question about high/small stakes

[jn110]

So you no longer believe that the best players play the high limits?

This is a strange thread. Of course players in general are better as limits go up. This doesn't mean there aren't any bad players at high limits or that there aren't any good players at low limits.

To the original post, I agree that the limit in itself is only useful to give a basic context to people that are familar with a particular limit/game. Much more important is the texture and quality of play of the game you are in.

That said, if I'm forced to make any difficult decisions during the first few hands of a session against unknown players, the limit being played will certainly influence my thinking about those decisions -- because I'll likely have previous experience about how players at that limit play in general.

[Ulysses]

gcoutu,

I've played 10-20NL in Vegas and LA and many of the players there are worse than Party 200NL players. However, the players playing 10-20NL in those places are generally a hell of a lot better than the people playing $500 max buy-in (or whatever smaller game) in those places.

In general, players playing for higher stakes take the game and money more seriously than those playing for lower stakes and the general skill level of your opponents will be higher.

As a specific example, if I'm playing in a $100 max buyin game w/ friends, I'm often likely to just stick it allin on a draw or weak hand without the right odds, just screwing around. If I have $10k behind, I'm much less likely to do something like that. Are there people who do? Sure. But they're a lot less common in the bigger games.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
if we all play according to our bankroll we should think about BB not $$

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the two main flaws in your theory.

One: The vast majority of people do not play poker with a bankroll the way many 2+2ers do.

Two: The vast majority of people let the dollar amount of the bets influence their play.

[hectorjelly]

[ QUOTE ]

Two: The vast majority of people let the dollar amount of the bets influence their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the main reasons IMO, to the average player the more money is at stake the more cautious they become, they are less likely to bluff and more willing to fold.

[soah]

Nearly any serious player will start their play at a very low limit and only move up when they are certain they are beating the game. Even if the rest of the players are equally bad at every limit, it would still make sense that the questions 2+2ers ask about low limit games are more basic than the questions that 2+2ers ask about high limit games... because they would not be playing in that game if they had not already mastered all of the basic stuff.

This does leave a problem though for players that for some reason can't afford to move up in the limits. Hopefully this doesn't affect a huge number of players...

[thatpfunk]

I may be completely wrong however, just some thoughts...

I feel I am one of the better players in a lower stakes game e.g. up to 2-4nl. However, I am fairly certain that were I to sit in a 25-50 game some players will be much more advanced than myself. I believe (and hope) that I could hold my own, show some profit, but the good players in this game are much, much, more thoughtful and experienced.

Basically I believe that the good players in higher stakes games are extremely good, while good players in lower stakes games have skill and talent yet lack some advanced thought that the great players have. Bad players are, of course, still bad players.

Caveat: There are exceptions to every game, etc. This is just a broad generalization.

Does this make sense to anyone? Had some trouble putting the thoughts to paper.