere to be found in 30/60 and below games."

If someone start to bet flop with goods playing high stakes always - it'll also will be a mistake, while making this thing at low limit _always_ will be better. (I'm excluding opponent factor here)

High limits, especially full games are about finding correct frequencies to do different things with the same cards, while small stakes are about finding correct plays/odds/opponents. There are usually a lot of correct lines in high stakes hands. Basic "correct" play is called "standart" i guess. Others are correct if used some % of time in correct spots.

It's like Blackjack. If any Blackjack pays 2:1 - there is no need to count cards - you can make a lot of money without counting but only using basic strategy, if Blackjack pays 3:2 - you need to count cards to get an edge and make occasional plays (depending on true count), distinctive from basic strategy some % of time.

If blackjack pays 1:1 - you should quit a game unless you have good rakeback:-)

[1800GAMBLER]

'We no longer raise aces every time, we don't always protect our hand and we constantly raise and check-raise with nothing.'

Most of these things aren't done for metagame reasons, the reasons they are done is because they are correct there and then it's just that lower stakes didn't get the levels right.

You can see this with any 'situation', take a button steal, bb defend, Axx flop. Low stakes gets checkfold, checkcalled never bluffed, 15/30 some bluffs starts, 30/60 the bluffing gets more, and onwards untill at stakes x they get that level perfect. None of this is done for metagame, while it does help metagame, it's done because it's +EV right now.

[andyfox]

I've played a lot of 20-40, a tremendous amount of 40-80, and a fair amount of 100-200. The players, on average, are definitely better at the 40-80 level than at the 20-40 level, and definitely better at the 100-200 level than at the 40-80 level. They're better because they read better and are thus able to make plays that, at first glance, might appear to be -EV. But with their skills they are not.

Yes, some players at the 100-200 level don't raise with aces every time. They more than make up for $ they might be losing pre-flop with superior post-flop play and the fact that they've disguised their hand. Yes, some players sometimes don't protect their hand in order to make more $ later in the hand. No player is constantly raising and check-raising with nothing.

The games are more aggressive as one moves up in stakes, but the players are much better card- and people-readers, so they can make more "moves" and, since they realize that their opponents are better readers, they disguise their hands by sometimes playing the same cards differently and sometimes playing different cards the same. A good summation might be the difference between how 40-80 players play A-A and A-K vs. how 100-200 players do: it's much easier to tell when an opponent has A-K or A-A in 40-80 than it is in 100-200 because, usually, a 40-80 player will play A-K like A-K and A-A like A-A. Not so in 100-200.

I see lots of 40-80 players "taking a shot" in the bigger games. Most of them end up back at 40-80. Mostly because they can't read well and because they don't keep the good readers off guard.