question about high/small stakes

[nazbrok]

hi,

I am wondering what is different in the play between a high stakes game (5/10) and a small (0.5/1 for exemple).
If you considere both have a 100BB max buyin like on stars, I don't see how the "deep money" factor can be used. Ok 1000$ is a lot more than 100$ but it's still 100BB and if we all play according to our bankroll we should think about BB not $$ in that case (I think) so losing or not 100BB isn't a big deal.

So I wonder why people say they would play their AA or AK in a particular way in a small stakes game but in a different one in a high stakes game. What make you think the value of the BB will/can change the texture of the game ? Do you assume high game means more skilled player ? There is good people AND fish at every level of the game.

So in what it is different ? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (if we have a same limit aobut the buyin, I understand the difference if the high stake have no limit).

thx.

[turnipmonster]

just as an aside, I think of 100BB generally as a shortish stack. to me, deep money is > 200BB.

the difference between these games is the kinds of players you are going to be up against. in a 5/10 game, it is rare just to have someone throwing a party for the table, and if they are it is usually clear they are the target.

in a .50-1.00 game, probably everyone is pretty inexperienced and doesn't play all that well. I am sure there are some exceptions but for the most part these smaller games are generally populated by people who don't know what the hell they are doing.

--turnipmonster

[Wayfare]

[ QUOTE ]
in a .50-1.00 game, probably everyone is pretty inexperienced and doesn't play all that well. I am sure there are some exceptions but for the most part these smaller games are generally populated by people who don't know what the hell they are doing.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying that you see a table of players at the 3/6 limit game and infer that because they aren't sitting with mikel that they are "inexperienced and doesn't know what the hell [they are] doing." Then you recognize Ed Miller.

Stakes snobbery isn't really all that constructive.

[gcoutu]

[ QUOTE ]
the difference between these games is the kinds of players you are going to be up against. in a 5/10 game, it is rare just to have someone throwing a party for the table, and if they are it is usually clear they are the target.

in a .50-1.00 game, probably everyone is pretty inexperienced and doesn't play all that well. I am sure there are some exceptions but for the most part these smaller games are generally populated by people who don't know what the hell they are doing.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you all think in such clear cut terms. I know you have played in a 10-20 or 20-40 or 30-60 or NL 2/4 and up. There are still soooooo many terrible players and just because you are sitting at a .5/1 table by no means makes you a beginner or that your poker skill is not up to the guys that play 5/5 or 5/10. I know guys that don't know [censored] about poker and play in 10/20 NL games as their regular game and I know guys that play 1/2 NL that are better than most in Vegas. Lets ease up on the assumptions.

[turnipmonster]

I'm really not trying to be a snob, I promise. but in regards to games in public cardrooms and on the net, I stand by my assessment that .50/1.00 players are going to be on average much weaker than 5/10 players.

theoretically I agree that it shouldn't matter, but practically this is not the case. I've played plenty of $50 NL on party and played plenty of 5/10 games. there is a sizable contingent of players that plays small stakes capped buyin NL and basically don't know how to play at all. at 5/10 (at least in the games I play), you basically almost never see players that clearly don't know how to play.

I am sure there are exceptions, especially in home games. I've played some tough, very deep 1/2 home games before. but, those are the exception and not the rule.

--turnipmonster

[turnipmonster]

I made a generalization and obviously came across the wrong way. it's not really what I meant and I apologize if I offended anyone. obviously there are bad players at all levels but in my experience the higher you get the bad players are bad for different reasons than in lower games.

again, I made a generalization I probably should not have made. I apologize.

I am also not saying there are not good players at lower levels. I am saying that are a lot less of them than at higher levels. in a party poker $50 buyin most 2+2ers should expect to be the best player at the table. in the UB 25-50 game, how many 2+2ers should expect to be the best player at the table?

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you recognize Ed Miller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed would be an exception. I am talking about your average player. find me a public 3/6 game full of ed millers, especially in a live casino.

note: citing the NYPC game is not fair, brad [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].
--turnipmonster

[gcoutu]

turnip, you're an alright guy. There are too many people that seem to assume that because they can afford to sit and play online poker all day that they are much better than, say, someone who sells real estate for a living and plays poker in spare time.

I used to think that the best players played the high limits, but I play as recent as July in Vegas and couldn't believe how terrible the 10-20 and up players were as well as the 2/4 NL and up were. Most are absolute fish. Basically, I have found at the low stakes 75% of the players at the table are not good and at high stakes (excluding ulta high) 50% are not good. Just my observations and personal experience.

[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.

[Ionphore]

Is this issue even something that needs to be debated? I mean I would like to assume everyone in this forum realizes the differences between the limits, and that its not something that requires some deep thread. People who PLAY cards play exactly what they want to get their excitement level with how much they are willing to gamble. For some this can be a very high limit based on their income. And they need more $ on the table to get their excitement. For the majority of people who play their incomes are not large and they do not need thousands at stake to get their excitement. For people who WORK cards so to speak, they will play exactly the limits their bankroll and skill level can properly maintain. So this pretty clearly equates to a gradual increase in skill level as you rise through the limits. I am sure there are days where a 5/10 NL is a softer game then a 1/2 NL game somewhere in the world. That doesen't mean that the averages don't dictate a general increase in difficulty. I don't play much higher then 2/4 NL with a 100BB structure but I think in general low/mid stakes players like to beleive they could play in the other games because they play well in their games, and they see people making poor moves in higher limit games. But the higher limit games take a certain disregard for money at that limit to properly play them. And in general most lower stakes players would not cope with this properly because the money at stake means so much more to them...