Why small stakes players should move up in limit as soon as possible.

theriverwild · #1 12-09-2005, 05:59 PM

Recently i dropped back down from 10/20 and 15/30 games to 2/4 to perfect my game. After 10k hands I'm doing fine at 2bb per 100 hands, but this morning I decided to calculate the amount of rake I payed at low limit. As it turned out at 2/4 I am paying 7 cents per hand or $7.00/100 hands. Almost 2 big bets per hundred hands. It's pretty clear this accounts for a substantial portion of what would be a players winnings at this limit, and many players that might be break even or slight losers would be doing better if the rake wasn't such a large portion of the pot. Rake back will help conpensate this disadvantage, but even at 30% RB you're still paying $5.90/100 hands which is substantial.

If you have a bankroll that's even decent and ability you should be moving out of low limit as soon as possible.

#2 12-09-2005, 08:05 PM

The rake has always been bad at low limits. However, not everyone can make this up by moving to a higher limit. The games have a different character and your win rate may turn into a loss rate. I think this is sound advice if you are winning at 5/10+, but often poor advice if you are just barely beating 2/4.

milesdyson · #3 12-09-2005, 08:33 PM

does this thread really have over 4000 views?

theriverwild · #4 12-09-2005, 08:33 PM

Almost 2BB per hundred hands isn't "bad" it's impossible for average players to overcom. I hear what you're saying but 2/4 isn't really profitable with a rake that big unless you can beat much higher limits, and if you just stay in 2/4 you will never learn the concepts that higher limits require. Sooner or later you will have to learn them IMHO it might as well be sooner than spending forever trying to build a 400BB bankroll out of a 100 bucks when you're paying $7 per 100 hands just to play.

You can start off playing tighter than usual and reduce your variance by not raising in more marginal situations.

Klompy · #5 12-09-2005, 08:38 PM

what stakes do rake % change at? and how much money would an average 15/30 player be paying compared to the 2/4 player?

oxymoron · #6 12-09-2005, 09:00 PM

I'm a luckbox but I started with a $250 bankroll late August and am up to $2750. I play $2/$4 and $5/$10 (I've played some $3/$6 but 5/10 seemed easier [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img])

It's all about being a bonus whore [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I'll slow down at 5/10 but the goal is to hit 10k by June so I'm not screwing around with lower limits

MEbenhoe · #7 12-09-2005, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Almost 2BB per hundred hands isn't "bad" it's impossible for average players to overcom.

[/ QUOTE ]

well then they're not ready to move up to higher levels as you propose. I'm certain you won't find a winning player at higher limits who couldnt beat the rake at 2/4.

[ QUOTE ]
Sooner or later you will have to learn them IMHO it might as well be sooner than spending forever trying to build a 400BB bankroll out of a 100 bucks when you're paying $7 per 100 hands just to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

who's playing 2/4 on a $100 bankroll? this is just more confused logic

[ QUOTE ]
You can start off playing tighter than usual and reduce your variance by not raising in more marginal situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing like this will almost guarantee you lose at higher levels.

theriverwild · #8 12-09-2005, 10:07 PM

If you think most 2/4 players start off by depositing a grand or more you are seriously mistaken, and I find the difference now a days between 2/4 and 5/10 to me minimal at many tables. A year ago there was a big difference but today many 2/4 games are like 5/10 games

And as you said yes most 2/4 players can't beat higher limits it's true. I'm sure quite a few who can beat a 2/4 can't beat higher limits. That's why you need to move up to get better and make more money.

THE ANSWER IS NOT PLAYING FOR MINIMUM WAGE WITH A RAKE OF $7 /100 hands

McGahee · #9 12-09-2005, 10:11 PM

I'm confused - isn't 5/10 higher than 2/4?

#10 12-09-2005, 10:40 PM

You are a troll, and a stupid one at that. Who ever said $1k was a big enough bankroll for $2/$4 let alone a higher limit? The biggest difference between 2/4 and 5/10 is the swings will be 2.5x as large, and probably more than that because the players are better overall.

If the question is "I have $10k and have read several poker books, would it be more profitable to play 10/20 than 1/2?" then the answer is yes. Obviously. But most players don't start with that kind of scratch, and the better players at the higher limit will eat them alive much quicker than the low limit's slightly larger rake. You simply don't get as many people coldcalling and limping with terrible hands to make up for the rake reduction.