small stakes question

[johnsmith]

my question was IF there was any benefits and then i posted my argument as why. It had nothing to do with my skill level at poker just a simple question i was wondering

[edtost]

there are just tooooo many bad players.

[BottlesOf]

Yes, but by asking that question you reveal a severe flaw in your poker understanding. People wanted to correct that. That's all.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it beneficial to play limits higher than micro was my initial question

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wrapped it around the suckout factor. In many ways, yes it is. It can help you beat a lower limit more-so.

As far as beneficial because less suckouts (as you imply in your originally posted, simple question)? That's not a benefit of moving up. Period. I bolded the word 'but' in you post to show this glitch. Which is the prime reason your thinking on the game is being criticized. And criticized for your benefit. The posters responding are not trolls trying to rile you.

Your overdefensiveness is greatly clouding the point many have tried to make to you. In return, you're taking it way too personal touting your whopping 4 month record. They are all giving you an honest answer based on your original post.

What answer were you looking for? Yes, there are less suckouts to worry about. You won't have to worry about 4-5 chasing all the way to the end with crap, move up?

Let me help you with the suspense...

There are plenty of crappy players chasing at pretty much all the levels up to mid.

b

[The13atman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it beneficial to play limits higher than micro was my initial question that frickin simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What you have to decide is do you have a sufficient bankroll to move up(usually 300BB, but it also depends on the bankroll you're comfortable with), and are you skilled enough to make more money at the higher level (1.5BB/100 at 2/4 is less than 4BB at 1/2).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read slowly. Sound the words out one at a time if need be. You're not gonna find an answer more perfect than this. If it was me I'd take a shot at it, but only you can decide whether you can move up or not. Saying you're a winning player or stating the number of tournaments you've won is not enough information for anyone here to say if you're ready. It's just like those jackasses who post nothing but stats and ask "am I good??" Considering the way you've acted on this thread I hope you move up and lose your ass, but that's just me...

[johnsmith]

OOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKK I understand theoretically why I am wrong people I have read books. I just wanted to put it to your opinions about micro and small stakes. It had nothing to do with skill. I win money. I had a theory that with a horrendous amount of people sucking out on you it may be better to move up to a small stakes level like $2-$4. It's not like i'm moving up to 100-200 here fellas. Apparently people disagree with my theory wholeheartedly and think I'm an idiot for fathoming it. Sorry but at no time during this post did I ask how good I should be to move up or ask if anyone thought i was good enough.

[edtost]

one of mason's "poker essays" books has one on there being too many bad players. read it. if bdk is still around, he may know which one its in.

[bernie]

Cool, you capsulized it.

[ QUOTE ]
I had a theory that with a horrendous amount of people sucking out on you it may be better to move up to a small stakes level like $2-$4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand that entertaining this theory has alot to do with your skill level and understanding of the game? When we hear this at a table, which we do alot, we like to hear this theory? Do you know why?

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently people disagree with my theory wholeheartedly and think I'm an idiot for fathoming it

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they think you're an idiot for defending it the way you did. As one poster mentioned, if you're still around in a few months, you'll look back at this thread and see exactly what everyone is saying. You think you're the first one to ask this? Plenty of posters have had this question but responded much better when the bigger, more in depth problem was presented.

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to put it to your opinions about micro and small stakes. It had nothing to do with skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

For them to give you an honest answer, it has everything to do with skill. Especially when assessing the whole question with how it was presented. How else are they supposed to answer that? You may just not want to face that fact. They may know your 'type' of play/thinking better than you as they've been there before and remember it. They've already looked in the mirror in that regard.

Im still wondering, what 2 yay or nay answers were you looking for? Did you want someone to say that yes, the game is better because there are less suckouts higher up so come on up?

b

[johnsmith]

i wanted to know the answer to the question I was answering which was answered actually. Quite simply someone said that the same amount of people will play that crappy at higher levels.

Hey, I have read SSHE twice and if I am that stupid for bringing up a question like that on the publishers site that you all have to burn me and [censored] then piss off. I thought it a legitimate question. I win at cards so I can't be awful and for you people to just sit and rip on me and turn the whole post into how awful I must be when I am trying to get answers from other poker player.....man kiss my ass.

[Hack]

You are such a jerkoff.

All these people did is spend HOURS trying to help you and all you can do is insist that you are right and they are wrong.

IT WOULDN'T HURT TO SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF HUMILITY. Jesus.

You remind me a lot of CinnamonWind, Lansing, et. al. Maybe you are them. CinnamonWind has disappeared after all.

Nobody wants to hear your stories about what a massively good player you are. The fact is that all of us can make improvements in our game. I have leaks in my game. Everybody here does. If they tell you that they don't they're lying.

You can never play perfect poker, but you can aspire to play it perfectly. The first step to getting awesome at poker is admitting that you don't know as much as you think you do.

Anyone who thinks that it would be easier to beat a 2/4 game than a .50/1 or 1/2 game is just kidding themselves. The players are better.

It's like comparing Syracuse basketball to Cornell basketball. It's like comparing USC football to Podunk high football. The players are better. Sure, they still make mistakes, but without a good poker skill base you won't be able to capitalize on them and they will be capitalizing on YOUR mistakes a lot more.

I am not trying to insult you. I am just trying to help you. I'm not gonna apologize for the jerkoff comment because you are one. Bdk3clash is one of the most helpful posters in the Small stakes forum and has been for awhile, and you called him a jackass. That was stupid.

You could learn a lot by listening to him and others like Joe Tall on this thread.

So basically, do these things:

1) apologize

2) admit that you don't know as much as you think you do.

The rest is up to you.

If you did these two things then I think that most people on this thread would gladly accept your apology because most of us remember this "I want them to fold" phase. I certainly remember it, because it was quite recent for me. But that doesn't entitle you to treat other posters like [censored].

So yeah. Good luck I guess. You will definitely need it.

Hack