Why people struggle at 1/2

[waynethetrain]

I have the bankroll for $2-$4 but haven't moved up because I don't have good enough results at $1-$2 to give me the confidence to do so. I was going to wait until I demonstrated a significant edge over a long period (not just an edge).

Is anyone that has made the leap from .50-$1.00, to $1-$2, to $2-$4 suggesting that $2-$4 may actually be easier to win at because of the better rake schedule?

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone that has made the leap from .50-$1.00, to $1-$2, to $2-$4 suggesting that $2-$4 may actually be easier to win at because of the better rake schedule?

[/ QUOTE ]

The players are worse and the rake is better (though not as good as 3/6).

I think that after 10k hands and >2 BB/100 at 1/2 anyone would do fine at 2/4.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that after 10k hands and >2 BB/100 at 1/2 anyone would do fine at 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're suggesting something or just making an observation - do you think skipping $1/2 6-max is a bad idea? I'm having no troubles with pp $1/2 and was expecting (fearing a little) to go to 6-max next for 10-20k hands. (I say 'fear' because I haven't learned how to spot ppl aggressively playing crap hands very well so sometimes undervalue mine). I haven't played any $2/4 yet but FWIW have no doubt playing $1/2 has made me a better player. I'm glad I didn't skip it...

Mike

[shadow29]

Just making an observation. I have no doubt that my 1/2 SH experience allowed me to be able to play 2/4. I would have a problem with someone going to 2/4 if they didn't play the SH game first. But IMO there's no reason to play 10k-20k hands there. <10k hands did it for me.

[waynethetrain]

So even if I'm making 2BB per 100 at full ring $1-$2 you suggest I get a little 6 handed experience first?

Can you give me the condensed version of what I should expect other than a lot of extra pre-flop raising of the kind I see in the full ring games when the first 3-4 players fold?

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
So even if I'm making 2BB per 100 at full ring $1-$2 you suggest I get a little 6 handed experience first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me the condensed version of what I should expect other than a lot of extra pre-flop raising of the kind I see in the full ring games when the first 3-4 players fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well even worse players than you've ever seen before. 70/30/2 types. Yum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Basically a lot of people going to showdown and betting/raising postflop with weaker and more marginal holdings like mid-pair or A-high. Basically a goldmine. Here's something that might be helpful

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%

Another interesting note is just how high Party's rake is. I think they don't realize that having a higher rake is a bad idea at the micro levels. People are just learning to play and instead of feeling like they are winning players, they are just donating their money to Party. Obviously back to back WSOP winners helps Pokerstars but, I also wonder if this is partially the reason that Pokerstars is growing so much quicker than Party.

BTW, 10/20 Party rake is slightly below 2.1%

[/ QUOTE ]

Might be worth considering a few things too:
average post-flop aggression (all players) for the different levels, as well as av vpip

Also, the amount of money that the average (TAA) player puts into a pot may be higher at 1/2 than 0.5/1.

Not sure how you would figure that out, though, but I'd figure it would be a comparison between TAA's vpip and wsd, vs the average player...

... comparing that ratio at both levels.

--Dave.

[DavidC]

might be worth considering that people may play differently when they move up a limit and be more prone to tilt.

(I had my first LHE tilt in a long time last night... I called in mp1 with j3s... a sad, sad call. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

[DeathDonkey]

I have to check when I get home to be sure, but I am nearly positive that the rake at Party 1/2 is much better proportionally than at 2/4. It is the same rake as 0.50/1 but with double sized bets. At 2/4 it jumps up again so 2/4 is the worst of the non-micro levels and I believe overall the worst of any Party level.

-DeathDonkey

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't accurately account for the struggles players have. The worst proportional increase seems to be at Pokerstars at just under a 50% increase in rake. It sounds scary, but when you realize that .9% of the pot is really only pennies per pot, you need to look for other reasons to account for the roller coaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

0.05 per pot is $5 per 100, or 1/4 BB per player per 100 hands... quite a bit of money over the long term.

In a great game, this isn't a big deal, but in a tough game, this could actually kill the game.