Is A Higher Limit Game Easier For Some People?

[TomBrooks]

Most people believe the higher the limit, the harder the game. However, there are some who feel some higher limit games are easier than the limit just below it.

Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that some people have a playing style that tends to fit in better at a particular limit, so while the higher limit game is not easier in general, for them it is?

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, most of the people who make claims like this do so based on a completely insignificant sample size.

They play some low limit poker and always get sucked out on. So they move up, catch a good run, do well and then claim that the higher limits are easier. Or, they simply have one speed (one style of play) and they can only make that style work at a specific limit. They're not really a great player because they have no clue how to adapt their play to fit a variety of limits - or more accurately a variety of tables. Instead of adjusting their own style of play/strategy to the table/limit they're playing - they adjust the tables/limits they select to fit their style of play.

There are some big problems with the second example. Some games are going to be tight, some games are going to be loose and some games will fall in between - regardless of what limit you're playing. This again is a sample size issue where, for example, the person in question doesn't have enough experience to have seen the games at "their" limit play anything but tight. In time they will find that the current game at "their" limit becomes super loose for an extended period of time. They will fail to understand why they're not beating the game. It has nothing to do with the limit - it has to do with the player's failure to adjust to the table texture.

IMO, if you played at the same limit, at the same table, with the same 9 opponents, who always played exactly the same way - you could easily be taught to beat the game. But, poker is not played in a vaccuum like this. Tables change, limits change, new opponents come and go and these players change their strategy from time to time (either randomly - or because they get better or worse).

The good, experienced players adjust to these changing conditions and continue to beat the game. The bad players make statements like "I should stop playing 2/4 and move to 10/20 where players respect my raises".

[restless]

Possibly, if they're bad.
Weird huh?
What I mean is that if a player is unable to adapt to for example a loose low-limit game, he may have a higher earn-rate if he consistantly can find tight-weak games on a higher limit. Mainly I don't think it has anything to do with the actual limit, more a question about table conditions.
It's absolutely silly to think that anyone is "too good" to beat low-limit games.

[ QUOTE ]
where players respect my raises

[/ QUOTE ]. I still don't understand, after 250K hands online and probably 100K B&M, what that sentance is supposed to mean. If you raise to me, I should fold? I see it all the time here, and I was playing last night against a TAG, flopped a set, bet, he raised, someone 3bet, I capped. Who is respecting who here?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
probably 100K B&M

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this?

[damaniac]

I feel that some players do better in higher games. For ex, I have a friend who just sucks at .50/1, but does alrght at 3/6. Granted sample size is a big part of this, but it also has to do with his inability to adjust. .50/1 is pretty darned passive, and he fails to take that into account when playing, so while his assumptions of donkishness are more accurate at 3/6 (and this his play is more correct), his failure to account for changes at different levels hurts him.

Now of course, all this means is that he is a fairly poor poker player, even if he can beat the 3/6. Poker is in large part about adjusting to different conditions, what is right against one player in one instance isn't right in another situation against the same player, or a similar set of circumstances against a different player. So if you go into .50/1 hardwired to play like you're in a 5/10 game say, you won't win as much as you should. However, you probably aren't a very good player if this is the case, and I'd still be surprised to see a higher winrate over a large sample size at the higher level, but even so, beating 3/6 for 1.5/100 and .50/1 for 2/100 is probably somewhat alarming.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that was wild. My keyboard went nuts there. Thats 1K, not 100K. I think I was typing 1000 and instead hit 100K. Sorry.

[sfer]

A regular at the old Playstation told bdk3clash (they were playing 4/8) that his game is really more suited to 40/80. I can't wait to run into him again in AC.

[Shiva]

To answer your question last nite I played on two tables of $15-$30 on Pokerstars. Table stats are as follows:

Table 1
VP$IP - 38%, Aggression 9% BB -1.4 table had 3 players playing 70% of their hands

Table 2
VP$IP - 42% Aggession 8.1% BB +1.2 table had 2 players who played 60% of their hands

My $3-$6 tables averages VP$IP 26% PF Aggression 4.0 mixed bag of tight fishies and calling stations.

After almost 200K hands at all limits I find the higher limits tend be somewhat looser with much more aggression preflop and deception post flop.

So it really depends and how good you play in LAG games and how much variance you are willing to put up with. What is interesting is I average almost 5BB/100 at $10-20 and up and almost $3BB/100 in $3-$6 and below. Now if I could just stay away from NL...that's another story

Poopy Pants

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is I average almost 5BB/100 at $10-20 and up and almost $3BB/100 in $3-$6 and below.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is crunchy's point. I'll go out on a limb here and posit that you don't have a very large number of hands in the 10/20 and up range.